Talk:The Beatles/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about The Beatles. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Cleanup

Yes, I am the person who put on the Cleanup. I believe that the article uses language that implies that they were the best band of the sixties. Eg. "critical acclaim perhaps unequaled in the 20th century". I also think that the front section before the contents is far too long, and the section on Beatlemania could be moved or even given a new article. Also, the sections deal too heavily with "trimmings" of articles. I believe that more technical information about the music would be useful. Sorry to all who may be offended by my opinions on this page. Remember that these are only suggestions on how to make this page better.,=

I totally agree on the hyperbole aspect. Take a look even at the opening paragraph for example: "no other artists can claim to have achieved such popular success, critical acclaim and broad cultural influence." Uhhhh... Beethoven? Mozart? Bach? Brahms? Wagner? Over 800 years of classical music? Not one artist who can compare to The Beatles in terms of popular success, critical acclaim and broad cultural influence? Surely The Beatles were destined to be beaten in all these categories before they even set foot in a studio? Then take a look at a couple of other genres: Miles Davis, Robert Johnson - are neither of these men comparable to The Beatles in the stated categories? It's absolutely typical for Beatles fans to completely dismiss important musical artists like this, and this example is one hundred percent in keeping with the tone of not only the entire article, but with all related Beatles articles on this site. It's just stubborn and totally ignorant Beatles-worshipping trite: know your stuff before you start spewing 'facts' like this. -- WAM

Photos

There are two things about this page that immediately strike me. First of all there are no pictures of The Beatles together as a group, and secondly, the photo of John Lennon just doesn't do him justice. If I get enough time then I'll make some extensive changes.

ChicXulub 12:33, 25 Mar 2004 people hate you because they hate you for know reson

Repetition

The Beatles are among the most influential popular music artists of modern times, affecting the culture of Britain and America, the postwar baby boom generation, and the entire English-speaking world, especially during the 1960s and early 1970s. Certainly they're the most successful, with global sales exceeding 1.3 billion albums (as of 2004). Their influences on popular culture extended far beyond their roles as recording artists, as they branched out into film and even semi-willingly became spokesmen for their generation. The members of the group were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr (Richard Starkey), all from Liverpool, England. The effect of the Beatles on Western culture (and by extension) on the rest of the world has been immeasurable.

I'm not about to go in and completely rewrite this opening paragraph, but there are some comments I thought might be worth considering:

The best way to convey that X is true is to provide evidence and examples of why X is true. This is much more effective than simply saying, "X is true." The opening paragraph repeats itself many times by saying the Beatles are influential or affected culture, etc., but really doesn't say WHY or HOW, (beyond commercial success, and some ventures into film and spokesmanship). It should be enough to say "The Beatles are among the most influential popular music artists of modern times [although I don't like this phrase, since 'modern' is time-specific]" and then instead of repeating this claim, tell us why. "The Beatles affected the culture of Britain and America, the postwar baby boom generation, and the entire English-speaking world, esp. during the 60s and 70s" takes up a lot of verbal space, but really expresses almost nothing. Instead of having this sentence, it would be better to have a sentence that spells out the specific reasons why the Beatles were influential in the English-speaking world, and specifically what ways they affected the culture. If you do this, then the sentence that you replaced is no longer missing, because the reader will infer it from the evidence and information you've just given. This is just a specific instance of a general rule that's it's better to tell someone why you believe a claim is true, instead of repeating it many times.

As I said, I'm not going to go in and do a complete rewrite, or even partial, because the paragraph that's there has developed over a long period of time from many people. So, I just want to make these comments on the talk page.

Revolver 02:58, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I decided to dive in and try to re-write the introduction, because I'm afraid it had the look of something written by a lot of people, with the seams on a lot of the patches showing. My goal wasn't to change it (much), but to eliminate redundancies and get it to flow a little better. My apologies if it seems like I've over done it. (I was really trying not to gush about it, but the Beatles really were a pretty extreme phenomena that's not easy to describe accurately without a bunch of superlatives...) -- Doom 08:06, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Instruments

Is there a list of instruments that each member played? I have been looking all over for one and haven't found any yet. HELP, I'm interested! User: ClareS

The answers you need are in an awesome book [1] , which lays out who plays what on each track, and gives terrific analysis and insight. Kingturtle 21:49 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
But you could basically say John-rhythm guitar; Paul-bass guitar; George-lead guitar; and Ringo-drums. I believe there are some sites that offer details on every single individual guitar and such...or at least there used to be. --Lora 21:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John also plays bass in "Back in the USSR", "Hey Jude" and "The Long and Winding Road," in which, if you listen closely, you can hear a few mistakes. You can even hear McCartney smile at him in one moment.

My hearing's never been that good... :) CaseyBennetto 13:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can hear him smile because he sings at the moment, so you can hear slight shift in his voice. I would never notice this trivia but I remember to read it in some book than checked it out and I must say it is true. But as I now checked it again I must say it is not notable enough so I will remove the mention from wiki. If anyone interested the exact moment in song is 2:59 i believe --Josef Sábl cz 08:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you're interested in what instruments The Beatles played (including what models of guitars, keyboards, etc.), check "The Book of Beatles Lists." I don't remember the author, but it did start with an "R". I've found a lot of interesting facts.

Splitting?

"....the band was on the verge of splitting by the release of [/The White Album]?, with many tracks recorded by the band members individually." This was not the way I remember it described in a biography I read of John Lennon, or in a book I skimmed through which had the lyrics in English on one page and in Spanish on the opposite page, with bits of trivia scattered throughout. Each of those said that by that time, most of the tracks were recorded with two of the four, and none of them with only Lennon and McCartney. The biography said that Lennon and McCartney did record together, along with George and Ringo, when Eric Clapton came in to perform lead guitar for "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"--the other Beatles weren't taking the song seriously, and Harrison brought Clapton in so they'd shape up. (Clapton performed a similar trick for The Cream's "Badge.") This avoidance of each other was continued through the rest of the recording, but by the time of Abbey Road it was done by each member recording his part individually and the bits being tracked together at the end. Anyway I would just put all this in the main entry except I can't find those two books to verify (I read them in 1994). If someone else can (or can verify by some other source), then by all means go ahead. --KQ

Even if they did record together for the White Album, there is a definite sense that the album is musically disconnected, in the sense that you can tell which songs are "John's", "Paul's", etc. in the sense of songwriting. There doesn't seem to be any coherent connection between songs, they're kind of slapped together in a random order and called an "album" but the cohesion of the songs as a collective isn't really present as in previous albums. I know that Lennon said as much along these lines, although I can't remember where I read the quote.

Bigger than Jesus

What was the quote John Lennon's about Jesus? I'm pretty sure it was "bigger than Jesus," not "more popular." I can't track it down, however.... -- PaulDrye

It was "more popular" but a paper wrote "Lennon says Beatles bigger than Jesus".Ericd 00:07 Sep 7, 2002 (UCT)

Taken way the hell out of context, I might add. -- goatasaur

Wouldn't you think calling the disciples thick and ordinary would be more offensive? I guess I'll never understand what sets fundamentalists off. Kingturtle 22:37 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)

The full quote is:
Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that, I'm right and will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus Christ now. I don't know which will go first, rock n roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary. Its them twisting it that ruins it for me. (London Evening Standard, March 4, 1966) GWO

Mono and stereo?

"Also note: The early Beatles albums were originally released as monaural recordings. They were later remastered as artificial stereo with vocals on one side and music on the other side, much to the disgust of fans. The CD's of those early albums restored the original mono."

--None of mine did, including Sgt Pepper's and Abbey Road; I had them all except Beatles for Sale and The Yellow Submarine, but I bought them in the early 90s so the mastering on them may have changed. It wasn't obvious when listening to them on a small CD player, but it was on one with the speakers on separate sides of the room. I'm not sure I felt disgust so much as incomprehension.

Listening to "Baby you can drive my car" off Rubber Soul now, I hear Paul, rhythm guitar, the bass, and the drum set and tambourines (but not the cowbell) on the left, and John, George, piano, a cowbell, and lead guitar on the right. Oh, and the bass is on the right too, but not nearly as loudly as on the left.

Rubber Soul was recorded in stereo, and I don't count it as an early album

Rubber Soul is generally considered as "the bridge" between their earlier and later periods... Wyss 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd count it as an early album. Anything before they progressed to Sgt. Pepper. A view seemed to be shared by The Beatles and EMI, as their early album of hit's covers 1962-1966 and their later album covers from 1967, Pepper onwards.

"I'm looking through you" has rhythm guitar, Paul's lower registers on vocals, drums, tambourines, and bass on the left; Paul's higher registers and John are on the right, as well as the handclaps and lead guitar; the bass is there too but not loudly. So but since maybe you don't consider Rubber Soul an early album (and certainly no one thinks Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road are), I've put on Please Please Me. I'm seeing the same thing there but to a much lesser extent; it's still the case that it's in artificial stereo: the lower registers are on the left; the higher are on the right, though it's not as dramatic as on the other, with certain instruments only being on one side. I think that statement about restoration to mono should be greatly qualified. That is, it is the case that at least some early printings of the CDs had the grievously artificial stereo, and that after complaint it was reduced to a moderately bad stereo. Maybe that's what you meant all along? --KQ

I can't speak for other countries, but the UK CDs are now actual, genuine mono. Maybe elsewhere they still use the reprocessed masters GWO

Do you consider Help! an early one? "It's Only Love" has the bass on the left but not the right and the lead guitar on the right but not the left. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand. Maybe I should leave the revision of it in your hands; I'm becoming a bit confused about how to phrase it both accurately and concisely. --Koyaanis Qatsi

The Beatles were not digitally remastered as in was made for a lot of late seventies/early eighty record that were in fact totally remixed (and sometime did not sound really better than the ealy ones IMHO). The main reason is that there is not much to remix on a album like Sgt Peppers the premaster tapes 3 or 4 tracks not more even if the Beatles (and George Martin) did a lot of takes they assembled it with re-recording and cut and paste there is no way back possible on this work. It's to notice that the analogue studio recorder evolved very fast from 3/4 tracks to 24/48 in the 1970s in relationship with the developpement of hi-fi market and the trend of the bands to record albums with more and more studio work.

My vinyls of the Beatles are mainly stereo. There were buyed in middle seventies at this time all the Beatles records sold in France were stereo. In fact most of the vinyl were issued in mono version and stereo version please have look at http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/kirkland/266/btls/uk/uklp.htm It was before "stereo compatible" records I mean stereo records that could also be played in mono (if someone know much about stereo compatible vs stereo incomptaible vinyl can he write an article this question is still a bit obscure for me). I never heard a original mono LP (or maybe twenty years ago on a poor turntable. Some experts say there is a significative difference between the mono record and the stereo record played in mono. I can't say more about it as I don't what was exactly done to issue the 2 versions. Some say the mono is much better, I have no personal advice about it. Ericd 18:39 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

The first four albums ("Please Please Me", "With The Beatles", "A Hard Days Night", and "Rubber Soul") were all originally mixed in mono. Stereo phonographs were not common in England at the time. The "stereo" mixes of these first four were created very quickly from the original mono mixes, as an after thought, for the US audience primarily (possibly other countries too). After these first four albums, the Beatles mixed each album in stereo first - then created an easy mono mix for mono releases.

The CDs of the first four albums, released by Capital/EMI, are all mono, because the CDs are modeled after the original UK versions of each album - which are the albums the way the Beatles intended them to be. (Aside from being fake stereo, the American releases had mixed up track listings, alternate titles, etc). For this reason, Capital has never officially released the first four albums in stereo on CD. There are japanese bootlegs of the first four albums out there - that look and sound official - that include the original US fake stereo mix. But, so far, Capital/EMI has not realsed them that way. jazz77

Not sure when the above was written, and I agree with the general gist, but the last statement is no longer true: [2] . . . and I'm also not sure about the statement about mixed in stereo first, then "an easy mono mix"; several histories indicate that right through Sgt. Pepper, the main effort was in the mono mix with the stereo mix left as a quick afterthought. Jgm 11:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've consistently read that everything through Pepper was mixed in mono first (and contrary to the above, mono mixing is anything but "easy"). Wyss 17:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Missing content?

This article doesn't mention much about the actual music and why it was such a popular and critical success. A few comments on the Beatles' charismatic nature (particularly on television), "Beatlemania", their innovative videoclips would be good. Not to mention, of course, their catchy early material (compare "Please Please Me" to other stuff in the pop charts at the time) and the musical experimentation (particularly their use of non-conventional rock instruments and studio trickery with the help of George Martin) of their later works. What do people think?

Add it all in. :-) --KQ

Echoes?

I changed the following sentence: "(a largely accidental echo of later boy bands in which members were selected for their ability to project a particular personality and image),"
1: any "echo" of something that comes later will be entirely accidental, not largely so.
2: you can't "echo" something that comes later, only something that came before.

Cultural and musical signifigance

I added some paragraphs in an attempt to explain the cultural and musical significance of the Beatles. If someone thinks I am giving too much credit to them for some of the changes that I attributed to them, they can offer a correction, but I felt like the Beatles had a great significance that needed some exposition.

No, from my (admittedly historical, I wasn't there at the time) perspective, I think you make some good points. However, they were by no means the first self-contained rock band. Perhaps their example established it as the norm, though. --Robert Merkel

Spelling

I'm fairly sure they were initially "The Silver Beetles". I'm not sure if the change in spelling coincided with the shortening of the name. I also heard it was one of Lennon's quirks. Tarquin

Why must we link to the Monkees? -Tubby

According to the "Anthology".. the guys say they were originally "The Be(a/e)tles" (named after the Crickets, etc). They had to change it for a gig - John wanted "Long John and the Silver Be(e/a)tles".. The others didn't like it, so they shortened it to just Silver Be(e/a)tles - then there's a quote about "doing anything for a gig", which gives the impression that they weren't using the name exclusively. I've heard other variations on the name for that time period too.. I forget what they were at the moment. Good question about the Monkees... it would make sense to link the Beatles from the Monkees page, but not the other way around - since the Monkees were a copy of the Beatles. -- jazz77

It should be possible to mention the Monkees somewhere in the "Influences" section. Then we can delete the odd-looking "see also" at the end of the article. --Camembert

Yes please. Also, I've heard it said that John had a dream in which a man on a flaming pie told him to put the 'a' in Beetles. He woke up and insisted. -Tubby

that was a joke story John told to reporters... Yoko thought it actually

happened. The other Beatles didn't. -jazz77

Rock and roll was called beat music in England at the time, thus Crickets>beat music>Beatles. Probably went over Yoko's head. Ortolan88

There already is a link to the monkees in the body, so i'm nixing the see also link. Good riddance. -Tubby

They do appear

Yellow Submarine (animated film, artwork by Peter Max, featuring songs by the Beatles but with dialogue voiced by actors)

The Beatles themselves do appear at the end of the film, and look quite unhappy about it. Even Ringo looks a bit glum. 'ey, I've a hole in me pocket. KQ

where's the other half? :-)

Weak points

IMHO there is 2 major weak points in this article : - no reference to Brian Epstein death, - the word "Beatlemania" doesn't appear in the article. Ericd

Nonsense

"Born from a four-headed billy goat"? Peeps? The nonsense some people write! Arno 07:21 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Missing years

1971-1979 seems to be missing. Surely something of interest happened after the release of Let it Be and before John Lennon's death? Dominus 04:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC) Dominus 04:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Beatles song list?

Is there no listing of beatles songs somewhere? Usually Wikipedia has the most useful of list articles for different things, some fan here want to help edit one? I created the link... The_Beatles_song_list to start. --ShaunMacPherson 12:24, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jerryb's edit

rv to last edit by TUF-KAT. If any of jerryb's stuff was meant to be usable it's a pity, but given that he or she was messing around with the joke stuff about the Rutles it's easier to just revert the whole lot. If you use an article as your personal playground and joke book it badly diminishes your credibility when trying to add serious data - people do not have time to sort your amusing pranks out from real life. So, it;s all reverted. Try again with a more serious attitude perhaps? 82.35.17.203 07:41, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

i agree with ChicXulub......

what ChicXulub said was right...there are no pictures of the beatles together! so, how about this picture?

File:The Beatles.bmp

it would also be great if you COULD rewrite the page ChicXulub. ok, i gotta go.

--Libra girl 00:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't have anything to comment about the portrayal of the Beatles therein, but:

BMPs are very large. Perhaps you could upload a JPEG version of the image? The quality lost is very minimal.
Is that image in the public domain? If not, is it copyrighted? If it's copyrighted, are we allowed to claim usage of it as fair use? We're in trouble as it is with one particular album cover that posed enough problems for the Beatles' record label. I'm not too sure if using even more copyrighted images would be such a good idea.

Just some thoughts. Johnleemk 14:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

History Split-off

Just FYI, to cut down the article size, I've split off much of the history from this article and put it at History of the Beatles. Johnleemk 08:20, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

-Wouldn't "The Studio Years" or "The Psychedelic Years" or "The Later Years" or something be more appropriate for the last of the three history headlines than "The Beginning of the End"? Seems kinda strange to just jump from Beatlemania straight to the collapse of the band. Just a thought, great work on the History of the Beatles article. -Cyopardi

Well, then use your own judgement. Be bold. ;-) Johnleemk 13:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Rollback

I rolled back the most recent set of changes because they were highly POV. Rick K 04:49, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)

Removed U2 Comment

Someone dropped in: Certainly they are one of the most successful, with global sales exceeding 1.3 billion albums (as of 2004), however the wildly popular-Irish band, U2 has proven to only recently supercede their global popularity. I don't know about you, but I fail to see the relevance of this. We don't comment that Madonna has outsold Frank Sinatra in his article. Johnleemk | Talk 09:49, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

U2 haven't sold more records than The Beatles anyway.

Something I'm noticing that is missing is a proto-Beatles album, In The Beginning by Tony Sheridan and The Beatles. Though not a part of the "official" discography, it merits mention as the first recording to feature The Beatles as a band. However, I don't know enough about the album to include it on the main page. If somebody could include some discussion of this part of the early stage of the band's performance, it would be nice.

"The Beatles" or "the Beatles"?

Recently people have been changing "the Beatles" to "The Beatles" and back again. What should they be called in the article? Let's get a consensus now to avoid wasting everyone's time with these trivial changes. Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The title should be "The Beatles", and the T should be capitalized if it begins a sentence, but not in other places. For example: "The Beatles made great music." and "Lenin never liked the Beatles." -- ke4roh 19:49, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC) (whose mother taught English for 30+ years)

It should be 'The Beatles' because the definite article is part of the name. Imagine for a moment that they were called The Beetles. There is then a distinct difference between the sentences "Lenin never liked the beetles." and "Lenin never liked The Beetles.". If they were simple 'Beetles' rather than The Beetles then it would be "Lenin never liked the Beetles." Mintguy (T)

The Beatles deserve every capital letter they can get. I would vote for "THE BEATLES!!!". :-) I have always seen "The" written with a capital T, "t" looks pretty strange to me. It is a part of the name, as Mintguy write, I totally agree. -- Sunny256 2004-06-28T18:46Z

Do you say "I'm going to visit the Sudan" or "I'm going to visit The Sudan?" -- ke4roh 23:27, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

But the official name of band is The Beatles, official name of country is just Sudan.

I belive the proper way is 'the Beatles,' unless it begins a sentence. The 'the' is generally included because it is a part of the name, but it need not be capitalized. (Consider a band like "Cake", you do not even put a "the" in front, because it is not part of the name). —siro χ o 18:49, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

The alternative to using capital "T" for "the", would be to always use italics. Consider The Who. Mintguy (T) 19:21, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The" is part of their name, though. There is no question to that. The t should always be capitalized in my opinion. Their albums were titled "The Beatles" as the artist. I agree that "the Beatles" looks silly. Slugmaster 23:21, 10 Nov 2004

Redundant intro

The following text (it is below the members' photographs) seems to be repeating information expressed earlier:

Originally a high-energy pop band (typified by the early singles "Twist and Shout" and "Please Please Me"), the Beatles, as they progressed, modified their style, influenced by Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, Goffin and King, and the pop-music world in general. Their popularity, very high in the UK after their return from Hamburg, Germany (where they played long hours, added muscle to their delivery, and honed their sound) was aided by their attractive looks, distinctive personalities, and natural charisma; they came across particularly well on television, as evidenced by their thunderous reception when they appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show and others.

I hope someone can edit it, merge it, or something. Thanks.

--Cantus 09:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Captions

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Writing Captions for why I am adding captions to this page and rolling back Cantus' last edit. And btw, I think having all the pictures in a table like that makes the rest of the page look sparse. Of course, the version I'm reverting to is little better, but captions are good. Can somebody else give an opinion? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 11:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of having captions for each Beatle, and spacing the pictures out. At the moment I've moved the stamp to the top—an introductory picture for the beatles. However if someone is able to find a fair use picture of all four together as YOUNG beatles (Ed Sullivan era), that would be the best intro picture, as there would be pictures of them as young popstars and older artists. Then we can find a better place for the stamp, and add in the stamps caption again. Also, If we space out the members pictures I think they should alternate sides, or all stay on one side (rather than 3 and 1), for continuity of the page. A few more tweaks and we'll work this out. —siro χ o 07:29, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Found a pic of them on ed sullivan, and put that at the start. —siro χ o 08:09, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Is it true?

I have received the following two info sometimes ago. Just curious to know, if it is true or hoax. TIA. --Rrjanbiah 07:48, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In 1962, four nervous young musicians played their first record audition for the executives of the Decca recording Company. The executives were not impressed. While turning down this group of musicians, one executive said, "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out." The group was called The Beatles.
Beatle is devil worshippers. The since 1969 in Hotel California song refers the year they started devil worshipping.

The first is true. The second...I have absolutely no idea. Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. --Rrjanbiah 05:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Hotel California" is by The Eagles and it is indeed alleged that the song has references to Satan and also that the band members were part of a Satanic cult. No idea about any such allegations against The Beatles. Chancemill 16:54, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was confused. However, I did find some reference that The Eagles are *not* devil worshippers [3] and The Beatles is freemasons. --Rrjanbiah 05:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some things too complicated to fix by simple editing

Concerning the following sentence: "The Beatles, as they progressed, modified their style, influenced by Bob Dylan, Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, Goffin and King, and the pop-music world in general.": This is almost completely backwards. I'm willing to acknowledge that the Beatles were influenced to some degree by Dylan during the mid 1960s. However, the influence of Chuck Berry, the Everly Brothers, and Goffin and King (plus Buddy Holly, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, Smokey Robinson, Elvis, Wilson Pickett, Fats Domino, Ricky Nelson, Bo Diddley, et al.) came from the beginning of their careers, not the middle or the end. They grew up on a steady diet of rock and roll, soul, country, and other various styles of music, both popular and obscure, and spent most of their early years covering other people's songs in their act. You can get a sense of what that was like by listening to "The Beatles at the BBC"--most of their live radio performances, and perfomances recorded solely for broadcast, revisited their eariest favorites. "Progressing" for the Beatles was not a matter of modifying their style by borrowing from others, it was a matter of modifying their style away from early influences and toward something uniquely theirs.

Another point: the article suggests that the adoption of the name "Beatles" coincided with obtaining their recording contract, whereas they had been the Beatles for several years by that time. By the way, capitalizing "The" in their name is a marketing trick, not a grammatical inevitability. Also by the way, someone referred to "The" Cream! Yikes! Just "Cream" please (no sugar).

Part of the problem is that most of the people old enough to know anything about the Beatles are not geek enough to find their way into these discussions.

Well, actually, I kinda resent that. I was never alive when the Beatles were active, but I never put anything like the above idiocies into my early drafts of this article. (Which has got considerably worse over time). Ho hum GWO 10:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No offense to anyone who cares about the Beatles. I am willing to admit that most of the trivia I have in my head was gained through reading long after the breakup of the group. In the 1960s, I knew very little except the music itself. I had never heard most of the people who influenced the Beatles. erorie 13:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When I got my first Beatles album, there was only one available in the United States. It took me many years to find out that the real albums were not the ones I had been listening to. I still hate the fact that I have a hard time remembering which songs are on which official album and in what order...that is, until Sgt. Pepper, of which I bought my first copy at K-Mart in 1967 (mono). That's when Capitol realized they could no longer get away with canibalizing the albums. But the Capitol records were also lower quality than the Parlophone discs. I never heard the bongos on "You're Going To Lose That Girl" until I got my hands on the British LP.

erorie 19:44, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since youv'e explained it here, try fixing the influence sentence to your lieking and put (see talk) in the edit summary. God points though. —siro χ o 20:59, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Well,maybe. I am a little unsure of this process at the moment, but maybe I will try when I get a small block of time. Somethng else I might try to do, which would be easier, isto add to the further reading list. There are a number of really good books about the Beatles. The ones in the list so far may be fine, but I have never seen them. The more obvious choices are missing from the list. I don't have the info in front of me right now. erorie 13:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see now that the paragraph on influence has been revised, and it is much closer to reality now. erorie 13:53, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1.3 Billion

It's Elvis that has sold 1.3 billion records world wide, The Beatles have sold 1.1 billion, MadonnaFan 17:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too many articles on the Beatles??

There appear to be a number of articles about the Beatles, and I get the distinct impression that too many people have set out to write new articles about them instead of amending existing ones. I don't think we should duplicate material, and one article or another needs cutting hard to avoid it. In particular this one should not have history information which already appears elsewhere. I am going to suggest that any information appearing in other articles should be replaced here by links to them, not summarised, repeated etc. This will mean a lot of cutting and scandalise a lot of people, but we really can't go down the line of being knee deep in Beatle articles all rehasing substantially the same information. Anyone who objects to this article being edited as suggested, speak now???

That is how Wikipedia works — we don't centralise information. Pages share the information. The idea is that we summarise the key facts and include a link to the main article if people want to know more; that is what was done with the History section here. You can see this concept being used in articles like Malaysia and Battle of the Somme, just to name two. And very few articles on the Beatles restate information, from what I can see. And in any case, most of our articles on them contain information that would be too troublesome to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lyrics? before/after touring?

I don't see anything in the music section about the obvious shift in lyrical content, and the general change in style before and after touring, first evident on Revolver in 1966. Early lyrics were full of me, you, love, simple themes very similar for example to the work of The Hollies around 1963-4. It does appear that not having live performances to prepare and tours to go on left The Beatles putting their full energies into the recording studio which inevitably had an impact on the music. It also appears that from around late 1968 there was something of a reversion to earlier patterns (for example Happy Birthday on the white album).

I very nearly wrote some of this on the page, but I gather there is particular sensitivity about altering this article, so I am posting it here as a suggestion instead. How about some comments on the lyrics, and on how touring affected the music before and afterwards??

Sure. There's nothing to eb afraid of, even if this is a featured article. Be bold. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

touring/lyrics edit - done

OK guys, as suggested have now had a go at this. I'm very conscious of not being able to write wonderfully learned stuff about major seventh chords, but it did seem to me that nothing had been said about this area and I thought it needed saying. I resisted any temptation to include links. If well-up musical people who have obviously been working on this can improve on what I've written that would be very nice :-)

Nice work. Looks great. :-D Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...I'm having the queasy leemies about it now. Some of it is clearly true, but the dates the tracks were recorded need checking. Did Happy Birthday get recorded before or after Its All Too Much? And its too sweeping to say Yellow Submarine was complex - how about the perfunctory All Together Now? This needs revisiting and if nobody else has in the meantime I intend having a further go at it when I get time

sb

...Have now redone that section. Its All Too Much and Only a Northern Song were actually left over from 1967, the latter apparently a Sgt Pepper offcut, and hence belong to that period stylistically. The white album did indeed represent a simpler style. I've also remarked that there had been a trend towards greater complexity even before touring stopped. Hopefully this is now straight. It is difficult to discuss music without wandering too far into describing what was happening at the time but hopefully I've done that.

sb

Please forgive my nitpicking, but I hope the song is not referred to as "Happy Birthday" in the article. "Happy Birthday" is the song you hear in public places when people go out and celebrate with cake and candles (or whiskey). The name of the first song on the third side if the album "The Beatles" is "Birthday". 24.61.192.173 01:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple things

... Stu Sutcliffe was the original Bass player, not the third guitarist. John Lennon wanted him to be in the band, but since Stu couldn't play a lick, they stuck him on the bass. It was only after Stu left that Paul, who was a much better guitarist than John, took over the bass. I also can't think of a time Stu provided any vocals for the group, esp. since he usually played facing away from the audience to hide the fact that he couldn't play bass, but he may have sung, I dunno. Plus I believe that Stu left the band BEFORE Pete Best got kicked out. Stu left before they got a recording contract while Pete was kicked out after they got signed. Also, The beatles definetly were on the verge of breaking up during the White Album sessions. In fact Ringo quit the band during the sessions and Paul had to play the drums on "Back in the USSR" and "Dear Prudence" Ringo was coaxed back about a week later and the other members covered his set with flowers.

But isn't Paul a bass player? Why did you change that? Johnleemk | Talk 13:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paul was a guitarist at first, he only switch to bass after Stu left the band. Stu was the original bassist and he never played guitar. I only changed the info dealing with Stu and noted that paul was a guitar player in the "original" line up. The article states that in the "classic" Bealtes line up Paul played bass.

A random IP changed the date of Stu's entrance into the band from 1960 to 1957, and although I know it wasn't 1960, I know for sure it also was not 1957, considering that was the same year Paul and John first met. I thought it was something like 1958 or 1959. Someone let me know if they agree or disagree, or change it to reflect the correct year. PlasticBeat 00:05, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

you're totally right. Stu joined the band in 1959 when John made Stu buy a bass guitar with the money he got from selling a painting. He left the band in 1961.

please fix this section on Pop Culture

Pop Culture

Besides their music, the Beatles had a significant pop-culture impact. Long "hippy" hair; dreamy, "trippy" rock music; flower power; clothing with way too many colors and foo foo (Remember 3's Company's Mr. Ferly?); "Love is all you need"; the "Religious Rock" movement (Harrison); and the Eastern meditation movement in the Western world, along with East Indian influence in pop, can be directly traced to them, more or less. (Perhaps they did not originate each one from scratch, but they had the knack for knowing what to focus on.) They generally set the trends of the '60s and early '70s. Whatever they did would be in vogue about a year or two later (see It's Only a Northern Song by Harrison). Thus, it is not just their musical impact that was amazing, but their power to move the entire pop world. The '60s changed everything in the Western world, and the Beatles were a big part of that. Many doubt the '60s decade would have been what it was without the Beatles.

There are probably two events that mark the start of the 1960s as we now remember/represent it: the beginnings of the anti-war protests, and the arrival of the Beatles in America. They gave the youth of the time a new medium, sound, and look with which to express themselves. They were rebels with guitars. Is there any other one music group that one can say changed the entire look and feel of a generation? The distant second is probably the BeeGees. (Perhaps Elvis's popularizing suggestive hip movements during songs is noteworthy, but his style otherwise mirrored the existing pop of the time.)

When the Beatles arrived in the US, the US was still recovering from the assassination of President Kennedy, so some good diversion was very welcome. Also welcoming was Brian Epstein's cleaning up of the Beatles (he dressed them in suits, had them bow at the end of the performance) which helped Mom and Pop welcome these fellows over the pelvis gyrating Elvis. Working in the strip clubs in Hamburg also helped the Beatles come into being, but their new image then needed to be toned down for pop.

Musical-Style Influences

I removed the following from the article and placed it in here. This section needs copy-editing, and it needs to be written with much less POV. The Beatles article is a Featured Article - so let's clean this up before we include it in the article. Kingturtle 17:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Beatles' music was undeniably imbued with the members' personalities, talent, and ideas. Yet, especially in the early years, they drew directly on influences of various performers and recordings.

The Beatles, as individuals and as a group, soaked up influences from performers enjoying popularity in the 1950s and early 1960s. Besides Buddy Holly, whose musicas well as the name of whose band (the Crickets) was an influence, both John Lennon and Paul McCartney were enamored with early Elvis Presley recordings. George Harrison liked American “rockabilly” guitar styles. The Beatles were also directly influenced by Chuck Berry, Little Richard, the Everly Brothers, Carl Perkins, the Isley Brothers, and the Motown stars and groups. The Beatles were an opening act for Roy Orbison during one of Orbison’s overseas tours, and his influence can be heard in some of McCartney’s early melodies. Ringo Starr had a fondness for straght-ahead country & western music. Guitar-based American blues had little influence on them until the late ‘60s, although they recorded the old Blind Lemon Jefferson song “Matchbox Blues” (but in a country & western style). By the mid sixties, Bob Dylan’s “folk rock” was an influence on John Lennon’s lyrical attitudes and content. Still later, American mainstream amplified-guitar blues had an influence on the Beatles, but probably more by way of Eric Clapton and Cream, and other British bands that had been steeped in that influence for years, by this point.

It should be said that the Beatles transformed their influences into their own music, and later transcended these origins in making music renowned for its originality.

First paragraph

I dispute the veracity of this statement and, since it's in the lead paragraph, it's important to get it just right:

>Initially they affected the post-war baby boom generation of Britain and the United States during the 1960s, and later the rest of the world.

What about Australia and Canada? The Beatles were popular in each of these places at exactly the same time they hit their popularity in the U.S. Singling out the U.S. for special mention when Beatlemania hit all English-speaking countries (besides Britain, where they were already popular) at once in the early of spring of 1964 is misleading. Moreover, even more importantly, the paragraph reads as if the Beatles didn't affect "baby boom culture" anywhere else until AFTER the 1960s - truly misleading!! Moncrief 20:09, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

A little re-org

I moved the Sutcliffe & Best material down to the Members section, and the Beatlemania material down to the History section. As it was there was too much diving into detail for the introductory section of the article.

I added piano to McCartney's list of instruments played, since his piano playing had a major role in several of the most known Beatles songs ("Let it be" and "Hey Jude" for example). I added a note that everyone played other instruments besides what's on this list, which is certainly true.

-- jls

Influence

Someone changed "the most influential" to "probably the most influential" in the lead. To which I say pshaw. Are there really other candidates? Adding words like "probably" to an article is the worst possible way to approach NPOV because it serves no purpose other than to water down statements that are being made anyway and reduce the usefulness of the article as a reference to anyone. I could see adding a qualifier -- perhaps they were "the most influential popular music group", or "the most influential western music group" (actually I think the original statement is more true than either of these but it's at least worth discussing), but not "probably", please. I've reverted for now, will be watching here for discussion. Jgm 14:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there aren't any other candidates. Let those who disagree name another group they think was equally or more influential ... I think you can counter that claim on purely musical grounds; then add in the Beatles' influence on fashion, culture, and the overall role that popular music can play in society, and it's a rout.

That said, this kind of thing is a near hopeless battle in Wikipedia. Even if you get everyone reading this discussion page now to agree with you, in a few days or weeks or months someone else will come along and change it to whatever they think. And you or someone else will change it back, and then another person will change it to something different. About the best you can hope for with popular Wikipedia articles is that they are correct 80% of the time people look at them. -- jls 13 Mar 2005

Elvis' influence

I removed the following from the article because it hasn't been substantiated with a reference:

Some people claim The Beatles' biggest influence was Elvis Presley. This is a matter of debate. Paul was quoted in an interview as saying that Elvis was the reason he picked up the guitar. John was also said to have loved Elvis' music. But others claim that, given that The Beatles sound little or nothing like Elvis, and little of his handprint can be seen in their catalog, and also given that they have so many other influences in chamber pop, R&B, soul, and early rock, Paul and John must have obviously gotten that feeling from a lot of other artists, and Paul would have surely picked up a guitar due to that feeling he got from any of the myriad other influences.

Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've again removed a disputed paragraph about Elvis' influence on the Beatles. Look, if all we are going to say is that there is no consensus (the first sentence implies it's "a matter of debate" and the rest of the paragraph goes back and forth as to whether there was indeed significant Elvis influence), then the paragraph adds nothing and takes away from the usefulness and readability of the article. If we can work out a succinct statement about what is clearly true regarding Big E's influence (and personally I think it's only to the extent that Carl Perkins influenced them both) let's do it, but there's no sense having such a self-neutralizing paragraph in the article. Jgm 19:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there's room to talk about a peripheral, cultural influence of some sort, but to say E had a "great" or similar effect on the Beatles is starkly unsupported by anything I've ever read about them (or heard in their music). They didn't even "hit it off" with him when they met him. Buddy Holly, yes, great, overwhelmingly and the difference is stark. Wyss 20:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Little Richard was among Paul major influences. Ericd 21:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

LR is mentioned in the "music" section of the article. Wyss 21:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Elvis Presley was the biggest singer and most groundbreaking at the time the Beatles got it together. All 4 of The Beatles themselves admit he was a great influence. It's too bad there are some Beatles fans who can't accept that. They hit it off with Buddy Holly? so what, Holly was also influenced by Elvis and loved his music, as did Little Richard. It makes no difference that they didn't get on well with Elvis when they met him, as The Beatles said themselves they were starstruck when the met him and Presley didn't like that. Wheater or not they got on well with him personally or not has nothing at all to do with the musical influence he had on them, and their are a heck of a large number of quotes by all 4 members of The Beatles that show Presley had a heck of an influence on them.

None of the Beatles "admitted" he was a "great" influence. Holly wasn't much influenced by Elvis... and the Beatles never met Holly. The only Beatles quote about Elvis I can remember reading at the moment is Lennon's remark that Presley was "finished" (or something like that) when he came back from the army. Anyway, provide some of the Beatles quotes you mentioned about Preseley and we can surely put them in the article? Wyss 12:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

So you deny Presley was a great influence on the beatles, just because they never used the word "great"? There are plenty of artists The Beatles had a great influence on who never out right used that word, yet if someone was underplaying the beatles influence i'm sure you would all be the first people having a pop at them for underplaying the importance of The Beatles role in music, just like you are doing with Presley here. Also, i'm sorry to inform you, but Buddy Holly was influenced by Elvis a great deal and loved his music and the same can be sad for every major rock n roll act. Elvis was the number 1, he was rock n rolls top star and if you are seriously trying to tell me the beatles and any other rock n roll act of that time could avoid his great influence and impact, then you are mistaken. I also find it funny how the one Beatles quote you can remember about Elvis was the one about him being "washed up", that sounds like selective memory to me, especially as the most famous quote about Elvis from a Beatle is also by John Lennon who proclaimed "Before Elvis, there was nothing", Lennon also went on to say "I Basically became a musician because of Elvis Presley" (source "The Book Of Rock Lists). George Harrison once said "I saw Elvis at the cinema, saw him with all the girls around him and I decided then, that's a good job" (source : Interview on the beatles anthology), as for McCartney, the amount of Elvis covers he has done both in the studio and in concert speak for themselves. You claim Buddy Holly wasn't greatly influence by Presley. Well, he must have thought differently when he stated "Without Elvis, none of us could have made it" (source : The Book Of Rock Lists). Little Richard also said with a passion "It Took People Like Elvis to open the door for this music and I thank God for Elvis Presley". So are you still going to tell me there isn't enough evidence to support Elvis had a great influence and impact on The Beatles? If so, then all you are doing is underplaying his very important role in music history.

why was my last edit on Elvis' influence removed. Wyss claims i said "Elvis was better" where? I mentioned he was a key influence to the beatles, which he was. Then all I did was use factual information - quotes from The Beatles themselves. How is that POV? It seems someone has something against admitting Elvis had any influence on the band, even tough it's clear he did! 195.93.21.39 06:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no evidence EP was a "key" influence on the Beatles. As for the quotes, in showbusiness, it's usually easy to get gushing, glowing quotes from a celebrity about another celebrity. Including those in the context of EP musically or otherwise influencing the Beatles was misleading. Wyss 07:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So now you are speaking on behalf of the Beatles, not only by telling us they overstated how they felt about Presley, but also insisting that Chuck Berry was the main influence for their sound. How nice it is you can speak for the fab four yet slate eveyone else's edits as POV just cause you don't like what's said. 195.93.21.39 07:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I said they gave gushing, glowing quotes, which had nothing to do with the musicological influences of their recorded material. Please try to avoid invectives like, "So now you are speaking on behalf of the Beatles," which only disrupt the discussion. Also, the remark, "...yet slate eveyone else's edits" is misleading, since we're only talking about the edits of a single user... yours. Thanks. Wyss 07:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So you're claiming no record the beatles recorded sounded anything like a Presley record. Then your mistaken. If that was the case why would Presley have covered several beatles hit's note for note. "I'd Rather see you dead little girl than to be with another man," was a line used in "Run For Your Life," it had also been used earlier in Presley's "Baby let's place house", Coincidence? I think not! Also, whether or not you care to admit it, you are speaking on behalf of them, saying their over did their quotes. That's YOU saying they didn't mean what they said, that's you speaking on their behalf, no matter how you try to disguise it, just so you can have what you want in the article, regardless of actual historic fact. 195.93.21.39 07:24, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore Harrison's quote about seeing Elvis being like seeing "the messiah" was not some far flug quote from the 1960's that can be called a gushing glowing suck up quote, he said it in an interview during The Beatles Anthology series. The Beatles themselves had total control over that documentary and it clearly shows Presley was very much a key influence, just as much as Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly was. McCartney's quote "I just love him" was from a 1980's special he did, again he had full control over that. So to say they didn't mean what they said about Elvis is just ignorance. Also, I doubt McCartney's many Presley covers were just recorded as a glushing suck up either. I'm sure he wasn't told by someone to record them just to suck up to Presley. To exclude all this information from the article just shows what a shambles this review of The Beatles and their music is. 195.93.21.39 07:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Beatles historians who understand more about each individual Beatle would likely reply that the remarks were sincere enough, but would disagree with your interpretation of them. So far as the article being a shambles, my take is you said that only because it doesn't assert that Elvis Presley was their central musical and cultural influence. Wyss 07:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

How did I interpret them? I just quoted them. Nor did I say that Presley was the central influence. Now who is misleading with their responses? I said he was a key influence and i'm sure most Beatles historians would have no problem in accepting that Elvis Presley, like Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry, was a key influence on The Beatles. 195.93.21.39 08:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I used central as a synonym for key. I don't think it was misleading. Please don't distract this discussion with debating tactics based on semantics. I've already addressed your other remark above. Wyss 08:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Central and Key do not mean the same thing. You have have more than one key influence, you're the one using semantics. I said Like Buddy and Chuck, Elvis was a key influence on the Beatles , which he was. You have addressed my remark, but you have done so by massaging what I meant to mean something else entirely. 195.93.21.39 08:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant key. Sorry for the confusion.

Please cite a reliable secondary source supporting your assertion that Elvis Presley was a key musical influence for the Beatles' songs, arrangements and productions. Wyss 08:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way are you responsible for this [4] edit? I ask because it was made yesterday by the same IP address you've used today to edit the Beatles article. Wyss 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the Beatles have said they bought Presley records as kids but there is no "We copied/were influenced etc. by Elvis". However, what the Beatles uniquely did is exactly the same as following your own genealogical roots: it all goes back to Elvis who opened the door to Holly, Berry, and the others who were responsible for the evolution in music that became direct influences on the Beatles. John Lennon summed it up best: "Before Elvis there was nothing." Ted Wilkes 12:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, so Lennon formed a skiffle band doing Lonnie Donigan covers. He also said Elvis was finished when he came back from the army.

Anyway the statement it all goes back to Elvis who opened the door to Holly, Berry, and the others is not historically provable and is more appropriate for a sentimental fan magazine. Wyss 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Holly, Berry et all have all been quoted themselves citing Elvis' influence/Impact on the music too, no doubt you will also claim they over did their quotes. Lennon once said "I basically became a musician because of Elvis Presley". That shows along with Lonnie and Chuck, Lennon is giving his nod to Presleys influence alongside them. Elvis did influence the Beatles, that quote and all the others do show that, their passion and enthusiasm when they say those quotations also show that, whether or not you care to admit it. Lennon may have claimed Presley was washed up after he left the army, but that has no bearing on his influence with the music he created before the army and no, to answer your question, I did not make that pathetic edit. 195.93.21.39 20:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source supporting your assertion Presley was a key musical influence. Wyss 06:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I took a fresh look at the recent edits and decided to restore part of the Elvis quotes, which are real and do provide an indication on where the lads' heads were at at the time (I left out some, specifically Macca's unenlightening "I love him" quote, in the interest of avoiding overkill). I also did some minor restructuring, but I think this section still needs some major work (right now it's a pedantic recital of everybody's favorite influences with little in the way of analysis or synthesis), and maybe needs to be summarized and split off into a sub-article (as the "history" and other sections have been). More to come from me, if we can hold off on the EP back-and-forth for now. Jgm 12:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Missing out certain quotes for overkill, actually does underplay what is clear appreciation and nod to Elvis, the biggest rock star of the time when The Beatles were starting out. I think it would be virtually impossible for the beatles to live through the Elvis explosion, draw no influence from it and just ignore it, even Buddy Holly was moved enough by Presley to say without Elvis he wouldn't have made it. 195.93.21.39 17:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It's only an issue when we start talking about direct musical influences. As I've mentioned before, Lennon started his first band to do Lonnie Donigan stuff, not Elvis covers. Wyss 17:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Lennon also stated he equally became a musician because of Elvis. When he said "I basically became a musician because of Elvis" he's said that for a reason, not just for the heck of it and as I said Elvis coverd beatles songs, McCartney and Lennon coverd Elvis hit's. You can't get much more direct than singing each others material. However, direct or not, it dosen't matter. If there's an influence it's part of the puzzle, and makes the Jigsaw complete. I don't recall ever using the words "direct influence" before anyway. That's something you've been going on about. 195.93.21.39 18:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This thread got started when someone edited in an assertion that Elvis was their biggest influence. Now it's dwindled down to discussions of a level of influence I think the documented record supports and I'm happy with the article's current reference to it. Wyss 18:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, am considering deleting this paragraph outright again: once more, we've negotiated it into a self-negating non-statement (see my comment above from 20 July). A section of an encyclopedia article on "influences" ought to cover those entities about which there is some consensus; can't we just agree on what is known to be true (ie. they did say those quotes) and leave it at that rather than try to work every possible opinion into the paragraph? The final statement about it being "very controversial" seems silly to me, as well: outside of this particular wikidebate I can't recall ever coming across anything related to a particular controversy on this topic. Sure, some analysts see a more direct influence than others, what's "controversial" about that? Jgm 22:37, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I personally do believe Elvis was their biggest influence if your talking in both direct and non direct terms. Directly there was an influence rivaled by others, speaking in indirect terms, most of those others also drew influence from Presley. 195.93.21.39 19:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Beatlemania

I think wikipedia could use an article on Beatlemania, rather than the current redirect here. Between the phenomenon and the band "BeatleMania" (probably the most famous tribute band in the world) there's certainly enough for an article, if not two separate ones. -R. fiend 18:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Johnleemk | Talk 06:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The catalogue

I merged an article on the Beatles catalogue with this article and someone has reverted it to the original rather folksy style. It needs some cleanup if someone else would like to volunteer--I won't simply revert because I don't fancy getting involved in an edit war on my own. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beatles vs. The Beatles in article titles

There is currently a lack of title standardization with regards to the use of "Beatles" and "The Beatles" in article names. As their name is "The Beatles", and the main article is at The Beatles, I suggest that Beatles discography should be moved to The Beatles discography, Beatles bootlegs should be moved to The Beatles bootlegs, and Category:Beatles children should be moved to Category:The Beatles' children to meet precedence and be more in line with the other articles on The Beatles; see Category:The Beatles, The Beatles' influence, Category:The Beatles members, Category:The Beatles songs. Ideas, comments? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:20, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the band is called "The Beatles" not "Beatles". Ericd 16:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree as well. Tuf-Kat 21:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the articles, fixed double redirects, and recategorized the children. When I get a chance I'll try to convert the single redirects to direct links. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:17, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in all instances, the name of the band should be written The Beatles. Kingturtle 21:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Song samples

Am I the only one who thinks all those recently added song samples look a bit out of place on the main Beatles' page? --DaveGorman 22:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there are a few too many samples in the list. Perhaps they can be added into the main article? ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 21:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

So is anyone going to object if I remove them? --DaveGorman 17:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

External links

There were far too many lyrics sites in that section, so I removed some of them. Please re-add them if I was mistaken. I also removed the link to the not-so-active message boards and a dead link. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 21:04, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Ringo Starr's "one song"

Although that edit had me laughing at first, it's just not accurate. That sentence was a cumbersome run-on to begin with so I tried to make it flow a bit better. Ringo Starr has writing credits on six published Beatles songs (Dig it, Don't Pass Me By, Flying, Maggie Mae, Octopus's Garden, What Goes On) as well as a myriad of other unpublished tunes from the Get Back sessions that are available on film or bootleg.The Bob Talbot 03:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Song titles

According to Manual of Style article, song titles should be written like this: "Yesterday"; not Yesterday --Josef Sábl cz 12:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing them. Wyss 12:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem, It took 10 secs with text editor, just search and replace ;-) Anyway, thanks for revising an article, it now looks really nicer --Josef Sábl cz 15:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Members of the Order of the British Empire

Didn't some people very publicly return their medals, or whatever they received, upon the Beatles getting theirs?--Gangster Octopus 28 June 2005 18:31 (UTC)

Lennon did... by the 1960s the royal family was already a "trade boosterism" affair as much as anything else. The awards were given more for their effect on the UK's economic exports than for the music. Lennon seems to have interpreted the award as something with rather too much political baggage... the UK supported the US war in Vietnam (sound familiar?) and he had issues with being associated with that (among other things, like extreme class division etc) I suspect. Mention of it is probably more appropriate in the Lennon article. Wyss 29 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

When The Beatles were awarded theirs, yes, there was protest & some returning of medals by those who, for instance, earned theirs in the war, etc. Lennon returned his later, ostensibly to protest both the Viet Nam war thing and that Strawberry Fields (IIRC) did not reach number one. human 01:30, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sales of "1"

It's not clear in the aricle onThe Beatles 1 whether the sales figues quoted are for the U.S. or the whole world. Could someone clarify it please? 82.35.34.11 00:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Those sales figures are for the whole world. I edited it already. -- Robert Goertz 11:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Beatles/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

;WikiProject The Beatles:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]2
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.” 47: "

All, any, many, A few, several, some ,a few, a number of, several " were found.

The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Dendodge Talk^Contribs 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article has been rated as GA by an independent reviewer. Their comments can be found at Talk:The Beatles/GA1. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 09:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)