Talk:Help!/Archive 1

Archive 1

Album Rating

Why is Piero Scaruffi's rating of the album given under 'proffesional reviews?' From reading some of his work he clearly has some sort of prejudice against the Beatles- and alot of rock and roll music it would appear. Even so, I would hesitate to call this a prefessional review, more like a professional opinion, in which case there are countless writers who would give this album a higher rating. --Miczilla (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Text removed

Removed:

"You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" is a gripping Lennon vocal; "Youre Gonna Lose That Girl" is a spiteful Lennon vocal;

and

His songs seem to be getting better with this album, as compared to the ones he wrote in 1963 and 1964.

Other stuff I left but could use more neutralizing and/or attribution. KQ

Nice addition about the lifeguard. Let's see an article on usage of the word Help! now. KQ

Q magazine review

Excuse me... but doesn't Q magazine give Help 3 stars rather that 5 stars? I'll change it atm anyway... Estel

NJUV?

Is there any significance to the NJUV word, or did the Beatles just not know the proper semaphore positions? I always thought the album cover spelled HELP in semaphore. — JIP | Talk 10:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I read somewhere that they actually tried the positions for spelling HELP during the photo shoot but this other random sequence just ended up looking better. Unfortunately I don't have the source handy. (And a bit of speculation from my part: NJUV actually "looks" more like HELP, especially the U->L) --LodeRunner 23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Samples

I don't know wikipedia's stand on this generally but I am a little concerned about the use of .ogg files in this article (again, i don't know whether this occurs in other articles as well, it is just something I just noticed).

While I am a fan of ogg (am i am sure many other wikipedia contributors are (open-source and all that)) I think using mp3 would be a much better solution. Most computer users (and hence most wikipedia users) are not able to play ogg files (they require an add-on) so in the interests of accessibility I think mp3 should be used.

Any comments, corrections etc are of course welcome. Peteremcc 09:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

MP3 has patent issues and my understanding is that MP3 files are not welcome on Wikipedia as a result. --kingboyk 19:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure many media players will play .ogg files. At least I know Winamp does, and that program is pretty popular among computer users.--Fightingirish 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

beatles help album

my wife and son purchased a copy of help from a vendor on ebay.i question its authenticity because i can find no date on the album itself or the album picture sleeve.the vendor claims that capitol records did not date albums or sleeves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.218.226 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 December 2005 .

No one answered this at the time, and there is no easy way to contact an anonymous editor (based on contribs review this was probably their only contribution), but for future reference this sort of question probably would be better answered at the Wikipedia:reference desk... people don't always watch every article to the level of being able to answer random questions in a timely manner ++Lar: t/c 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I think it would be best to split this page up in Help! (film) and Help! (album) and then turn this into an disambiguation page for those as well as the song and the magazine. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I've demerged the film stuff to Help! (film). The dab idea is alright, I suppose, but there would be lots of links to fix... and I daresay most of them would be about the Beatles, not the magazine. --kingboyk 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done the move now too, and will start creating a dab page and fixing links. --kingboyk 19:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Should both articles be in both the film and album projects? Added The Beatles project. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Added a disambig with 'The Help Album', itself a number one album. Happypoems (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

American release error

The article states that the score includes Ken Thorne's arrangement of Monty Norman's "James Bond Theme." This is incorrect and should be removed. A simple listen to the James Bond Theme followed by the Thorne intro to "Help!" proves that the latter is an original by Thorne, albeit designed to sound similar to the Norman. Rich 03:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'sounding similar' may be the reason Norman got the songwriting credit. Steelbeard1 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't. Norman's name appears nowhere on the U.S. "Help!" album. Rich 04:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "James Bond Theme" reference from the listing, but I see you put it back, Steelbeard. I maintain that it does not belong. While the intrumental intro is clearly designed to sound similar to the James Bond Theme, it is NOT the James Bond Theme, and it was NOT composed by Monty Norman. It is an original piece by Ken Thorne. That's why it isn't listed on the "Help!" soundtrack as the Norman piece. You noted elsewhere that you thought it important to list it as such, but there is no reason to list it as such. Rich 20:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to list something like "Instrumental Intro" and credit it to Thorne, I can see that. Rich 20:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles#Help! (album) American version to develop a consensus. Steelbeard1 23:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This reference in the article had been changed to refer to Thorne's intro as "James Bond-ish," but now I see it has been changed, and is referred to as Ken Thorne's arrangement of the James Bond Theme. I reiterate: this is incorrect. The guitar portion of that intro sounds like a deliberate tip of the hat to the James Bond theme, but it is not The James Bond Theme. It is an original piece by Thorne, and I maintain that it should be noted as such, not as an arrangement by Thorne of an exisiting piece. Thorne's intro has one sequence of five notes in common with the James Bond theme, but they are NOT the same piece of music. Rich 06:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no one over at WikiProject responded, so I'll add my cent-and-a-half here. I go along with Rich. It's obvious, even on a casual listening, the Help! intro is quite distinctive from the Bond theme, despite a general similarity in style. CNJECulver (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the footnote provided on this point is to an album review at AllMusic (which the footnote attributes to William Ruhlmann, though I can't find his name attached at AllMusic) which states "The album began ... with a version of 'The James Bond Theme'". I question whether the review constitutes an appropriately authoritative opinion on the point at hand, viz., whether or not the 16-second instrumental is an arrangement or original composition. It reads to me like it's just off-handedly repeating common hearsay about the track. I'm trying to track down a copy of the album itself to see how it's called there, but I'm relatively certain the album label does not call it the "James Bond Theme", nor, as Rich pointed out above, is Monty Norman listed anywhere in the album credits. CNJECulver (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a query over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard seeking opinions as to whether Ruhlmann constitutes a sufficiently reliable source for the JBT claim. CNJECulver (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The replies on the Reliable Notices board lean away from Ruhlmann's review as an authoritative source. Further, one responder makes the point that calling it the "James Bond Theme" is tantemount to accusing the Beatles of musical plagiarism. I'm going to make the change here to "Uncredited instrumental intro" because there seems to be some question as to whether credit goes to Thorne or to George Martin.CNJECulver (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I see someone (Hiphats) has added the information back in without discusion. I'm going to revert the change because he provided no evidence for the assertion, and since it's pretty obvious that it's not the James Bond theme anyway. CNJECulver (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think CNJECulver stated the case quite well. I see that the track is still mis-attributed on the Wikipedia page (although it appears to be an attempt at compromise), and I guess it will never be properly credited. Rich (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Rich

If the current wording ("Ken Thorne's James Bond Theme instrumental arrangement") is an attempted compromise, it's not much of one. Now it sounds like it's saying Ken Thorne wrote the James Bond Theme. If what it's trying to say is "Ken Thorne's instrumental arrangement of the James Bond Theme", then it's no compromise at all. Oldies.About.Com (which I maintain is at least as authoritative as the single footnote provided in the article) simply calls it a "James Bond-type music parody". I still think Rich's suggestion is the best: "Instrumental introduction by Ken Thorne"; it is no less true, and sticks to what we do know without adding needlessly to it. Until such time as an authoritative source for the JBT attribution can be found, all we know is that it's an instrumental introduction written (presumably) by Ken Thorne. CNJECulver (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

As further reference, here's a link to the real James Bond Theme over at YouTube. A quick listen to both will disavow anyone of the notion that the two compositions are the same. There is a brief (under two seconds) guitar lick five seconds into the Help! intro that uses the same dum-di-di-dum rhythm, but NOT the same melodic content, as the JBT; aside from that, the two have little to nothing in common, nor is Monty Norman credited either on the album label or in the liner notes.

In the five years since the error was first called out, then only supporting evidence that has been offered is an obiter dictum in a music review -- hardly a scholarly citation. I'll wait a couple more months, then make the change myself. CNJECulver (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A further possible error is the reference to an 'orchestral score composed by Ken Thorne and performed by the George Martin Orchestra' (without citation). The score is certainly credited to Ken Thorne, but there is no credit for The George Martin Orchestra (either on the album or in the movie's titles). Moreover, I have not been able to find any varifiable evidence to suggest that the score is actually performed by The George Martin Orchestra. It seems more likely (though, again, I have been unable to uncover any evidence) that the score is performed by an orchestra under the direction of Ken Thorne. When and where it was recorded also remains uncertain. Futurepast63 (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Semaphore discrepensies

George's hands appear to be halfway between the N and R positions, maybe this should be added to the article. Also, it's possible that Ringo is signaling a D. Finally, the LPUS comment is wrong as George's arms are at exactly the same height. An S would have the right arm dropped to a 7 o'clock position. BocoROTH 03:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I second the opinion about George's arms position. Having done some semaphoring during my naval career I'd interpret it as an R. --134.102.123.211 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics Links

The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 03:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Album Cover Section

I don't understand how the semaphore can spell out "NJUV," but could also be "LPUS," according to the first section, which later goes on to say the semaphore doesn't say anything at all. Which is it?

Instrumentation and personnel

I complete the instrumentation and personnel section, and someone told me thats vandalism. I dont know why. Is accurate information. You can check it listen the album, reading the informaton on it and reading the book by Mark Lewishon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to add your sources in as a reference. "Listing to the album", however, is original research and not permitted. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dizzy Miss Lizz: -y / -ie?

Now, on the album, it has printed "Dizzy Miss Lizzie" as the last track. However, upon opening the disc in iTunes, it appears to be "Dizzy Miss Lizzy." Well, which is right? The actual album? Or iTunes? Elfred (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, always NOT iTunes! It's Dizzy Miss Lizzie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.116.57 (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

scaruffi

he's no longer on the professional list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, so we can kick his review out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.255.43 (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres

Infobox is starting to get overloaded. I don't think folk rock should be there because none of the tracks are folk music with rock instrumentation. I don't think baroque pop should be there because that is typifying the album by one track which, if taken to its extreme on The Beatles (album) would imply multiple genres; however, that album has only one: rock music. I propose that we do what we do for most Beatles albums and go with just pop music and rock music. That avoids the issue of whether baroque pop is actually a genre (it isn't, it's a sub-genre, or style). Too much info in the infobox isn't a good idea. Rodhullandemu 12:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell Me What You See

Regarding recent amendments and reversions to the lead vocalist for "Tell Me What You See", I have a book which states "Written by Paul who shares lead vocals with John. Paul plays electric piano."

• Stannard, Neville (1983) [1982]. Tobler, John (ed.). The Long and Winding Road: A History of The Beatles on Record (2nd ed.). London: Virgin Books. p. 33. ISBN 0 907080 96 0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Genres again

There's been an ongoing issue regarding the number of genres in the infobox. Just about every song on the album falls into rock or a subgenre of rock, such as pop rock or folk rock, thus I propose that simply rock be included in the infobox. Would anyone object to this? --John of Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No objection here - great idea. It removes pointless clutter, and it's not like anybody is going to be confused ("Gosh, I thought 'Ticket to Ride' was pop rock, but the genre says only Rock?!?!") - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rejected songs

Just looking at this section, the first two sentences need some editing. The first sentence: "A few songs that were intended for the film were not used because of The Beatles' suggestions." What exactly does the bit "because of The Beatles' suggestions" mean? Does it actually add anything to the sentence.

Then the second sentence: "Lennon and McCartney wrote "If You've Got Trouble" for Ringo Starr to sing, but the song was rejected and Starr sang "Act Naturally" instead." AFAIK, "Act Naturally" doesn't appear in the film. Should the sentence be rewritten: "Lennon and McCartney wrote "If You've Got Trouble" for Ringo Starr to sing in the film, but the song was rejected; on the album Starr sang "Act Naturally" instead."? Alfietucker (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ninth or Tenth American album?

The article can't decide whether Help! was The Beatles' "ninth" (see lede) or "tenth overall" US album (see "North American Release"). Can some Beatles fan/scholar/editor fix this? Alfietucker (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! The North American version was the tenth album by the band released on the continent of North America, but only the ninth released in the United States of America. Their first North American release, Beatlemania! With The Beatles, was a Canada-only album. I'll fix it. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 00:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)