This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away, it states that Lennon and McCartney were "especially prolific in the late 1950s."
In actual fact, in all available sources, only a very few songs are said to have been written by them before 1960. McCartney wrote the music for "When I'm 64," but not the words, in the 50s. McCartney may have written "I'll Follow the Sun" in the 50s. Lennon probably wrote "Hello Little Girl" in the 50s.
That's a total of 2 1/2 songs. If anyone else knows of any others, I doubt the total will reach double digits. That is not "unusually prolific," or even "prolific," by any definition.
The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960. As for the other 3 sources: after a lifetime of Beatles study, I am certain they do not reliably cite any "especially prolific" songwriting occurring before 1960, or even very much songwriting at all beyond the 2 1/2 songs I've mentioned. (In fact, L&M had barely written FIFTEEN songs, if that many, before 1963 -- nineteen-SIXTY-THREE! -- as far as can be known.)
The statement that they "were especially prolific in the late 1950s" is flat-out false and should be removed.63.17.87.147 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I wrote above: "The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960." Via Google books, I've been able to check one of the three remaining so-called "sources." It says NOTHING about them being "prolific" or even about them writing much at all. It refers ONLY to a McCartney-HARRISON song, "In Spite of All The Danger" (which was never covered by anybody, much less included in "the Songs L/M Gave Away".) Again, the simple fact is: L/M did NOT write many songs in the late 50s -- a few at most. To the extent they did write songs, it is NOT relevant to the article. Please: Remove this factually incorrect statement about them being "especially prolific in the late 50s." 63.17.59.32 ( talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The composite of all the sources indicates that Lennon and McCartney wrote quite a number of songs in the late 50s. They started writing when they were 15, and made their agreement for joint writing credit at about that time (which requires sources, including the ones you removed). McCartney (the younger of the two) was 15 in 1957. They weren't famous then and didn't have the recording contract, but that doesn't negate the fact that they wrote the songs when they said they wrote them. The fact that you don't have access to sources does not mean that the information contained in them is incorrect. Neither I nor anyone is required to pander to your demands by naming any specific songs. There are others besides the ones you name (e.g., One After 909); I just added a very reliable source (an authorized biography of The Beatles) stating that they wrote about 100 songs in 1958 alone; even though unnecessary because the information was already sourced, I added the new source in good faith. Just because you personally don't have any of their recordings made before 1960 does not change the reality that they wrote more than two or three songs before then. This is well-sourced information. Please move on. If you remove properly source information again, that is considered vandalism and can result in a block from editing. Cresix ( talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Very few songs are known to have been written by Lennon and/or McCartney prior to 1962. Very, very few are known to have been written by either of them prior to January 1st, 1960 ("Hello Little Girl," "I'll Follow the Sun," the instrumental "Cry For a Shadow," and the music -- not lyrics -- for "When I'm 64" are the most likely; perhaps two or three others#. Bragging, they both may have CLAIMED to have been prolific in the 1950s, but in the absence of evidence this is a self-sourced statement no more reliable than Bob Dylan's 1962 claim that he'd been in a traveling circus. #He wasn't, but the newspapers of the time said he was, based on his word, so ... should we include "Dylan was in a traveling circus in the 1950s" in the Dylan article?# Please give sources, specifying exactly what the source says "on point", to support the statement "Lennon and McCartney were prolific songwriters in the 1950s." Please name songs they were known to have written prior to 1/1/1960. Then, please evaluate whether the totality of the evidence supports this statement as factual, or whether it is too unreliable to be included in WP. 63.17.82.166 ( talk) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)— 63.17.82.166 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Don't know why this issue is so heated! It's barely even relevant to the article. However...
I have read an awful lot about the Beatles, and I am unaware that they were prolific writers in the 50s. It is sadly a limitation of book ownership, when the sources are printed ones. So far from what I've seen, only Hunter Davis appears to state 100 songs - and to be honest, it doesn't ring true. Hunter Davis may have made a generalisation in stating 1950s, when he just meant early days. Compare for example Ian MacDOnald's comments, "Lennon and McCartney wrote a substantial number of songs between 1957 and 1962... some sources claim up to two hundred - but since no list of titles has ever been published, it is impossible to verify this. Mark Lewisohn refers to twenty early Lennon-McCartney titles."
So what hard evidence is there? I think "Like Dreamers Do" dates to 1957, in addition to the ones noted above. "Love Me Do" goes back to 1958. The Quarrymen performed seven originals including "Thinking of Linking" and "In Spite of all the Danger". If we add up all those known, we get to less than a couple of dozen.
While this doesn't prove they did not write hundreds more, it doesn't suggest as much - whatever is asserted by writers. The evidence is not convincing at all. Early Hamburg recordings don't show a wealth of originals either. Why not just say they wrote a good number of songs, or something like that. It's not worth warring over! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.192.78 ( talk) 20:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — 86.182.192.78 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This E.P. liner note was written in July/August 1963. At a time when it was commonplace for pop artists to release 4 singles a year. The Beatles had already established that both sides of their singles would be written by Lennon & McCartney. They were also preparing to have their second album of the year released. And based on that first album, which had a mixture of originals and covers - the reasonable calculation could be that Barrow anticipated a similar ratio. 8 originals to 6 covers on the then-standard 14 songs on a UK LP.
Do the math. 1964 thru 1972 is 9 years. 9 years x 4 singles per year = 36 singles. Two songs per single and that is 72 songs. 9 years x 2 albums a year - 18 albums. Say 50% of the 14 songs on each album were by Lennon & McCartney. That would be 18 albums x 7 songs = 126 songs. Assume that - like the recent "PPM" album - some of those 7 or 8 songs per album might be tracks released as singles. Call it 100 album tracks not released as singles. Now we have a total of 72 songs from singles and 100 album tracks. A grand total of 172 songs.
We can speculate that Lennon & McCartney probably exaggerated to Barrow about having 150-200 unreleased songs in their "songbook" as of August 1963. We can speculate that Barrow fabricated the notion. Or it may simply be that there really were a large number of very primitive songs they'd written. The quality of those songs would almost certainly not rival their later songs. But if that contemporary (1963) source was accurate there were 150-200 songs written as of August 1963. Given Lennon and McCartney's references to writing songs in their early days, it is reasonable to assume that there was a degree of prolificacy between July 1957 (when they first met) and July/August 1963 (when Barrow made his assertion.
Confirming that Lennon & McCartney did write multiple songs in the late 1950s - but doubting that it was such a vast number as 150-200 - and actually citing McCartney as having confessed to making exaggerated claims about the number of songs - see this text written by Bill Harry: (Source: http://triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/lennon-mccartney.shtml)
As I said, I don't think this point is crucial to the article. Make of this info what you will. Davidpatrick ( talk) 05:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Davidpatrick for at least providing something that can be considered sources. Those sources point to issues of quality of songs, and possibly less than 100 songs, but are not persuasive that they didn't write a lot of songs prior to 1960, especially since the Davies book can be considered authoritative. It should have no effect on use of the phrase "prolific writers in the late 1950s and early 1960s" (inclusive of parts of both decades) in the article. And again anon 86, expressing your personal opinions is fine here, but without a reliable source to back up your opinions, they are meaningless in terms of content in the article. I could speculate that I "heard" or "read" from somewhere that I can't remember well enough to cite a source that they wrote a thousand songs in 1958, but that doesn't make it true. Additionally, your claim to be a journalist has no bearing on the content of an article. I could claim to be a schoolmate of John Lennon and personally watched them write hundreds of songs, but that doesn't make it true. Cresix ( talk) 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Provide the serious and reliable evidence besides your opinion that Davies is factually incorrect. An otherwise reliable source is only challenged by another reliable source, not your opinion, that contradicts it. Davidpatrick provided sources that raise some questions, but overall don't challenge the fact that L&M wrote more than a song or two before 1960. You have nothing to challenge Davies except your opinion. Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources, not your opinion. Cresix ( talk) 15:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
We're not talking about what was published, and we're certainly not talking about what was published in the late 50s or early 60s. "Abandoned fragments and unfinished works that never received titles" says nothing about what did get placed into other songs or modified but remained largely complete songs. An example is "One After 909", written in the 50s but not recorded until much later in the 60s; but specific examples are not necessary. We have sources disputing whether it was 50, 100, or more than 100. None of that negates the phrase "prolific writers in the late 1950s and early 1960s", inclusive of parts of both decades; no statements about song quality; no statements about fragments that may or may not have been used later. Thanks for resting your case, because you essentially have no case to change the current wording. Cresix ( talk) 17:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The track-lists and the title seem sufficiently different for this not to be considered a reissue. See here for details.— Aquegg ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
In The Songs Lennon and McCartney Gave Away, it states that Lennon and McCartney were "especially prolific in the late 1950s."
In actual fact, in all available sources, only a very few songs are said to have been written by them before 1960. McCartney wrote the music for "When I'm 64," but not the words, in the 50s. McCartney may have written "I'll Follow the Sun" in the 50s. Lennon probably wrote "Hello Little Girl" in the 50s.
That's a total of 2 1/2 songs. If anyone else knows of any others, I doubt the total will reach double digits. That is not "unusually prolific," or even "prolific," by any definition.
The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960. As for the other 3 sources: after a lifetime of Beatles study, I am certain they do not reliably cite any "especially prolific" songwriting occurring before 1960, or even very much songwriting at all beyond the 2 1/2 songs I've mentioned. (In fact, L&M had barely written FIFTEEN songs, if that many, before 1963 -- nineteen-SIXTY-THREE! -- as far as can be known.)
The statement that they "were especially prolific in the late 1950s" is flat-out false and should be removed.63.17.87.147 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I wrote above: "The reverter recently added four so-called "sources," three of which I don't have at hand. The one I could check said nothing whatsoever about how many songs they wrote before 1960." Via Google books, I've been able to check one of the three remaining so-called "sources." It says NOTHING about them being "prolific" or even about them writing much at all. It refers ONLY to a McCartney-HARRISON song, "In Spite of All The Danger" (which was never covered by anybody, much less included in "the Songs L/M Gave Away".) Again, the simple fact is: L/M did NOT write many songs in the late 50s -- a few at most. To the extent they did write songs, it is NOT relevant to the article. Please: Remove this factually incorrect statement about them being "especially prolific in the late 50s." 63.17.59.32 ( talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The composite of all the sources indicates that Lennon and McCartney wrote quite a number of songs in the late 50s. They started writing when they were 15, and made their agreement for joint writing credit at about that time (which requires sources, including the ones you removed). McCartney (the younger of the two) was 15 in 1957. They weren't famous then and didn't have the recording contract, but that doesn't negate the fact that they wrote the songs when they said they wrote them. The fact that you don't have access to sources does not mean that the information contained in them is incorrect. Neither I nor anyone is required to pander to your demands by naming any specific songs. There are others besides the ones you name (e.g., One After 909); I just added a very reliable source (an authorized biography of The Beatles) stating that they wrote about 100 songs in 1958 alone; even though unnecessary because the information was already sourced, I added the new source in good faith. Just because you personally don't have any of their recordings made before 1960 does not change the reality that they wrote more than two or three songs before then. This is well-sourced information. Please move on. If you remove properly source information again, that is considered vandalism and can result in a block from editing. Cresix ( talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Very few songs are known to have been written by Lennon and/or McCartney prior to 1962. Very, very few are known to have been written by either of them prior to January 1st, 1960 ("Hello Little Girl," "I'll Follow the Sun," the instrumental "Cry For a Shadow," and the music -- not lyrics -- for "When I'm 64" are the most likely; perhaps two or three others#. Bragging, they both may have CLAIMED to have been prolific in the 1950s, but in the absence of evidence this is a self-sourced statement no more reliable than Bob Dylan's 1962 claim that he'd been in a traveling circus. #He wasn't, but the newspapers of the time said he was, based on his word, so ... should we include "Dylan was in a traveling circus in the 1950s" in the Dylan article?# Please give sources, specifying exactly what the source says "on point", to support the statement "Lennon and McCartney were prolific songwriters in the 1950s." Please name songs they were known to have written prior to 1/1/1960. Then, please evaluate whether the totality of the evidence supports this statement as factual, or whether it is too unreliable to be included in WP. 63.17.82.166 ( talk) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)— 63.17.82.166 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Don't know why this issue is so heated! It's barely even relevant to the article. However...
I have read an awful lot about the Beatles, and I am unaware that they were prolific writers in the 50s. It is sadly a limitation of book ownership, when the sources are printed ones. So far from what I've seen, only Hunter Davis appears to state 100 songs - and to be honest, it doesn't ring true. Hunter Davis may have made a generalisation in stating 1950s, when he just meant early days. Compare for example Ian MacDOnald's comments, "Lennon and McCartney wrote a substantial number of songs between 1957 and 1962... some sources claim up to two hundred - but since no list of titles has ever been published, it is impossible to verify this. Mark Lewisohn refers to twenty early Lennon-McCartney titles."
So what hard evidence is there? I think "Like Dreamers Do" dates to 1957, in addition to the ones noted above. "Love Me Do" goes back to 1958. The Quarrymen performed seven originals including "Thinking of Linking" and "In Spite of all the Danger". If we add up all those known, we get to less than a couple of dozen.
While this doesn't prove they did not write hundreds more, it doesn't suggest as much - whatever is asserted by writers. The evidence is not convincing at all. Early Hamburg recordings don't show a wealth of originals either. Why not just say they wrote a good number of songs, or something like that. It's not worth warring over! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.192.78 ( talk) 20:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC) — 86.182.192.78 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This E.P. liner note was written in July/August 1963. At a time when it was commonplace for pop artists to release 4 singles a year. The Beatles had already established that both sides of their singles would be written by Lennon & McCartney. They were also preparing to have their second album of the year released. And based on that first album, which had a mixture of originals and covers - the reasonable calculation could be that Barrow anticipated a similar ratio. 8 originals to 6 covers on the then-standard 14 songs on a UK LP.
Do the math. 1964 thru 1972 is 9 years. 9 years x 4 singles per year = 36 singles. Two songs per single and that is 72 songs. 9 years x 2 albums a year - 18 albums. Say 50% of the 14 songs on each album were by Lennon & McCartney. That would be 18 albums x 7 songs = 126 songs. Assume that - like the recent "PPM" album - some of those 7 or 8 songs per album might be tracks released as singles. Call it 100 album tracks not released as singles. Now we have a total of 72 songs from singles and 100 album tracks. A grand total of 172 songs.
We can speculate that Lennon & McCartney probably exaggerated to Barrow about having 150-200 unreleased songs in their "songbook" as of August 1963. We can speculate that Barrow fabricated the notion. Or it may simply be that there really were a large number of very primitive songs they'd written. The quality of those songs would almost certainly not rival their later songs. But if that contemporary (1963) source was accurate there were 150-200 songs written as of August 1963. Given Lennon and McCartney's references to writing songs in their early days, it is reasonable to assume that there was a degree of prolificacy between July 1957 (when they first met) and July/August 1963 (when Barrow made his assertion.
Confirming that Lennon & McCartney did write multiple songs in the late 1950s - but doubting that it was such a vast number as 150-200 - and actually citing McCartney as having confessed to making exaggerated claims about the number of songs - see this text written by Bill Harry: (Source: http://triumphpc.com/mersey-beat/beatles/lennon-mccartney.shtml)
As I said, I don't think this point is crucial to the article. Make of this info what you will. Davidpatrick ( talk) 05:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Davidpatrick for at least providing something that can be considered sources. Those sources point to issues of quality of songs, and possibly less than 100 songs, but are not persuasive that they didn't write a lot of songs prior to 1960, especially since the Davies book can be considered authoritative. It should have no effect on use of the phrase "prolific writers in the late 1950s and early 1960s" (inclusive of parts of both decades) in the article. And again anon 86, expressing your personal opinions is fine here, but without a reliable source to back up your opinions, they are meaningless in terms of content in the article. I could speculate that I "heard" or "read" from somewhere that I can't remember well enough to cite a source that they wrote a thousand songs in 1958, but that doesn't make it true. Additionally, your claim to be a journalist has no bearing on the content of an article. I could claim to be a schoolmate of John Lennon and personally watched them write hundreds of songs, but that doesn't make it true. Cresix ( talk) 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Provide the serious and reliable evidence besides your opinion that Davies is factually incorrect. An otherwise reliable source is only challenged by another reliable source, not your opinion, that contradicts it. Davidpatrick provided sources that raise some questions, but overall don't challenge the fact that L&M wrote more than a song or two before 1960. You have nothing to challenge Davies except your opinion. Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources, not your opinion. Cresix ( talk) 15:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
We're not talking about what was published, and we're certainly not talking about what was published in the late 50s or early 60s. "Abandoned fragments and unfinished works that never received titles" says nothing about what did get placed into other songs or modified but remained largely complete songs. An example is "One After 909", written in the 50s but not recorded until much later in the 60s; but specific examples are not necessary. We have sources disputing whether it was 50, 100, or more than 100. None of that negates the phrase "prolific writers in the late 1950s and early 1960s", inclusive of parts of both decades; no statements about song quality; no statements about fragments that may or may not have been used later. Thanks for resting your case, because you essentially have no case to change the current wording. Cresix ( talk) 17:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The track-lists and the title seem sufficiently different for this not to be considered a reissue. See here for details.— Aquegg ( talk) 22:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)