Talk:The Beatles

Housekeeping	Information
	Template:FAOL

the Beatles

From this page: http://beatles.com/core/beatles/intro/

And I quote from none less than Derek Taylor:

I have never seen anything like it. Nor heard any noise to approximate the ceaseless, frantic, hysterical scream which met the Beatles when they took the stage after what seemed a hundred years of earlier acts. All very good, all marking time, because no one had come for anything other than the Beatles...

Now geez, wankers, if the very Derek Taylor doesn't use 'The' then how long is this Wikipedia joke going to go on?

Or do you clowns really think you have a right to rewrite history?

Don't you see people are laughing at you?

No. But then "people" don't have a Manual of Style in general or one directed towards articles like this. It would help if you did a little reading up before throwing abuse around. --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Since the semi-protection on this page expired on 7 January, 96 edits have yielded this much change. Clearly, the vast majority of edits have been vandalism and reverts. The last period of protection lasted a month, I think it would be worth re-protecting the article (semi) for longer this time. Any opinions? Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Aitias has taken care of it, semi-protecting the article for three months. Nev1 (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure since the Beatles are so popular, this page will be under attack forever.MissPijon (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Personnally, one day I would like to see "Yellow Submarine" removed from the list of "Studio Albums" since it is only a sountrack to a movie containing mostly previously released matterial and several insturmentals not even written by The Beatles. Plus, The Beatles themselves DID NOT consider it one of they're albums, they had almost nothing to do with it much like the film.--NewChampion (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Would anyone be okay with me adding Badfinger into the list of associated acts? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that associated acts should be very limited. There's a tendency by some editors to try to include every artist or group that is even remotely related to a band. Infoboxes should be very brief. One or more Beatles were members of each group currently listed. Why should Badfinger be considered an associated act? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think other artists recorded on Apple, performed a bit on some songs by one or more Beatles, and recorded songs written by a Beatle. Ward3001 (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - limit the list to bands which featured at least 1 Beatle. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Name one that recorded on Apple, was produced by the Beatles, recorded songs written by a Beatle and played on three of the Beatles solo albums. There are none. Badfinger was intrinsically connected to the Beatles, they were by far the most associated group not to feature a single member of the band and I think the most obvious and glaring exception to the 1 Beatle rule. - 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's accurate to say that Badfinger might not have been successful without The Beatles, but that's a far cry from being "intrinsically connected to the Beatles". I'm not even convinced Badfinger deserves a mention in the article, and certainly not in the infobox. Badfinger has a brief section in The Beatles' influence on popular culture. I think that's enough. But let's see if a consensus emerges. By the way, Billy Preston and Yoko Ono (solo) recorded on Apple, recorded songs written by a Beatle, and even performed on albums by The Beatles, but they certainly don't belong in the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ward3001, Badfinger might not have been successful without the Beatles, but they were not so overwhelmingly important in the Beatles career to warrant mentioning them any more than they already are in other articles.MissPijon (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Music Samples

I personally like the way they are constructed on the Lennon, McCartney and Harrison articles. They each have two songs which are arguably their best known and they are all relavant to the article. Lennon includes "In My Life" and "A Day in the Life", McCartney includes "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude", and Harrison has "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Here Comes the Sun". Now if only we had "Dont pass me by" and "Octopus's Garden", ohh well. My question is what music samples should be in this article? I personally think there should be only two just like the Lennon, McCartney and Harrison articles. Chasesboys (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be difficult to construct a representative sample without banging into fair-use problems. Even picking from early ("Please Please Me"?), middle ("A Day in the Life"?) and late ("Get Back"?) is almost certain to lead to intense disagreement. As for Ringo, no problem with "Octopus's Garden", since it's (I think) the only song on which he gets sole songwriting credit, but I'd prefer "Act Naturally" as an early example of his vocals, and ties in with Help! (film). --Rodhullandemu 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of Three samples in this article. Like you said early, middle/prime, and end of the Beatles career. Like it is currently constructed, I just want to know why the consensus is "I want to hold your hand", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Get Back". Chasesboys (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"IWTHYH" is an example of their early rock 'n' roll, and was an instrumental part of the American Invasion, "SFF" is a prime example of their changing musical styles, and "GB" perfectly shows the philosophy of their final project as well as being one of the songs they played at their rooftop concert. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

the beatles were a rock and roll fame to fortune band! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.42.81 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

a better lead

This article's lead could do a far better job of acquainting the uninitiated with the significance of the subject. There have been lots of "rock and pop bands from Liverpool," lots of acts "rooted in Rock & Roll and skiffle," lots to set trends and so forth. But none of this explains to someone who knows little or nothing about the Beatles (and as someone who lived in Asia for many years, I can tell you there are many in this category) what distinguishes them from any other musical act. Whatever the significance, it should be stated in the very first sentence, so that if that's all a person reads he/she will have some idea of the subject's importance. We can quibble over nuance, but a better, more comprehensive lead would be something like:

xxxxxx The Beatles were a British rock & roll band that revolutionized popular music and played a significant role in the stark cultural changes that marked the 1960s, particularly in the Western world. Aside from influencing everything from fashion to political sensibilities, the Beatles were one of the most commercially successful musical acts of all time, selling records in large numbers for decades after their 1970 dissolution. The group comprised an evolving roster of members from 1957 until 1962, when it arrived at the four-man line-up that achieved world-wide fame in 1964: John Lennon ... The group has its origins in 1957, when .... xxxxxxx

It's worth remembering that people will be reading this all over the world, and that many younger people outside the West have only the foggiest notion about the Beatles' significance, even if the music they listen to is a product of conventions the Beatles established. (Having lived in China for many years, I'm speaking from experience). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgay88 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the lengthy time it's taken to achieve consensus for the current lead, and whereas I wish you well, I largely think it's OK as it is. One problem with your proposal is that it fails several of the guidelines in WP:LEAD as well as introducing unencyclopedic wording. So sorry, no. --Rodhullandemu 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)