Talk:If I Fell

Fair use rationale for Image:04 And I Love Her.jpg

Image:04 And I Love Her.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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Higher Standards Needed

Is there a way of preventing musically illiterate contributors to edit articles related to music ? There is nothing "unusual" about a 9th chord and the "unrepeated introduction" is an ode to Broadway musicals and early 20th century pop songwriting in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.217.41 (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Intro

First of all, I'm not sure the intro of this song is so very "unusual", as the article states, though it is notable. But prior to the advent of pop/rock, many songs had these unrelated/unrepeated introductions. It would be called the "verse", while what we now call a "verse" would be called something else. In the days when published sheet music was on an equal footing with recordings, the "verse" would be marked as optional! Paul McCartney has talked about this in relation to "Here, There, and Everywhere", which, you'll notice, has this very same feature. It's not even that unusual for the intro/"verse" to be in a different key. I would say, no offense to the author of this article, but one needs to listen to older music, other than pop, to fully understand how The Beatles developed. They spent a lot of time in the Hamburg clubs playing old oldies, what were considered "oldies" in 1963. If you become familar with this old material, certain things about The Beatles will seem less innovative (though no less enjoyable).
Secondly, I don't think it's particularly worthwhile to describe the intro as "a series of descending barre chords". That's only applicable to the guitar -- it's not a musical observation, it's a practical matter. They're only barre chords because no open chords exist for chords like Ebm or Bbm9. Let's not make it out like this is further evidence of Lennon's genius.
Third, what on Earth is "unusual" about a D ninth? Again, it's only unusual if you only listen to rock. A ninth chord is common as dirt outside of rock music. I would think the G minor sixth might be more notable (there is a Gm6, isn't there? I know it's a Gm of some sort.) You wanna talk about "unusual" chords, check out whatever Brian Wilson was doing at the time. Or maybe Burt Bacharach.
Fourth, I just wanted to comment that I've never heard anything but the version in which Paul's harmony vocal cracks all to hell (on "... was in vain"). There's a better version, but the stations don't play it? How absolutely rotten of them. It's that old stereo vs mono thing again, isn't it? Part of the reason I'm not more of a Beatles fan than I am is how wretched and tacky their stereo albums sound up 'til Sgt. Pepper (and when I was a kid, in the pre-CD era, you couldn't find the UK mono editions!) I'm afraid this comment doesn't help the article any, however. Thanks for reading.
--63.25.4.206 (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Great comment. We need editors like you! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Not musical enough to argue (or not) with the above, but I do have to argue about release dates. According to Wikipedia, the HDN soundtrack on United Artists came out in the U.S. about a month before Something New. So when the lede states the song was first released on Something New, that is incorrect. That may have been it's debut on Capitol Recirds, but it was not its debut in the U.S.--Daveler16 (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

So I fixed the lede to reflect the inclusion of the song on the (pre-Something New) U.S. Hard Days Night LP.

Also, re-read the above and DID find a couple of things I can comment on. First: yeas, older songs had a "verse" similar to the intro of "If I Fell"; and yes, they were optional. But the intro to "If I Fell" is NOT optional, but is an integral part of the song. Hence, not a "verse" in the classic sense. Second: since the intro is played exclusively on acoustic guitar, noting that it consists of descending bar chords is totally appropriate. IMHO.--Daveler16 (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Who wrote it?

The recent change to authorship that I reverted today included quotes that were unsourced but also unverifiable statements like "this song has always been credited solely to John Lennon." By who?

In addition, Lennon's quotes from his 1980 Playboy interview don't explicitly say that he was the sole author and that McCartney had no role. The existence of a recording where Lennon sang a part McCartney sang on the released version doesn't prove anything and was unsourced.

Changing the article to reflect sole authorship requires a stronger case than was presented in the two edits I reverted. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! I was the one who proposed the aformentioned text about the song's authoship. First of all, I congratulate the person(s) who wrote the article for its detail and clarity. I perfectly understand the reasons given to revert the text. Having said that, I consider that the existence of a demo tape of John singing the song is worthy of mention in the article; if not necessarily as to prove or even hint about its authorship.

Also, Paul's contribution to the song is taken as fact based primarily on what McCartney himself told author Barry Miles for the book "Many Years From Now". It would have been great to have his recollections and observations about each of the Lennon/McCartney songs in the '70s, every time Lennon went through that catalog in interviews (just as Paul disagreed to John's comments about "In My Life" in 1980); and not just his word about the song credits many years after his partner's death. All in all, the real collaboration between John and Paul in many of the Beatles catalog is still a matter of speculation or debate.

Pizzarello (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lennon and McCartney were partners who held working sessions to write songs--including songs primarily written by one or the other--until at least 1967. We have no reason to doubt McCartney's word, and various Lennon interviews prior to his death do not differ significantly from what McCartney has said since. All that aside, you need to present evidence or leave it as is. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, also because it sounds more like Paul than John. I find it hard to believe that Paul had nothing to do with the melody or the harmony. Anyway, right now it says "It was written by John Lennon[2], but credited to Lennon–McCartney" while [2] refers to a source (Miles) which states that the song was co-written... so something needs to be changed either way. Trilliane (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It is remarkable to me that Paul McCartney's contribution to the song's authorship is totally ignored in the actual entry. It's not like McCartney claimed the lion's share of authorship in the Mile's book. On the contrary, in claiming to have contributed to the song's authorship, he gave much credit to John. This sounds like a Lennon-McCartney collaboration. Give credit where it is due! Walter Crump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.34.161 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like McCartney's claim is wrong... again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y42Q9vG50A . The instrumentation is different, but that's it. Naughty, naughty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomazooma (talk • contribs) 22:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

McCartney is a credited writer of the song yet this article suggest he didn't have an actual role in this song's writing. Accordingly, his recollections as to authorship as well as those of John Lennon should be included. Who the hell do people think they are when they attempt to censor a credited author of a work as to his or her recollection of how it was written? What arrogance. Both McCartney's and Lennon's recollections should be included and people can draw their own conclusions as to each person's contribution. Accordingly, the following statements of McCartney should be referenced:

"People tend to forget that John wrote some pretty nice ballads. People tend to think of him as an acerbic wit and aggressive and abrasive, but he did have a very warm side to him really which he didn’t like to show too much in case he got rejected. We wrote If I Fell together but with the emphasis on John because he sang it. It was a nice harmony number, very much a ballad." Paul McCartney Many Years From Now, Barry Miles

"I was a big fan of the preamble in my early days, which you find in lots of ’50s songs. A first verse that goes: ‘I was living in Kentucky when I did, did, did and I dud-dud-dud, and then I said…’ [breathes in deeply]… then you break into the bit of the song you want everyone to know. One song I wrote a little after Please Please Me was my best attempt at a preamble: If I Fell. [Sings] ‘If I fell in love with you, would you promise to be truuue…’ Then after the line, ‘just holding hands’, the song properly gets going. [Raises voice] That’s it, everyone!" Paul McCartney Q Magazine, May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.34.161 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head (1997 2nd edition) pp.98-99 says the song was composed by Lennon as one of his first ballads, and a conscious attempt to appeal to teenage fans at the peak of Beatlemania. He notes that early ballads were primarily Lennon compositions, whereas a casual fan might have expected McCartney to write them. The reason I favour MacDonald's second (1997) edition over the third (2005) is because later editions change the POV based on Miles' book, and are published posthumously - though for straight facts there seems to be little difference between the two. Miles itself is a reasonable source to use, but the pro-McCartney POV on it is deafening, so if he says "Paul did 'x' and John did 'y'", I'd be highly suspicious without a second source to back it up. Like any human being, McCartney has a point of view - ask him about the female choir on "The Long and Winding Road" (and then run away). This is why articles require coverage over multiple sources, as it helps neutralise the opinions of the authors. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Music Man

None of the “experts” here mention the fact that this song was written by Meredith Wilson in 1957. It’s from the Broadway show “The Music Man”. JimFBowmn (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

you are talking about some other song, probably "Till There Was You". If I Fell was an original David Couch (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Needs more about the yes, unusual, music

I came to this Wikipedia article specifically to read about whatI would call “the unusual harmonies in this song”. Found: Nothing. Then I see a couple of sections here in the talk pages decrying the musical ignorance of editors who think the harmonies are unusual, and denigrating the sophistication of those who think it original of the Beatles to write in such a way. Imitating old pop songs and techniques from musicals. Well I’m a little irked, I admit. The Beatles were musically illiterate. If they were able to copy old pop song techniques, in their exploring, it’s worth noting! Like “This Boy”, this “rock ‘n’ roll” ballad of that time was a little unusual. Let’s read about that! If as one (anti-editor) editor said, the intro harmonies or the 9th chord referred back to old pop music and old musicals before the rock era, that is NOTABLE and was (I repeat, sorry) rather unusual. Having a 9th chord is utterly common in jazz and in “standards“ and in SOME rhythm and blues music, but not as common in a lot of blues-based R&R. So it’s worth noting that this is not your usual 1-4-5 that so many rock ‘n’ roll songs used. Its not Donna or Peggy Sue. Someone should put back in — or add in — some discussion about the harmonic approach that this song takes, with its 9th chord, minor 4th, chromatic accents and descents, and especially the intro (which i gather is likely the part Paul wrote). If nobody else writes about the music, then I will. David Couch (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)