Talk:Maggie May (folk song)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maggie May (folk song) article.|
|Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.|
|WikiProject The Beatles||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
John Lennon's Vocals?
Am I the only one who can't control the laughter that comes out when John says "Liverpool" with the most Cockneyesque dialect? Anyway, my ultimate point is that this song (on Let It Be) is audible proof of the growing tension between Lennon and McCartney. It was later removed from Let it be. . .Naked!, because apparently Paul McCartney thought it had been included distastefully and deliberately to mock and sabotage his composition.
I seriously feel the need to mention it in the main article (as though it's not short enough.)
The references to Nellie Gray and the Beatles illustrate how one song tends to lead to another although no one can ever be sure. Who knows if an american ministers son and anti-slavery activist had ever heard Maggie May or,indeed how many other songs have used the tune. 126.96.36.199 21:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)mikeL
Unsigned comment on my talk page
"C (talk | contribs) m (3,260 bytes) (→The Beatles' version: removed incorrect assumption.) ".... The statement is not an assumption. It is a speculation. It is not worth making a fuss about but if you have evidence that it is not correct that might be interesting.
Strange that someone has included a 'line-up' list for the Beatles. The song has been performed by many others who may not be so well known but who are more closely associated with it. mikeL ...(hello sinebot are you still there ?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)"
The legal position is simple, if a song is out of copyright (as this song is) then anybody who arranges the song is entitled to roaylty fees for the arrangement. The different spelling would be totally irrelevant as song title cannot be copyrighted, which is why we have so many songs with the same name. If it was speculation then it fails WP:OR so it still needed to be removed. Whatever reason for the different spelling this speculation wasn't the answer. I suspect it's a simple case of different people used different spellings for what is an aural tradition. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
My comment on Richconto's talk page was signed 'mikeL' the robot 'sine bot' (?'sinebot') did the rest thus I checked that the robot is still healthy. At least the beatles spelling helps to identify their version. The statement in question was clearly labelled as a possibility not as (alleged) fact. He was entitled to remove it. He was mistaken to describe it as an assumption... and I am making too much fuss about it 184.108.40.206 (talk) mikeL
Another Maggie May
There is another Maggie May, dated to 1870 in Dunstan, R. (Cornish Dialect and Folk Song, London, Ascherberg, Hopwood and crew Ltd 1932, p.43). Details are available here:  but probably not enough for a whole new article. Presumably it's wholly unconnected? Another link:  (on loan to the National Library of Scotland from the Balcarres Heritage Trust.) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Didn't you previously have a cross-reference to Rod Stewart "Maggie Mae" song?
The "Maggie May" song presented here is not to be confused with the Rod Stewart hit "Maggie Mae". I thought there was a cross reference from this article to that song because of the similar titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)