Talk:The Beatles

"List of Beatles members" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect List of Beatles members to the article List of members of bands featuring members of the Beatles has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 17 § List of Beatles members until a consensus is reached. Many other similar redirects to the same target, including The Beatles' line-ups, are also being discussed in the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Beatles Rock only band? Mrdt8910 (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles were more than "just" a Rock band. I believe a more accurate estimation of what they achieved would be better stated that The Beatles were a Pop / Rock band and that should be included in this Wikipedia page and follow suit with other Beatles related pages. Mrdt8910 (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Years active

now that the beatles have released a new track, should the years active be changed to “1960-1970, 2023” 92.11.169.139 (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They also released new tracks in 1995 and 1996, but consensus up to now has been that was not a fully-fledged reunion and therefore should not be listed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think we should change it. I mean they were active again to release the song so I can't see no reason why it should be changed Adavid299 (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The Threetles is not the Beatles. As George Harrison said in 1989, "There will be no Beatles reunion as long as John Lennon remains dead". Tkbrett (✉) 11:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

And 5 years later, Harrison changed his mind. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that the years active section should be changed to ''1960-1970'', 2023''. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to add 2023, then why not 1995? Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Beatles were not active in 2023. Only Paul and Ringo (The Twotles?) were active. WWGB (talk) 10:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

They did use John Lennon's voice from a demo recording, they also used Ai on it. PrincessJoey2024 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a footnote after the "1960–1970" mentioning the one-off completions of songs in 1995–96 and 2023. While it's probably not enough for direct inclusion, I think it warrants a footnote. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is enough for consensus, but I agree with regards to adding 1994-1996 (or whatever the specific dates were) and 2022(-2023?) in a footnote attached to the years active section. These three songs are Beatles songs: all four are on them, and they were recorded and released as Beatles songs. Regarding George's quote, that was before they reunited (regardless of the definition) to work on Anthology in general (and the three reunion songs in particular). (And, theoretically, we could also maybe add 1981 because of "All Those Years Ago" and Ringo's second wedding having the three surviving Beatles on it.) I don't think there's any need to change the timeline, though, even though no one mentioned that here. I'd love to hear other thoughts. Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1981 had three out of the four members playing some music together in a studio not under the Beatles name and privately attending a wedding. It doesn’t come anywhere close to counting. Humbledaisy (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

With 1981, I was just throwing it out there. That is a very good (and obvious) point (that I forgot) about All Those Years Ago, but I still think Ringo's second wedding is possible. I've never read about it in a biography yet (not that it may not be there, but just that I haven't read as many books on the band as I'd like), but it is possible that Ringo or a guest at the wedding (maybe a drunk guest, given the way weddings usually run) referred to the group as The Beatles. For a comparison (that may or may not work well), I believe CCR's uncredited appearances on one of Tom Fogerty's solo albums, plus two reunion by performances by two or all or the surviving members at class reunions or something, are considered to be CCR reunions. So, yeah, maybe it would make more sense to leave All Those Years Ago out, but I still believe strongly that sessions for the three reunion singles should be placed in a footnote (and possibly the band members section in the article). Thanks, EPBeatles (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

What do reliable secondary sources say?

• In the first volume of The Beatles as Musicians (1999), Walter Everett describes the songs as "the first post-1969 recordings involving all four group members" (p. 286), while also describing the group working on the songs as "the three ex-Beatles" and "the Threetles" (p. 286–287).
• Alan W. Pollack refers to the songs as simply "new Beatles songs".
• In the epilogue to the second edition of Tell Me Why (2002), Tim Riley describes the songs as "reunion singles" and he describes the Anthology as a "reunion project" (p. 390).
• In Volume 2 of The Beatles Diary (2001) by Keith Badman, he alternates between calling it a "Beatles reunion" (p. 519) and referring to the group as "The 'Threatles'" (p. 521).
• In Revolution in the Head (1997), Ian MacDonald writes "the ex-Beatles" (p. 377) and "the former Beatles" (p. 378) when describing work on the songs. In the preface to the first revised edition, he places the term "reunion" in scare quotes (p. xv).
• In The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles (2009), different writers provide different takes. John Kimsey describes the '90s songs as "new Beatles song[s]" (p. 236), but Gary Burns is dismissive, often using scare quotes to describe the '90s songs, which he writes "were released under the Beatles' name" (p. 218). He also writes: "A reunion of sorts finally happened in 1995, with the surviving 'Threetles' adding accompaniment to two John Lennon demo tapes. ... A music video was produced and released for each of the 'new' songs." (p. 218). He also refers to it as "the long-anticipated, albeit virtual, reunion" (p. 222).
• In The Beatles In Context (2020), Walter J. Podrazik writes that "Paul, George, and Ringo [got the Beatles back together] with the video of their new song 'Free As A Bird.'" (p. 146), and Joe Rapolla writes "the surviving band members dubbed on top of two Lennon demos to produce the first new Beatles songs in a quarter-century" (p. 319).
• In the third edition of The Rough Guide to the Beatles (2009), Chris Ingham refers to the group as "the 'Threetles'" (p. 73), while using scare quotes to describe the songs as "the Threetles' two tracks" (p. 133), "'new' Beatles music" (p. 73) and "the 'new Beatles single'" (p. 74).

On the whole, I think the above indicates that there is no consensus among Beatles scholarship as to whether "Free As a Bird" and "Real Love" can actually be deemed new Beatles songs. Some describe them as such, while others refer to Paul, George and Ringo as a distinct entity. Tkbrett (✉) 13:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I should also point out that this proposal has been raised quite a bit on this talk page over the last couple decades, and the result has either been no consensus for a change, or a consensus against including anything beyond 1960–1970. Here is a good read. Tkbrett (✉) 02:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, main period of activity is 60-70, but at least a footnote should point out these brief periods of work in the nineties and this decade. Bedivere (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with adding a complicating note into the infobox. The subsequent collaborations are already covered extensively in the body and in a dedicated article, and there is a sentence mentioning them in the lead. Better to leave the infobox as a simple summary rather than trying to complicate it for new readers. Tkbrett (✉) 13:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

A few points (well, seven actually):

1. Arguments invoking the "Threetles" seem to be based on the proposition that the "Threetles" are something different than the Beatles instead of the "Threetles" being a subset of the Beatles (i.e. still the Beatles).
2. There's no such thing as the "Threetles". I checked Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon, etc. and I cannot find a single song from a band by that name.
3. The Beatles are whatever they say that they are. I checked their website and it says "Now and Then" is a Beatles song.
4. Most of the arguments against Beatles being active in 1995-1996 and 2023 seems be based on the WP:TRUTH: that because not all Beatles truly participated in the new recordings, it shouldn't really count.
5. I applaud Tkbrett's checking what reliable sources say. It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus.
6. This is a WP:Featured article and not counting the Anthology reunion seems to have long-standing article and community consensus. It's up to those wanting to change the years active to convince the other editors of the merits of the change.
7. This dispute seems rather WP:LAME to me.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

File:The Beatles - All You Need Is Love & Baby, You're a Rich Man, 1967 (cropped).jpg

It looks like the last time the main image was talked about was in two brief discussions in 2018. I've never been a hige fan of the New York arrival collage. In particular, I don't think it does George a great service. However, I noticed this photo used on the main page for the "Now and Then" new item, which seems to have been uploaded and added to the page in April. To me, this is a much better image for the infobox. It's high quality, and is an actual group photo of the band. While I get the leaning toward a Beatle-mania era photo, I think a 1967 photo is also a great representation of what many see as the height of their output in the studio. Any thoughts on changing the main image? Seltaeb Eht (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Got to agree with this one. The existing infobox photo really doesn't flatter any of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. The 1967 photo is much better than that black and white collage of four mediocre photos. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the original infobox image being fine, I am also confident it is PD, something I do not think is as certain for the image you are proposing. Tkbrett (✉) 02:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, excellent point and good digging. My quick look at the description didn't catch that the PD status may not quite be there. And the actual Billboard scan is not quite of the quality we might want. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This certainly needs clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Quite so. But if the color photo can be established as in the public domain, I also support it as the main image, regardless of what I see as any minor quality issues. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalisation in band name

Shouldn't it be "...was a member of The Beatles." and not "...was a member of the Beatles." "The" is part of the band name so the "t" of "the" should be capitalised in the middle of a sentence right? BrightOrion (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC) BrightOrion

See MOS:THEBAND. Tkbrett (✉) 03:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks! BrightOrion (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

First and no 1

The article continually describes albums etc as the first that ever did something or no 1 in the charts etc or uses some other superlative. Reading through the article becomes monotonous. I think some of these descriptions could be left on the individual pages of albums etc. Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Status of Norman Chapman and Chas Newby, plus a Timeline request

Hello all,

I noticed that (fairly recently) someone moved Norman Chapman and Chas Newby to the touring members section. I disagree with this change and was hoping to find consensus here. Norman Chapman, according to his own Wiki page (I admit I'm not too familiar with his role in the early Beatles' story), intended to remain in the group; he wasn't meant to be a temporary substitute like Jimmie Nicol. Regarding the late Chas Newby, while he did fill in for a brief time for an absent Stuart Sutcliffe, John Lennon reportedly (as cited in the article here, I think) asked him to come to Hamburg with them, even though Stuart Sutcliffe remained in the group for several more months. Newby turned him down. Regarding the timeline, since the name "The Beatles" was created by John Lennon and Stuart Sutcliffe, why is Stuart listed as joining the band after John, Paul, and George? Technically the four started the band together.

Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi country

for is a great way for people who have to be a little bit nervous to be able and have Hi you have to do it again and the next time they get a little bit of the time I 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

the other two are not abad and the other is not a good relationship but I think they have 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Know the difference from the fact

have been a great job with a lot more of a great way to do it than he was with me in a way I was 🏝🏖🎇🎆 41.116.119.17 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Credited session musicians

What is "label billing"? I ask because the statement in the article "Preston received label billing on the "Get Back" single – the only musician ever to receive that acknowledgment on an official Beatles release" may be false. You'll find that Alan Civil got credit for his horn playing on Revolver, and the article on Civil says there was a total of five such, presumably he, Preston and three others. 71.245.188.249 (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe it means that Preston's name is actually on the label of the single. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 06:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

[1]. WWGB (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as John and WWGB have pointed out, it's that he is credited as the main artist or one of the main artists. To use your Revolver example, Alan Civil would have received label billing if the Revolver cover (and the label on the vinyl record itself) credited it to "The Beatles with Alan Civil." You are correct that very few outside musicians received credits on Beatles releases, but the albums or singles were always billed as "The Beatles," with the exception of My Bonnie b/w The Saints ("The Beatles with Tony Sheridan") and Get Back b/w Don't Let Me Down ("The Beatles with Billy Preston"). (I don't think I forgot any, but who knows?) Hope this helps, EPBeatles (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes me realize many might never have seen a real record label! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)