Talk:A Day in the Life

Archives
1 · 2

GA Nom

I think this is good enough for a nomination for GA. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, its got a good chance. Realist2 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second

Ruhrfisch offered (I think) to peer review this article. So I think it would be advisable to wait for him before doing anything GA-related with this. Thanks. Cheers, Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 19:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kodster, causious? Why? Nothing wrong with a peer review mind, i know you can do it!!! Realist2 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC) About the genre, it should be symphonic rock because you guys even say that it's the first example of symphonic rock in the article called symphonic rock. So that, I'm guessing, is a reliable source. If not it should be deleted from the Article called Symphonic Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palaciopalermo12 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Audio sample

We could probably make a solid fair use argument for a short audio sample or two, especially those sections of the song that are the subject of intense detail in the article. IvoShandor (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I missed the one in the infobox, but maybe the orchestral section or some of the ending babble would be an interesting addition to the article. IvoShandor (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be very good, but the Wiki-Police frown on including more than 30 seconds of one song. You could reduce one sample to 15 seconds, and include another, but you will be arrested if you do more. :) --Sun, sea, and sand... (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's no good. Oh well, maybe we could split up a couple of more relevant audio samples and use those instead of the one that is currently in the infobox.IvoShandor (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

GA Review: on Hold

You appear to have a wonderfully researched article here. I enjoyed reading it very much, and learned quite a bit about the song. I'm placing the article on hold for 7 days until the following can be fixed. It's mostly copy editing and MOS problems.

Lead

• Please list the full names of John Lennon and Paul McCartney in the lead, preferably in the first sentence.
  • DONE
• The first sentence in the 3rd paragraph should probably be placed in the first paragraph as it states how important the song is. I would also add a sentence that includes information from the "Recognition" section of the article: you want your readers to know in the lead what an influential song this remains.
  • DONE
• Watch the copy editing. Rolling Stone should be in italics.
  • DONE
• Consider the order of the lead: it should mirror the order of topics in the article itself.
  • DONE- but doing so kinda altered some of the top points a little

Lyrical inspiration

• Variate sentence starts so the prose flows better. You have multiple sentences that start with "Lennon..." A better start to this section would read as, "While reading the the Daily Mail on January 17, 1967, John Lennon started to..."
  • DONE
• The same in the latter portion of this section, many sentences start with "McCartney..."
  • DONE
• Make sure all dates read as Month Day, Year, per MOS:DATE.
  • DONE
• The information about the auction of the lyrics seems rather tacked on at the end of this section. Is there a more appropriate place to put it?
  • DONE - moved to recognition section, since they sold for so much, its a sign of the somgs recognition

Recording

• If the beginning of the line of the song is, "Woke up, fell out of bed", capitalize the first word.
  • DONE
• I don't believe there is an MOS rule on how to capitalize The Beatles vs. the Beatles, but it should be kept consistent throughout the article. I noticed both ways.
  • DONE
• Why is this portion: given a (costume) piece in parentheses?
  • DONE - It doesnt seem to be like that now

After the chord

• This portion: spliced together apparently at random sections some of which would play forward ("Never could be any other way") and others backward (possibly "Will Paul be back as Superman?") is confusing. I think you're referring to backmasking, but it's quite an awkward sentence. You might consider breaking it up to explain it better.
  • DONE
• There is a fact tag in this section. It must be resolved.
  • DONE - not a major issue, removed

Song structure

• Watch for WP:Jargon here. If there are musical terms (I've never seen the word "outro", for example) link or provide a brief explanation of them. Preferably both.
  • DONE - Me neither lol, removed

Recognition

• The blockquote is unnecessary in this section, as the quote is too short to substantiate it.
  • DONE
• Link "Grammy" and the category it was nominated for.
  • DONE - couldnt do catagory though, kept coming up as red link.

Cover versions

• The proper way to refer to a song is in quotations, which you have done so far, but here you have the song in italics. Although albums should be italicized.
  • DONE
• Link the date of June 16, 2007.
  • DONE

References

• Please go through to make sure the red linked dates are fixed.
• I noticed a source that would not pass FAC due to reliability (No. 31) because it is a fansite. I did not check all online sources for reliability, but you will have to track down better sources if you would like to take this to FAC.
• Additionally, I would recommend you take the article to WP:LOCE to have them take a shot at all the tiny, tiny points of MOS prior to nominating this.
  • Sorted red links, as for rest of sources, im not sure if their gonna bother with FA so have left for now.

Images

• Please clean up the fair use rationale for Image:Back cover.gif.
  • DONE - Removed, unnessary

You can respond here or on my talk page if you have further comments or questions. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK took care of list. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of these. I'm going to read the article fresh tomorrow and assess its progress. --Moni3 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave it a thorough copy edit, but I always miss stuff, as does everyone. You seem to have taken care of the majority of the problems, but I need you to check where I altered sentences for better flow - to make sure it is still factually accurate. Again, I just couldn't understand that sentence about playing the garbled portion forwards and backwards - that's my biggest concern. Let me read it through once more within the next 24 hours to make sure I got everything, but I think it will pass nicely. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I read it the second it came up on my watchlist. Your edits are spot on. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: PASS

2. Factually accurate?: PASS

3. Broad in coverage?: PASS

4. Neutral point of view?: PASS

5. Article stability? PASS

6. Images?: PASS

Nice job. An excellent tribute to the band and the song, and a wonderful addition to Wikipedia. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!!!! Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

References marked as written in English?

There is hardly any point to marking every reference as written in English, because it is assumed that every reference is in English; when it is not, then that's when you typically use that field. Otherwise, it adds unnecessary information. Gary King (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

McCartney - piano and piano?

It says McCartney is listed as playing piano and piano (E chord), shouldn't this be under piano, with stating that he playedt he final E chord? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'd Love to turn you on"

I'm aware this has been disputed in the past as to who to credit this line to, and I thought it originally fine to credit it to McCartney, until I noticed that the citation for this bit of information contains contradictory quotes from both the songwriters as to who wrote it; Lennon claiming McCartney wrote it and McCartney claiming that Lennon did:

JOHN 1980:Paul's contribution was the beautiful little lick in the song 'I'd love to turn you on.' I had the bulk of the song and the words, but he contributed this little lick floating around in his head that he couldn't use for anything. I thought it was a damn good piece of work."

PAUL 1984: "That was mainly John's, I think. I remember being very conscious of the words 'I'd love to turn you on' and thinking, Well, that's about as risque as we dare get at this point. Well, the BBC banned it. It said, 'Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall' or something. But I mean that there was nothing vaguely rude or naughty in any of that. 'I'd love to turn you on' was the rudest line in the whole thing. But that was one of John's very good ones.

Seeing how the source contradicts itself, it can hardly be used as a reliable source to say that McCartney wrote the lick, as, well, it contains the exact same information as far as McCartney saying that Lennon wrote it. The article should, if anything, acknowledge the disagreement or probably just not say anything about the lick.

Additionally, I strongly feel this line should be omitted from the article:

McCartney also provided a short, wordless vocal bridge back into Lennon's part of the song.

Because there is no citation for it. When I first read this, I came to the Discussion page for this article, where someone said that, although sources contradict themselves, this person, a self-proclaimed Beatles expert, "hear(s) Paul everytime." Although, I've spoken to another self-proclaimed Beatles expert who has read hundreds of Beatles books and she claims the exact opposite, saying the John said he wanted it to sound like "the end of the world," requesting extra echo in his headphones. The point is that this is not a reliable source at all, and unless one is cited, the article should NOT make claims about who the vocalist is on this part, especially since the bit is so filled with echo that it really isn't possible to tell just by listening. An encyclopedia is for general knowledge on a subject and, while that may be important, if there is no definitive source, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

I would make these changes myself, but when I tried to remove that McCartney had sang the wordless vocal part, I was accused of being "disruptive" for removing content before other editors had come to consensus (as if consensus is always correct). Anyway, I feel I've made a perfectly logical argument for necessary changes to this page, and if other, more frequent editors prefer to discount them, that's not my problem.

peace/love, Andy Jones. Andrewlargemanjones (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; it seems I have somewhat taken Paul's quote out of necessary context, it goes on to say:

I wrote... that was co-written. The orchestra crescendo and that was based on some of the ideas I'd been getting from Stockhausen and people like that, which is more abstract. So we told the orchestra members to just start on their lowest note and end on their highest note and go in their own time... which orchestras are frightened to do. That's not the tradition. But we got 'em to do it."

Which makes my previous claim that Paul said that John wrote the lick dubious. I myself am not sure whether he means the lick was co-written or the whole piece and, in hindsight whether "one of John's very good ones" is referring to the line or to the piece as a whole, whereas John definitely stated that Paul McCartney contributed the lick. At any rate, since John did say this, and Paul's quote about it is confusing, my concern on that section of the article is not much. However, I still feel the same way about the nonlyrical "ahh ahh ahh ahh" vocals in between Paul and John's part.Andrewlargemanjones (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind about not taking action to fix the article. There is no longer any discussion on this page about the nonlyrical bridge back to John's part, so I'm taking upon myself to delete that Paul contributed it, and I feel justified for the following reasons:

ONE: There is no citation, and the part is so drenched in echo and reverb and such that it is really difficult to discern just by listening.

TWO: It is commonly accepted that John sings that part, not Paul. Every Beatles fan I've ever discussed it with, outside of people on Wikipedia say it is John's. I sang this song on karaoke, and the two parts were separated, and this part was with John's part.

THREE: Paul McCartney sang this song live recently, and had another vocalist sing this part. That doesn't prove anything, but it certainly doesn't help the case that it is McCartney's.

Now I'm not going to put that John sang it in there, because I have no citation that claims that he did, though, yes, I'll be honest and say that I'm about 95 percent convinced that John both composed and sang this part of the song. But as far as this article is concerned, it shouldn't say either, and I'm repairing this error.

Peace/Love,

Andy Jones. Andy Jones (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it is important to specify who sings the Ahhhs. As many people, I had always assumed it was John, but after a discussion about it in a Beatles news group whose participants are writers and even a music writer with the New York Times, it was pointed out that it was McCartney who sang that part. Ever since then, when I hear the song, it has become so obvious it is McCartney singing the Ahhhs. In addition, I think that portion of the song is out of Lennnon's singing range, so it would have made practical sense for John to have Paul sing that part even if he had originally intended himself to sing it originally. 69.122.122.147 (talk) AR

See here

Discussion about genre of this album and this song. Helpsloose 01:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

THX Deep Note

The THX Deep Note sounds a lot like the crescendo in this song, could it be worth referencing? Also The famous Mac start up sound is a Deep note that is a sound that not directly related to this song, could be noted for being a highly recognized sound much like the one in the song. It's a C Major chord, stretched out as wide as possible. But I do not think there is that much to say about the sounds, they could be put in the see also section of the page, deep note any way. Max ╦╩ (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevent that is to the article; it seems like trivia to me. Anway, you need a reference to a reliable source to put that in the article. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul's Voice on Download

Anyone noticed that Paul's voice changed to a distant echo in recent downloads of the song? What's up with that.

There's a chorus in A Day in the Life?

The article currently states:

The line "I'd love to turn you on" ... serves as a chorus to the first section of the song.

Although that line concludes the first section of the song, I don't think that should be called a chorus. I followed the link to the cite and it doesn't appear to even contain the word 'chorus'. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's been a week or so. Nobody's commented one way or another so I will make the change. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I had a go at fixing this among some other changes I was making, but it's still not right; I'll have another go (if you don't beat me to it :-) 87.114.146.27 (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cliched?

I'm not sure what the point is of calling the final chord 'obviously cliched', even though it was descibed as such in the referenced article. What does that mean, cliched? Is it a criticism? Another way of saying it's common? Overused? Or a comment on the chord itself (e.g., the final chord of Sgt. Pepper)? Without any explanation (and there isn't any explanation in the sourced article) it just sounds like an opinion that's not particularly noteworthy...definitely not explanatory or encyclopedic-hence the deletion. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Tim

Agree, just because an opinion is offered does not mean we should accept it, especially when the opinion lacks an argument to support it. Many, many, classical pieces end on a "grand chord", so this may be the origin of the comment, but without the author's justification, I don't think it advances a reader's understanding of the piece. --Rodhullandemu 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Genre?

Is the genre really just rock? It seems to be more like progressive rock or psychedelic rock with the orchestra in the background and unconventional breaks in the song. DAK4Blizzard (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of changes ago the infobox said the genre was progressive rock and psychedelic rock. [1] I don't know why this was changed. I think this should be undone. 90.130.209.83 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Finally it's been considered psychedelic rock on Wikipedia. For a long time I pushed for it being called psychedelic rock/progressive rock/symphonic rock, but my edits were always rejected. Now it seems that people are beginning to agree with us. Krobertj (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) There shouldn't be a genre in the edit box because there are no reliable sources cited for any genre in the article. What any editor thinks is the proper genre doesn't matter; only reliable sources matter. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I finally made it Progressive Rock/Psychedelic Rock and I sourced it. Now I have to make Helter Skelter Proto-Metal

I'm not sure that's a reliable source. What do Allmusic or Rolling Stone call it? And please don't change Helter Skelter to "proto-metal", that's just a redirect. Rodhullandemu 15:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The source said it was prog rock because it combined two separate pieces. That's pretty dumb. If I yodel something, and you yodel something different, and we put it together, is that prog rock? In any case, the source is from user contributed entries and so unreliable. I removed prog rock. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference

The song is pseudo-covered by Harvey Milk in the song "Death Goes to the Winner." They use the lyrics "got up, got out of bed, put a pistol to my head" or something like that and then promptly end the song with a layered chord meant to be reminiscent of the famous "A Day in the Life" chord. Might be worth adding to the covers/references section of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.23.138 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Love Version

On the Love version of the song, what's said right before the song? It sounds like "Sugar plum fairy, sugar plum fairy", but I'm not sure. Deserted Cities (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)