![]() | 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 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Seems strange that this should be oddly phrased considering the extensive work done on this article over the years, but does anyone find this, the second sentence, confusing? "The line-up of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr led them to be regarded as the most influential band of all time." (emphasis mine) It makes it sound like the primary reason they are regarded as the "most influential band of all time" is BECAUSE of the fact that the band consisted of J, P, G and R. Obviously the reasons they are regarded as such are because of their songwriting, innovation, etc. etc. etc. Right now the sentence implies an odd cause-and-effect. Would it be simpler (and logically make more sense) to split the two thoughts up? Like: "The line-up consisted of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, and they are regarded as the most influential band of all time." (assuming everyone's cool with the encyclopedic properness of the second part, which I assume has been properly cited and all that).
Another way to think of it is that, taken on it's own, there's no reason why you couldn't rearrange that sentence to read "The Beatles are regarded as the most influential band of all time because of the line-up of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr." Putting it that way clearly doesn't make much sense, but that's basically what the sentence is saying now. Thoughts? 70.91.35.27 ( talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)TF
The Beatles were an English popular music group formed in Liverpool in 1960 is fine with me (it gets around the "rock group" tag) although I suspect others might object. Patthedog ( talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The Beatles were most definitely a rock band - as some others have said, the idea of what a "rock band" is became accepted while they were together, and they were one of the foremost progenitors. They are a rock band who made pop music, like most famous rock bands... Fleetwood Mac, Queen, Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Kinks, The Who, The Rolling Stones, U2, Blur, Oasis, The Doors etc. I personally feel it would be a very strange decision to not name them as such in the lead. - Humbledaisy
How about Fleetwood Mac then, or Blur, U2, Roxy Music, Oasis, Eric Clapton, Kinks, or the many other successful rock acts that are described as such in their leads but have undeniably have made a lot of music in the pop genre, amongst others. I really do feel the Beatles are best described as a rock band, even early on - A Hard Day's Night, Can't Buy Me Love, I Saw Her Standing There - as far as I am concerned these are rock songs. The fact that the Beatles dabbled in various genres from their inception to their end doesn't negate them being a rock group in the same way it doesn't for the other acts I mentioned - Roxy Music's output has less to do with rock music than the Beatles's but I feel perhaps the Beatles can be the victims of over-analysis in instances like this. Apologies if I sound rash but I feel very strongly about this.
If you are to make the change, I think "With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll" would be better if beat was swapped for rhythm and blues. Beat is a genre with foggy origins and, before the Beatles, not a known genre with any known defining sound. R&B was a huge influence on the band members from their formation through their career. - Humbledaisy
I agree, I really don't feel that's a strong argument for making this page so inconsistent with the rest of this site - singling them out because of an opinion isn't right. There's nothing disparaging about calling them a rock band. They were diverse, yes, but so are many rock groups. There are plenty of very unique bands with a great deal of diversity in their output that are still best described as rock bands. - Humbledaisy
Nobody said those artists are not rock acts. My argument is that making music in various popular styles doesn't negate a band being a rock band, and as special as the Beatles were, so many popular rock bands made music that spans genres - it is often part of what a rock band is. Are Pink Floyd's songs like When the Tigers Broke Free, The Gnome or It Would Be So Nice rock songs? No, perhaps not, but they are certainly a rock band. The phrase 'rock band' is not imposing a tight, constraining music genre - I see it simply as shorthand for a group with a traditional rock setup and who's influences will usually encompass rock 'n' roll, blues, R&B etc . To call the Beatles a popular music act in the lead would make it inconsistent and not as concise - they didn't sound like Des O'Connor. - Humbledaisy
An opinion that "The Beatles transcend all other groups" is not a factual source for an encyclopedia. I might even agree with it but that's totally besides the point. - Humbledaisy ( talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "older pop" now either and suggest maybe "pastiche" instead? Also broke last sentence in half as suggested. So what about this: "..The group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, they often incorporated elements of classical music, pastiche pop, and utilised unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways. In later years they experimented with a number of musical styles, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock…." No? Patthedog ( talk) 14:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time. The group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. Their sound, rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, often incorporated elements of classical music, traditional pop, and used unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways. In later years they experimented with a number of musical styles, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock. As they continued to draw influences from a variety of cultural sources, their musical and lyrical sophistication grew, and they came to be seen as embodying the era's socio-cultural movements.
Happy to be told it's grammatically bollocks, if it is. Patthedog ( talk) 03:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO it was absolutely fine, and much better, before. The wording now is more clunky and I don't think there is any need at all for 'in later years' - they started their recording experiments in earnest in the middle of their career, not towards the end, and there's even some unique and experimental production touches on the early records - varispeeded piano (just like on In My Life a few years later) on Misery from Please Please Me, feedback on I Feel Fine. Humbledaisy ( talk) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Allen Klein-with beatles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
-- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Sutcliffe and Harrison.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.-- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This article confusingly omits the most notable part of this famous quote in the 'controversy/revolver' section? I think this creates more confusion than necessary, I actually began to wonder if that aspect of the quote was urban legend but no, it does appear to be verifiable so really...if any part of that quote is present, the 'more popular than jesus' line should be included. Can't edit as unregistered. 204.50.172.132 ( talk) 14:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to revisit this issue – or rather, how we present the information. We've currently got a figure of "more than 800 million physical and digital albums" but it's sourced to a Universal press release. Previously, we had a figure of 600 million, which has been recognised by several third-party sources, eg CNN, BBC News and Newsweek. At List of best-selling music artists, the 600 mill estimate is given, although it should be noted that the methodology imposed by Wikipedia editors there favours certain sources over others. As at Elvis Presley#Achievements, I don't think we need to adhere to the most conservative estimate in this article; we can give an idea of the range of estimated sales figures. I've recently added, tucked away in a footnote here, an estimate of 1 billion. That 2001 figure again originated from a company close to the subject of the article (EMI), but at least it's supported and recognised by a third party ( Guinness World Records), not to mention a few Beatles biographies.
So, the problem as I see it, is we're presenting the 800 million sales figure as fact – in the lead ("The Beatles are the best-selling band in history, with estimated sales of over 800 million albums worldwide") and under Awards and achievements ("the Beatles have sold more than 800 million physical and digital albums as of 2013"). Yet the figure is only supported by a press release and, apparently, it's yet to be recognised by a third-party source. JG66 ( talk) 04:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The guidelines for musician pages state: "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines
According to the page for [ Mystery Tour], this was released as a double EP. Also, the track listings include Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane, which were produced during the recording sessions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. So, Magical Mystery Tour is also partly a compilation of previously released material. Under the guidelines, then, shouldn't this be cut from the brief discography on the Beatles' main page? 2019sci-fi-fan ( talk) 02:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
In 2017 there as an attempt to cover the rivalry between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. I believe this topic is worthy of an article, but even better would be an article of a larger scope, spun out from Cultural impact of the Beatles#Competition. I'm requesting opinions as I realize such an article might draw accusations of WP:FANCRUFT. Here are additional web sources I found with 5 minutes of Googling: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
Similar existing articles: Jeff Lynne and the Beatles, East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry, Beethoven and Mozart ilil ( talk) 13:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The Beatles, Dylan, and the Rolling Stones have long been viewed as the Holy Trinity of 1960s rock, from whom every important development and innovation flowed.
The strongest circle of influence involve the artists of the 1960s, and competition, interaction and influence between Bob Dylan, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Beach Boys are central to histories of rock. Tales abound of how Dylan (in)famously influenced the Beatles and, in the words of John Harris, 'goaded them towards a new maturity like a frazzled Moses.' ... Another of the most prominent stories in rock is the interplay of influence between the Beach Boys and the Beatles around the time of the release of Pet Sounds.
Creative rivalries of the sort that were common among jazz and classical musicians were rare in the popular field—not least because a lack of artistic pretensions was felt to be part of pop’s appeal. ... This situation began to change with the arrival of the Beatles ... Intense creative rivalries developed. (The Beach Boys went so far as to hold prayer meetings in the studio, at which they asked the Creator to give them the inspiration to make a better album than Rubber Soul).
It says on the Wiki page that The Beatles never reunited after 1970. In fact, they actually did to complete unfinished recordings by John Lennon for the "Anthology" project; "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" to be precise. So shouldn't it say; 1960-1970, 1994 in the profile box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASDJHSAIUDHSAUID ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following change is suggested for clarity. Change 'then aged sixteen' to 'at the age of sixteen'. The current sentence reads: In March 1957, John Lennon, then aged sixteen, formed a skiffle group with several friends from Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool. The suggested edit reads: In March 1957, at the age of sixteen, John Lennon, formed a skiffle group with several friends from Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool. Taostlt ( talk) 01:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
21:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Can anyone please remove Magical Mystery Tour in the discography list because all 12 albums are studio albums except Magical Mystery Tour. Magical Mystery Tour is a (EP) extended play, not a studio album. ColorfulSmoke ( talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I created a new section for the Magical Mystery Tour as I consider it to be very different in style and content from The Beatles (White Album) and I thought it was better to keep the two albums in separate paragraphs. Both the Magical Mystery Tour film and album came from the same "psychedelic era" of Sgt. Pepper (the Beatles started developing the idea of the MMT project already in April 1967, before the release of Sgt. Pepper), so it is closer to its predecessor than to the White Album. Also The Beatles were in the positive mood of Revolver and Sgt. Pepper rather than in the conflictual one that will characterize their subsequent releases. Moreover the LP includes music recorded all over 1967, making the album strongly rooted in that period. I wanted to discuss whether it should be better to merge this section with the previous one, regarding Sgt. Pepper (like in the case of Abbey Road and Let it Be), or instead to move it back with the White Album, or to leave it on its own as it is now (this last one being in my opinion the best solution). FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't classical also be in the genres? Isaacsorry ( talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The Beatles were a ROCK band, correct? Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 ( talk) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
So is that what makes it true? No one else thinks there is another term that would be more valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 ( talk) 03:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Which reliable sources? McCartney? Harrison? Starr? Lennon? I'm new at using this part of Wikipedia. I will try and maneuver through this new to me area as best I can. And I do thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 ( talk) 04:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Then we get into "The Beatles" mid sentence vs "the Beatles" mid sentence. Must not be a "consensus" across the board with Wikipedia on all bands that start with the word "The" as Wikipedia article for the band "The The" doesn't adhere to that rule. Oh well.
In the section entitled: 1963–1966: Beatlemania and touring years / Please Please Me and With the Beatles
It says:
Can it be mentioned as fact that out of the "eleven of their twelve studio albums" reached Number 1, it was Yellow Submarine that did not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.60.180 ( talk) 11:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change to Beatles Discography needed. Both Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine should preferably be removed from the list. They are not studio albums. They are compilation and soundtrack albums, released by American music company in the USA. The Beatles created 11 studio albums. If they are not removed, a parenthesis should be added to them explaining what they are. Plumpenmarran ( talk) 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, several members of the Roman senate, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Beatles are dead. Per the parameters of the infoboxes, we do not mark them as dead.
In general, unless the person's death is in some way related to the content, it doesn't belong anywhere in the article. "Author(s): Thomas Jefferson† et al. (also deceased); Signatories: 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress (all as dead as Julius Caesar)." - SummerPhD v2.0 21:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The Background information section near the top of the article says "Years active 1960–1970", while the Personnel section says "1960-1969" for John, "1960-1970" for Paul and George, and "1962-1970" for Ringo. Shouldn't it say "1960-1970" for John?
In Abbey Road, Let It Be and separation I see the following: "On 20 September, Lennon announced his departure to the rest of the group but agreed to withhold a public announcement to avoid undermining sales of the forthcoming album." Is that the reason for John's "1960-1969"? If so, is it a sufficient reason? John Link ( talk) 22:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The sentences: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1]
In the second sentence, the two clauses are a textbook example of some common fault I can't name. An exemplar is "Polly, being born with ginger hair, is thought of as the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of all time." These are unrelated ideas that should at least be two sentences. Better, the first clause in the article should be joined to the first sentence: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960 comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. And, no, I didn't put a comma in the middle.
I would also suggest "...made up of..." to the Latinate "comprising."
The highly debatable claim of the second clause of the second sentence can be defused by identifying the one person making the claim, and by using an active verb: "Nick Hasted has called them the most influential band of all time."[1]
Bookman1968 ( talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Their famous four-piece lineup wasn't established in 1960, and I feel putting the two in the same sentence would imply that. Humbledaisy ( talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
How about this: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, with a final lineup of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1] Bookman1968 ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
With their long-running/long-standing lineup of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they became regarded as the most influential band of all time.
With their lineup comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they became the most influential band of all time.
The band, long consisting of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, is regarded as the most influential of all time.
The band, whose best-known lineup comprised John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, is regarded as the most influential of all time.
Also, "most influential band of all time" is unnecessarily imprecise. Were they the most influential band of the 1950s? Obviously not. Were they influential in the 19th Century? I don't think so. So why say, "of all time", when what you mean is "since 1960? Mtmoore321 ( talk) 18:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Take the group members' names out of the second sentence and it reads: The group are regarded as the most influential band of all time." - I think "The group is regarded..." is better here From the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/b10bbbfc-cf9e-42e0-be17-e2c3e1d2600d "The band was formed in Liverpool during the 1950s explosion of both rock ‘n’ roll and skiffle" As I mention below, when you are speaking of a group or band as a unit as opposed to its individual memebrs, then it sounds better to use the singular verb, as the BBC does.
Or tell me, how this sounds to your ears: The group were comprised of John, Paul, Ringo and George. ??
Mtmoore321 ( talk) 18:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
How are people claiming this is correct English? The group as a whole was inducted to the Hall of Fame. The group was inducted, not the group were inducted.
I understand in British English one can say "Arsenal are doing well this season" (well, maybe not this season) but you would say "The team is on the bus" when you are talking about the team as a unit. You would not say "The team are on the bus" unless you wanted to distinguish between the team members e.g. "The team are arguing amongst themselves about tactics on the bus."
The individual members of the group were inducted later, but the group was inducted, and anything else sounds daft.
Mtmoore321 ( talk) 18:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't find this in WP:MOS, but the sources I did find are clear for BE and AE: "Group is" when it's referred to as a whole or a unit (that band is playing loudly, the team is known for winning), "Group are" when individuals are emphasized (The Beatles are not all alive, the squad are in disagreement). [1] [2] [3] I propose consistency in applying this, with ambiguous instances deferring to BE. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 09:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
References
The logo currently used in this article is not accurate. I offer replacing it with the official version.-- Libron ( talk) 05:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Surely we can do better than a press release for this figure? I'm minded to delete it as it's not an independent source.-- P-K3 ( talk) 13:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I recall Michael Jackson gave the catalogue he owned back, free of charge, to the remaining 2 Beatles just before his death.
98.164.71.229 ( talk) 10:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the Lovin Spoonful didn't influence the Beatles at all. The contemporaries who influenced the Beatles were, of course, Bob Dylan, the Who, Frank Zappa, the Byrds and the Beach Boys, whose 1966 album Pet Sounds amazed and inspired McCartney.[377][378][379][380] But you should include Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd (I am the Walrus, Blue Jay Way, What's the new Mary Jane?), Arthur Lee's Love and Jefferson Airplane (Strawberry Fields Forever), Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band (Obladi Oblada), The Velvet Understand (My Imagination and some Get Back sessions ), The Kinks (especially for the song Rain) and Jimi Hendrix (Helter Skelter's riff was inspirated by Purple Haze).
Thank you Marcodicaprio90 ( talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Was there any discussion to include Past Masters under Discography? I can understand Magical Mystery Tour, as although that was an EP (initially), it was treated equal to the other studio albums.
However, Past Masters looks like a simple compilation, a re-release of previously-available songs, similar to many other compilations. I don't think it was equal to the other albums on release. Nobody was saying "Here's a new major release by The Beatles!" in 1988...
Note: As an example, Led Zeppelin has a compilation in their Discography, called Coda. In contrast, Coda contained songs that were either exclusive b-sides, or never even released to begin with, unlike Past Masters. Xanarki ( talk) 21:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, Past Masters is considered part of the official core catalogue so should be included. The rest can go. P-K3 ( talk) 18:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence is incorrect and the source is flaky, and of no real consequence. The date below clashes with the Global Beatles Day Wikipedia page at /info/en/?search=Global_Beatles_Day
On 16 January each year, beginning in 2001, people celebrate World Beatles Day under UNESCO. This date has direct relation to the opening of The Cavern Club in 1957.[434][435]
Please change On 16 January each year, beginning in 2001, people celebrate World Beatles Day under UNESCO. This date has direct relation to the opening of The Cavern Club in 1957.[434][435] to On 25 June each year, beginning in 2009, people celebrate World Beatles Day. /info/en/?search=Global_Beatles_Day Carlomiller ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I take issue with including this sentence in the lead:
Heralding the album era, their success led to the massive sales increase and popularity of the album format, which eventually replaced singles as the dominant form of recorded music
It's true that their effect on the album era is one of the notable points of their cultural impact. However, I fail to see why we're sparing so much of the lead space for this single point. Per
MOS:LEADREL: According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.
To balance this, I've changed the wording to...
Their cultural impact extended to fashion, British identity, rock groups, albums as the dominant form of recorded music, interest in psychedelic drugs and Eastern spirituality, world concert tours, electronic music, record sleeves and music videos.
I hope that other editors find this to be an improvement, and if not, that an argument can be made for why it's necessary that we include 30 extra words devoted to a really specific subject, and why we aren't affording the same level of detail to equally notable subjects like psychedelia, '60s counterculture, and fashion. ili ( talk) 13:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, they were recording artists first and foremost, particularly album artists. And your replacement revision is just listing things off without rhyme or reason or insight into the impact. isento ( talk) 03:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There are many more high-quality sources connecting the album era with the Beatles. Do we really need to add and summarize them in the body just to justify one average-length sentence in the lead? isento ( talk) 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, speaking of undue weight, this article makes one brief mention of music videos, and no mention of "Eastern spirituality". isento ( talk) 04:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There were several occasions where Ringo played either Hammond Organ or Piano - these though rare, should still be listed alongside his name as instruments he played in the band
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It is probably obvious (certainly to most English speakers) but I think the pun should be explained somewhere in the article - the beetle insect, music having a beat, etc.
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove deceased indicator from Paul McCartney and add deceased indicator to George Harrison in the information panel at the top of the page 195.188.83.4 ( talk) 10:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the line | title1 = [[List of awards and nominations received by the Beatles|Awards for the Beatles]]
, please replace title1
with title
("title1" is an undefined parameter and fails to work as expected; the template keeps its generic title "Links to related articles" and the article is listed in the "Category:Pages_using_navboxes_with_unknown_parameters"). Thank you.
84.69.182.103 (
talk)
21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the picture profile of The Beatles to be an better picture, change the placement of Ringo and George, this would fit more with the placing of the Let It Be album that this picture is clearly referencing with the 4 cropping. So in short, change the picture of The Beatles featured on the article to a the same photo just changing the placement of George and Ringo to be more in line with Let It Be Cover Toknowheristoloveher ( talk) 12:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know why the articles for the albums like revolver, let it be and 1 are called ...(Beatles album) and not called ...(the beatles album) DanTheMusicMan2 ( talk) 16:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Personally I feel it would make sense to include Psychedelic Rock and Rock n’ Roll.
Considering the Beatles in their earliest years would play the music of Early Pioneers of Rock n Roll such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and The Supremes. This would go from Please Please me up until Beatles for Sale.
The Beatles also pioneered psychedelic rock, with Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and Magical Mystery Tour, being prominent examples. Spongehog ( talk) 21:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to add a genre besides rock. Considering that they were very ahead of their time with albums like Revolver (1966) and Sgt Pepper (1967) they should be considered as an experimental group. So like experimental rock or something genre-wise. ErikFelik ( talk) 15:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Says they were active from 1960-1970 but does not say 1996, which is a year in which they were active (they obviously did the anthology project but also put out a couple of new singles that year). I think it should say that they were active during that year, because they were working together and releasing new material. Cboi Sandlin ( talk) 21:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Unless there's anything new since these discussions, probably should stay as is. --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 20:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across the term "Savage Young Beatles", and it seemed not only related to a bootleg album but perhaps to The Beatles themselves, or to their name. Neither idea, nor even the phrase itself, is mentioned in the article here. Misty MH ( talk) 08:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I also did not find it by searching the Talk archive here. Misty MH ( talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
That's ridiculous.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. That said, I'm struggling to think of another way to phrase it that doesn't give the impression Pete and Stu weren't members of the Beatles. Humbledaisy ( talk) 12:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable." ili ( talk) 19:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the issue was neatly resolved with this change back on Jan 15 --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 23:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
In the second sentence, the two clauses are a textbook example of some common fault I can't name. An exemplar is "Polly, being born with ginger hair, is thought of as the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of all time." These are unrelated ideas that should at least be two sentences.
This island was purchased by Ringo Usher is 1987. Guityrocks ( talk) 21:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:C7C:5A04:4E00:B413:5C4F:A9E7:2B42 ( talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Should read ‘British’ group rather than ‘English’ as at least one founding member ‘Stuart Sutcliffe’ was Scottish, so you have him as being part of an English band? Needs to be amended. Thanks.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)I’m wondering why the short description reads 1962-1970 rather than 1960-1970. Surely it should be the latter? Humbledaisy ( talk)
Please link this Russian guy into the article. He used to be a huge Beetles fun until his death. Link: Kolya Vasin Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
With regards to your recent improvements to the lead you need to tighten things a little more please. The success of Love Me Do led to them releasing a second single, Please Please Me. And the success of that single prompted EMI to push for the album of the same name. Atm it just jars. And besides, I did prefer it as it was but if you feel the need then please get it right. Thanks Patthedog (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I've copied the above from Jayron's talk page as I think it ought to be on the record here. Patthedog ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (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 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
Seems strange that this should be oddly phrased considering the extensive work done on this article over the years, but does anyone find this, the second sentence, confusing? "The line-up of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr led them to be regarded as the most influential band of all time." (emphasis mine) It makes it sound like the primary reason they are regarded as the "most influential band of all time" is BECAUSE of the fact that the band consisted of J, P, G and R. Obviously the reasons they are regarded as such are because of their songwriting, innovation, etc. etc. etc. Right now the sentence implies an odd cause-and-effect. Would it be simpler (and logically make more sense) to split the two thoughts up? Like: "The line-up consisted of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, and they are regarded as the most influential band of all time." (assuming everyone's cool with the encyclopedic properness of the second part, which I assume has been properly cited and all that).
Another way to think of it is that, taken on it's own, there's no reason why you couldn't rearrange that sentence to read "The Beatles are regarded as the most influential band of all time because of the line-up of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr." Putting it that way clearly doesn't make much sense, but that's basically what the sentence is saying now. Thoughts? 70.91.35.27 ( talk) 17:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)TF
The Beatles were an English popular music group formed in Liverpool in 1960 is fine with me (it gets around the "rock group" tag) although I suspect others might object. Patthedog ( talk) 13:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The Beatles were most definitely a rock band - as some others have said, the idea of what a "rock band" is became accepted while they were together, and they were one of the foremost progenitors. They are a rock band who made pop music, like most famous rock bands... Fleetwood Mac, Queen, Jimi Hendrix Experience, The Kinks, The Who, The Rolling Stones, U2, Blur, Oasis, The Doors etc. I personally feel it would be a very strange decision to not name them as such in the lead. - Humbledaisy
How about Fleetwood Mac then, or Blur, U2, Roxy Music, Oasis, Eric Clapton, Kinks, or the many other successful rock acts that are described as such in their leads but have undeniably have made a lot of music in the pop genre, amongst others. I really do feel the Beatles are best described as a rock band, even early on - A Hard Day's Night, Can't Buy Me Love, I Saw Her Standing There - as far as I am concerned these are rock songs. The fact that the Beatles dabbled in various genres from their inception to their end doesn't negate them being a rock group in the same way it doesn't for the other acts I mentioned - Roxy Music's output has less to do with rock music than the Beatles's but I feel perhaps the Beatles can be the victims of over-analysis in instances like this. Apologies if I sound rash but I feel very strongly about this.
If you are to make the change, I think "With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll" would be better if beat was swapped for rhythm and blues. Beat is a genre with foggy origins and, before the Beatles, not a known genre with any known defining sound. R&B was a huge influence on the band members from their formation through their career. - Humbledaisy
I agree, I really don't feel that's a strong argument for making this page so inconsistent with the rest of this site - singling them out because of an opinion isn't right. There's nothing disparaging about calling them a rock band. They were diverse, yes, but so are many rock groups. There are plenty of very unique bands with a great deal of diversity in their output that are still best described as rock bands. - Humbledaisy
Nobody said those artists are not rock acts. My argument is that making music in various popular styles doesn't negate a band being a rock band, and as special as the Beatles were, so many popular rock bands made music that spans genres - it is often part of what a rock band is. Are Pink Floyd's songs like When the Tigers Broke Free, The Gnome or It Would Be So Nice rock songs? No, perhaps not, but they are certainly a rock band. The phrase 'rock band' is not imposing a tight, constraining music genre - I see it simply as shorthand for a group with a traditional rock setup and who's influences will usually encompass rock 'n' roll, blues, R&B etc . To call the Beatles a popular music act in the lead would make it inconsistent and not as concise - they didn't sound like Des O'Connor. - Humbledaisy
An opinion that "The Beatles transcend all other groups" is not a factual source for an encyclopedia. I might even agree with it but that's totally besides the point. - Humbledaisy ( talk) 20:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "older pop" now either and suggest maybe "pastiche" instead? Also broke last sentence in half as suggested. So what about this: "..The group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. With a sound rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, they often incorporated elements of classical music, pastiche pop, and utilised unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways. In later years they experimented with a number of musical styles, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock…." No? Patthedog ( talk) 14:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time. The group were integral to the evolution of pop music into an art form, and to the development of the counterculture of the 1960s. Their sound, rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, often incorporated elements of classical music, traditional pop, and used unconventional recording techniques in innovative ways. In later years they experimented with a number of musical styles, ranging from pop ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock. As they continued to draw influences from a variety of cultural sources, their musical and lyrical sophistication grew, and they came to be seen as embodying the era's socio-cultural movements.
Happy to be told it's grammatically bollocks, if it is. Patthedog ( talk) 03:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO it was absolutely fine, and much better, before. The wording now is more clunky and I don't think there is any need at all for 'in later years' - they started their recording experiments in earnest in the middle of their career, not towards the end, and there's even some unique and experimental production touches on the early records - varispeeded piano (just like on In My Life a few years later) on Misery from Please Please Me, feedback on I Feel Fine. Humbledaisy ( talk) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Allen Klein-with beatles.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
-- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
File:Sutcliffe and Harrison.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.-- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This article confusingly omits the most notable part of this famous quote in the 'controversy/revolver' section? I think this creates more confusion than necessary, I actually began to wonder if that aspect of the quote was urban legend but no, it does appear to be verifiable so really...if any part of that quote is present, the 'more popular than jesus' line should be included. Can't edit as unregistered. 204.50.172.132 ( talk) 14:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we need to revisit this issue – or rather, how we present the information. We've currently got a figure of "more than 800 million physical and digital albums" but it's sourced to a Universal press release. Previously, we had a figure of 600 million, which has been recognised by several third-party sources, eg CNN, BBC News and Newsweek. At List of best-selling music artists, the 600 mill estimate is given, although it should be noted that the methodology imposed by Wikipedia editors there favours certain sources over others. As at Elvis Presley#Achievements, I don't think we need to adhere to the most conservative estimate in this article; we can give an idea of the range of estimated sales figures. I've recently added, tucked away in a footnote here, an estimate of 1 billion. That 2001 figure again originated from a company close to the subject of the article (EMI), but at least it's supported and recognised by a third party ( Guinness World Records), not to mention a few Beatles biographies.
So, the problem as I see it, is we're presenting the 800 million sales figure as fact – in the lead ("The Beatles are the best-selling band in history, with estimated sales of over 800 million albums worldwide") and under Awards and achievements ("the Beatles have sold more than 800 million physical and digital albums as of 2013"). Yet the figure is only supported by a press release and, apparently, it's yet to be recognised by a third-party source. JG66 ( talk) 04:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The guidelines for musician pages state: "Live and compilation albums, EPs, singles, etc. should generally not be included." /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines
According to the page for [ Mystery Tour], this was released as a double EP. Also, the track listings include Strawberry Fields Forever and Penny Lane, which were produced during the recording sessions for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. So, Magical Mystery Tour is also partly a compilation of previously released material. Under the guidelines, then, shouldn't this be cut from the brief discography on the Beatles' main page? 2019sci-fi-fan ( talk) 02:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
In 2017 there as an attempt to cover the rivalry between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. I believe this topic is worthy of an article, but even better would be an article of a larger scope, spun out from Cultural impact of the Beatles#Competition. I'm requesting opinions as I realize such an article might draw accusations of WP:FANCRUFT. Here are additional web sources I found with 5 minutes of Googling: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
Similar existing articles: Jeff Lynne and the Beatles, East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry, Beethoven and Mozart ilil ( talk) 13:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The Beatles, Dylan, and the Rolling Stones have long been viewed as the Holy Trinity of 1960s rock, from whom every important development and innovation flowed.
The strongest circle of influence involve the artists of the 1960s, and competition, interaction and influence between Bob Dylan, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Beach Boys are central to histories of rock. Tales abound of how Dylan (in)famously influenced the Beatles and, in the words of John Harris, 'goaded them towards a new maturity like a frazzled Moses.' ... Another of the most prominent stories in rock is the interplay of influence between the Beach Boys and the Beatles around the time of the release of Pet Sounds.
Creative rivalries of the sort that were common among jazz and classical musicians were rare in the popular field—not least because a lack of artistic pretensions was felt to be part of pop’s appeal. ... This situation began to change with the arrival of the Beatles ... Intense creative rivalries developed. (The Beach Boys went so far as to hold prayer meetings in the studio, at which they asked the Creator to give them the inspiration to make a better album than Rubber Soul).
It says on the Wiki page that The Beatles never reunited after 1970. In fact, they actually did to complete unfinished recordings by John Lennon for the "Anthology" project; "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" to be precise. So shouldn't it say; 1960-1970, 1994 in the profile box? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ASDJHSAIUDHSAUID ( talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following change is suggested for clarity. Change 'then aged sixteen' to 'at the age of sixteen'. The current sentence reads: In March 1957, John Lennon, then aged sixteen, formed a skiffle group with several friends from Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool. The suggested edit reads: In March 1957, at the age of sixteen, John Lennon, formed a skiffle group with several friends from Quarry Bank High School in Liverpool. Taostlt ( talk) 01:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib)
21:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)Can anyone please remove Magical Mystery Tour in the discography list because all 12 albums are studio albums except Magical Mystery Tour. Magical Mystery Tour is a (EP) extended play, not a studio album. ColorfulSmoke ( talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I created a new section for the Magical Mystery Tour as I consider it to be very different in style and content from The Beatles (White Album) and I thought it was better to keep the two albums in separate paragraphs. Both the Magical Mystery Tour film and album came from the same "psychedelic era" of Sgt. Pepper (the Beatles started developing the idea of the MMT project already in April 1967, before the release of Sgt. Pepper), so it is closer to its predecessor than to the White Album. Also The Beatles were in the positive mood of Revolver and Sgt. Pepper rather than in the conflictual one that will characterize their subsequent releases. Moreover the LP includes music recorded all over 1967, making the album strongly rooted in that period. I wanted to discuss whether it should be better to merge this section with the previous one, regarding Sgt. Pepper (like in the case of Abbey Road and Let it Be), or instead to move it back with the White Album, or to leave it on its own as it is now (this last one being in my opinion the best solution). FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 22:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't classical also be in the genres? Isaacsorry ( talk) 19:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The Beatles were a ROCK band, correct? Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 ( talk) 22:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
So is that what makes it true? No one else thinks there is another term that would be more valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 ( talk) 03:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Which reliable sources? McCartney? Harrison? Starr? Lennon? I'm new at using this part of Wikipedia. I will try and maneuver through this new to me area as best I can. And I do thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.136.239.179 ( talk) 04:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Then we get into "The Beatles" mid sentence vs "the Beatles" mid sentence. Must not be a "consensus" across the board with Wikipedia on all bands that start with the word "The" as Wikipedia article for the band "The The" doesn't adhere to that rule. Oh well.
In the section entitled: 1963–1966: Beatlemania and touring years / Please Please Me and With the Beatles
It says:
Can it be mentioned as fact that out of the "eleven of their twelve studio albums" reached Number 1, it was Yellow Submarine that did not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.60.180 ( talk) 11:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change to Beatles Discography needed. Both Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine should preferably be removed from the list. They are not studio albums. They are compilation and soundtrack albums, released by American music company in the USA. The Beatles created 11 studio albums. If they are not removed, a parenthesis should be added to them explaining what they are. Plumpenmarran ( talk) 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, several members of the Roman senate, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Beatles are dead. Per the parameters of the infoboxes, we do not mark them as dead.
In general, unless the person's death is in some way related to the content, it doesn't belong anywhere in the article. "Author(s): Thomas Jefferson† et al. (also deceased); Signatories: 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress (all as dead as Julius Caesar)." - SummerPhD v2.0 21:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The Background information section near the top of the article says "Years active 1960–1970", while the Personnel section says "1960-1969" for John, "1960-1970" for Paul and George, and "1962-1970" for Ringo. Shouldn't it say "1960-1970" for John?
In Abbey Road, Let It Be and separation I see the following: "On 20 September, Lennon announced his departure to the rest of the group but agreed to withhold a public announcement to avoid undermining sales of the forthcoming album." Is that the reason for John's "1960-1969"? If so, is it a sufficient reason? John Link ( talk) 22:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The sentences: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. With a line-up comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1]
In the second sentence, the two clauses are a textbook example of some common fault I can't name. An exemplar is "Polly, being born with ginger hair, is thought of as the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of all time." These are unrelated ideas that should at least be two sentences. Better, the first clause in the article should be joined to the first sentence: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960 comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. And, no, I didn't put a comma in the middle.
I would also suggest "...made up of..." to the Latinate "comprising."
The highly debatable claim of the second clause of the second sentence can be defused by identifying the one person making the claim, and by using an active verb: "Nick Hasted has called them the most influential band of all time."[1]
Bookman1968 ( talk) 17:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Their famous four-piece lineup wasn't established in 1960, and I feel putting the two in the same sentence would imply that. Humbledaisy ( talk) 17:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
How about this: "The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, with a final lineup of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. They are regarded as the most influential band of all time."[1] Bookman1968 ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
With their long-running/long-standing lineup of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they became regarded as the most influential band of all time.
With their lineup comprising John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, they became the most influential band of all time.
The band, long consisting of John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, is regarded as the most influential of all time.
The band, whose best-known lineup comprised John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, is regarded as the most influential of all time.
Also, "most influential band of all time" is unnecessarily imprecise. Were they the most influential band of the 1950s? Obviously not. Were they influential in the 19th Century? I don't think so. So why say, "of all time", when what you mean is "since 1960? Mtmoore321 ( talk) 18:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Take the group members' names out of the second sentence and it reads: The group are regarded as the most influential band of all time." - I think "The group is regarded..." is better here From the BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/b10bbbfc-cf9e-42e0-be17-e2c3e1d2600d "The band was formed in Liverpool during the 1950s explosion of both rock ‘n’ roll and skiffle" As I mention below, when you are speaking of a group or band as a unit as opposed to its individual memebrs, then it sounds better to use the singular verb, as the BBC does.
Or tell me, how this sounds to your ears: The group were comprised of John, Paul, Ringo and George. ??
Mtmoore321 ( talk) 18:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
How are people claiming this is correct English? The group as a whole was inducted to the Hall of Fame. The group was inducted, not the group were inducted.
I understand in British English one can say "Arsenal are doing well this season" (well, maybe not this season) but you would say "The team is on the bus" when you are talking about the team as a unit. You would not say "The team are on the bus" unless you wanted to distinguish between the team members e.g. "The team are arguing amongst themselves about tactics on the bus."
The individual members of the group were inducted later, but the group was inducted, and anything else sounds daft.
Mtmoore321 ( talk) 18:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I didn't find this in WP:MOS, but the sources I did find are clear for BE and AE: "Group is" when it's referred to as a whole or a unit (that band is playing loudly, the team is known for winning), "Group are" when individuals are emphasized (The Beatles are not all alive, the squad are in disagreement). [1] [2] [3] I propose consistency in applying this, with ambiguous instances deferring to BE. ЄlєvєN єvєN||иэvэ иэvэlэ 09:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
References
The logo currently used in this article is not accurate. I offer replacing it with the official version.-- Libron ( talk) 05:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Surely we can do better than a press release for this figure? I'm minded to delete it as it's not an independent source.-- P-K3 ( talk) 13:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I recall Michael Jackson gave the catalogue he owned back, free of charge, to the remaining 2 Beatles just before his death.
98.164.71.229 ( talk) 10:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the Lovin Spoonful didn't influence the Beatles at all. The contemporaries who influenced the Beatles were, of course, Bob Dylan, the Who, Frank Zappa, the Byrds and the Beach Boys, whose 1966 album Pet Sounds amazed and inspired McCartney.[377][378][379][380] But you should include Syd Barrett's Pink Floyd (I am the Walrus, Blue Jay Way, What's the new Mary Jane?), Arthur Lee's Love and Jefferson Airplane (Strawberry Fields Forever), Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band (Obladi Oblada), The Velvet Understand (My Imagination and some Get Back sessions ), The Kinks (especially for the song Rain) and Jimi Hendrix (Helter Skelter's riff was inspirated by Purple Haze).
Thank you Marcodicaprio90 ( talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Was there any discussion to include Past Masters under Discography? I can understand Magical Mystery Tour, as although that was an EP (initially), it was treated equal to the other studio albums.
However, Past Masters looks like a simple compilation, a re-release of previously-available songs, similar to many other compilations. I don't think it was equal to the other albums on release. Nobody was saying "Here's a new major release by The Beatles!" in 1988...
Note: As an example, Led Zeppelin has a compilation in their Discography, called Coda. In contrast, Coda contained songs that were either exclusive b-sides, or never even released to begin with, unlike Past Masters. Xanarki ( talk) 21:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Yep, Past Masters is considered part of the official core catalogue so should be included. The rest can go. P-K3 ( talk) 18:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following sentence is incorrect and the source is flaky, and of no real consequence. The date below clashes with the Global Beatles Day Wikipedia page at /info/en/?search=Global_Beatles_Day
On 16 January each year, beginning in 2001, people celebrate World Beatles Day under UNESCO. This date has direct relation to the opening of The Cavern Club in 1957.[434][435]
Please change On 16 January each year, beginning in 2001, people celebrate World Beatles Day under UNESCO. This date has direct relation to the opening of The Cavern Club in 1957.[434][435] to On 25 June each year, beginning in 2009, people celebrate World Beatles Day. /info/en/?search=Global_Beatles_Day Carlomiller ( talk) 15:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I take issue with including this sentence in the lead:
Heralding the album era, their success led to the massive sales increase and popularity of the album format, which eventually replaced singles as the dominant form of recorded music
It's true that their effect on the album era is one of the notable points of their cultural impact. However, I fail to see why we're sparing so much of the lead space for this single point. Per
MOS:LEADREL: According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.
To balance this, I've changed the wording to...
Their cultural impact extended to fashion, British identity, rock groups, albums as the dominant form of recorded music, interest in psychedelic drugs and Eastern spirituality, world concert tours, electronic music, record sleeves and music videos.
I hope that other editors find this to be an improvement, and if not, that an argument can be made for why it's necessary that we include 30 extra words devoted to a really specific subject, and why we aren't affording the same level of detail to equally notable subjects like psychedelia, '60s counterculture, and fashion. ili ( talk) 13:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Well, they were recording artists first and foremost, particularly album artists. And your replacement revision is just listing things off without rhyme or reason or insight into the impact. isento ( talk) 03:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There are many more high-quality sources connecting the album era with the Beatles. Do we really need to add and summarize them in the body just to justify one average-length sentence in the lead? isento ( talk) 03:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, speaking of undue weight, this article makes one brief mention of music videos, and no mention of "Eastern spirituality". isento ( talk) 04:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
There were several occasions where Ringo played either Hammond Organ or Piano - these though rare, should still be listed alongside his name as instruments he played in the band
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It is probably obvious (certainly to most English speakers) but I think the pun should be explained somewhere in the article - the beetle insect, music having a beat, etc.
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove deceased indicator from Paul McCartney and add deceased indicator to George Harrison in the information panel at the top of the page 195.188.83.4 ( talk) 10:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the line | title1 = [[List of awards and nominations received by the Beatles|Awards for the Beatles]]
, please replace title1
with title
("title1" is an undefined parameter and fails to work as expected; the template keeps its generic title "Links to related articles" and the article is listed in the "Category:Pages_using_navboxes_with_unknown_parameters"). Thank you.
84.69.182.103 (
talk)
21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the picture profile of The Beatles to be an better picture, change the placement of Ringo and George, this would fit more with the placing of the Let It Be album that this picture is clearly referencing with the 4 cropping. So in short, change the picture of The Beatles featured on the article to a the same photo just changing the placement of George and Ringo to be more in line with Let It Be Cover Toknowheristoloveher ( talk) 12:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know why the articles for the albums like revolver, let it be and 1 are called ...(Beatles album) and not called ...(the beatles album) DanTheMusicMan2 ( talk) 16:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Personally I feel it would make sense to include Psychedelic Rock and Rock n’ Roll.
Considering the Beatles in their earliest years would play the music of Early Pioneers of Rock n Roll such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and The Supremes. This would go from Please Please me up until Beatles for Sale.
The Beatles also pioneered psychedelic rock, with Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and Magical Mystery Tour, being prominent examples. Spongehog ( talk) 21:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to add a genre besides rock. Considering that they were very ahead of their time with albums like Revolver (1966) and Sgt Pepper (1967) they should be considered as an experimental group. So like experimental rock or something genre-wise. ErikFelik ( talk) 15:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Says they were active from 1960-1970 but does not say 1996, which is a year in which they were active (they obviously did the anthology project but also put out a couple of new singles that year). I think it should say that they were active during that year, because they were working together and releasing new material. Cboi Sandlin ( talk) 21:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Unless there's anything new since these discussions, probably should stay as is. --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 20:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I stumbled across the term "Savage Young Beatles", and it seemed not only related to a bootleg album but perhaps to The Beatles themselves, or to their name. Neither idea, nor even the phrase itself, is mentioned in the article here. Misty MH ( talk) 08:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I also did not find it by searching the Talk archive here. Misty MH ( talk) 08:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
That's ridiculous.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. That said, I'm struggling to think of another way to phrase it that doesn't give the impression Pete and Stu weren't members of the Beatles. Humbledaisy ( talk) 12:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable." ili ( talk) 19:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the issue was neatly resolved with this change back on Jan 15 --John ( User:Jwy/ talk) 23:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
In the second sentence, the two clauses are a textbook example of some common fault I can't name. An exemplar is "Polly, being born with ginger hair, is thought of as the best Chancellor of the Exchequer of all time." These are unrelated ideas that should at least be two sentences.
This island was purchased by Ringo Usher is 1987. Guityrocks ( talk) 21:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Beatles has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2A02:C7C:5A04:4E00:B413:5C4F:A9E7:2B42 ( talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Should read ‘British’ group rather than ‘English’ as at least one founding member ‘Stuart Sutcliffe’ was Scottish, so you have him as being part of an English band? Needs to be amended. Thanks.
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)I’m wondering why the short description reads 1962-1970 rather than 1960-1970. Surely it should be the latter? Humbledaisy ( talk)
Please link this Russian guy into the article. He used to be a huge Beetles fun until his death. Link: Kolya Vasin Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
With regards to your recent improvements to the lead you need to tighten things a little more please. The success of Love Me Do led to them releasing a second single, Please Please Me. And the success of that single prompted EMI to push for the album of the same name. Atm it just jars. And besides, I did prefer it as it was but if you feel the need then please get it right. Thanks Patthedog (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I've copied the above from Jayron's talk page as I think it ought to be on the record here. Patthedog ( talk) 17:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)