Talk:The Beatles

Housekeeping	Information

Michael Jackson

Can someone change the references to Michael Jackson and the song catalog to the past tense? --JustW353

His death doesn't really change anything. His estate now owns or controls the publishing rights until his heirs get it. Changing it to past tense will make it seem like he sold the rights prior to his death. Until something is published which states what will happen, I suggest leaving it as is. freshacconci talktalk 18:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made some minor mods, but I agree, it's too early to report what is going to happen to the song catalogue. Rodhullandemu 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello friends

this article seems interesting ( with sources)

[[1]]

--Roujan (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Was and were

"The Beatles was a pop/rock group that formed in 1960."

It can't be "were".--andreasegde (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. There is strong consensus throughout Wikipedia that UK bands take plurals since they are treated as mass nouns. See, for example, the edit note at the top of Genesis (band) and discussion on rerlated Talk page. Even searching for "The Beatles were" in WP gives 213 hits; a search for "The Beatles was" gives 47 hits, generally referring to The Beatles (album) or The Beatles (TV series), and never to the band as an entity. Since the article is written in British English, it should stay that way. The alternative is to alter all the other articles to match, resulting in multiple edit-wars and possible yet another trip to WP:LAME for this topic. Let It Be, please. Rodhullandemu 15:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear (with respect, andreasegde). I also found evidence of warring over this on Pink Floyd. If you google the rationale for the British English use of plural verb for collective nouns, or look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you admittedly find some grey areas and contradiction between rules and examples given, but please let's settle for this convention and use "were". It's good enough. PL290 (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, proper nouns which have the form of a plural (e.g., removing the "s" can refer to an individual of the group) take a plural verb in both British and American English usage, even when not specifically referring to the individuals. Compare the number of Google results for "The Beatles were a group" (>1000000) to "The Beatles was a group" (<10). —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore my note about the Google hits, I think something about my Google preferences made it unreliable. However, recall Harrison's lyrics: "You may think the band are not quite right / But they are, they just play it like that" ("Only a Northern Song"). —Mainstream Nerd (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The openning line to this article should read as this:

• The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed at their native home of Liverpool, England.

Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You are all gonna be put into a small box called a 'Nothing Box' (read about Alex). Both Lennon and McCartney said "It was a good, little rock n' roll band/group". Singular, not plural. Eat your hats, and darn your socks.--andreasegde (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There's precedent for being flexible with it. "We were a good band"/"It was a good band". As Elvis Costello put it: "Oliver's Army are on their way / Oliver's Army is here to stay". -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"We were a good band"/"It was a good band", is totally correct, GTBacchus.--andreasegde (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Small boxes" are no substitute for long-standing consensus and application here. When I remember the 1950s and early 1960s UK groups, they were always plural, as in Gerry & the Pacemakers or The Searchers. The first group to abandon "The", IIRC, were Traffic- but they were still referred to as a plural mass noun, as in "Traffic are" or "Traffic were"; and to an English audience, any other number is so grating as to be painful. If Lennon had said "we were a good, little rock n' roll band/group", nobody would have any complaint about that. There is enough nonsense already about Beatles articles without supporting this further nonsense. Rodhullandemu 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: "The team is here", or "The team are here". Which is right? --andreasegde (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Strictly, the first; but usage differs according to context. Even on BBC News, they are inconsistent as to number. But that is not a concern of ours. There is strong historical consensus in Wikipedia that UK musical groups here are considered as mass nouns, and treated as plurals, and to upset that particular apple-cart seems to me to be particularly pointless. However, I may change my mind as usage develops, so please ask me again in another fifty years time, although you might need to do so via a seance. Meanwhile, let us stick with the status quo ante, please. Rodhullandemu 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Andreasedge, you're way off here. Americans say "was", the British say "were". The Beatles were a British band, so it's "were". Simple as that. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a very subtle difference, but the difference is there. The Beatles was a group, but The Beatles were Lennon, McCartney, Harrison and Starr. The use of 'was' could only be used a few times in this article, but to not use the correct verb is lazy. Like, that's wot I fink, anyways.--andreasegde (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not another grammar-based dispute, please. We had enough after the the/The arguments. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and add information to articles (I'm not accusing anybody here of not doing that, but it is pertinent to my point). If somebody wants to find out about The Beatles, they won't start tutting and shaking their head because they think we've used the wrong verb - they will just look for the information they need and move on. These disputes add nothing to the article, and shouldn't occur until we have every article under our care at FA standard - most of them are still stubs! So come, Beatle people, and let us rise out of the realms of stubbiness before we begin to discuss the minor subtleties of the English language. Why not work on the current collaboration of the month, or take a stub under your wing and personally try your very hardest to get it to B-Class? Or, why not help us build a pyramid of excellence, topped by a shining Featured article on The Beatles, and surrounded by sphinxes? So pull up your moptops and help us make this project the most fab of them all!

tl;dr summary: This argument is pointless, so work on articles instead. Dendodge _T\^C 10:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

C'mon Dendodge (and the rest of you nay-sayers) this is fun. If anybody doesn't want to answer these posts, then just don't reply, but I am not going to let go of this one. After all, the logo for The Beatles were on Ringo's bass drum, and The Beatles were the name of the group. You can't argue with that. :))--andreasegde (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've just remembered, British Telecom are a large company in the UK.--andreasegde (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

andreasegde, The logo for The Beatles "was" on Ringo's bass drum (and it still is!), and The Beatles "was" the name of the group. Also, British Telecom (BT) "was" a large company, and Bell Telephone (also BT) "was" also a large company, now their just BLTs. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear 76.198.234.254, it is called reverse psychology, with a little bit of humour thrown in for good measure. The Beatles were a good name for a group, don't you think? :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They sure "was" my friend, sure "was"!!! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we is agreeing 'bout what the thing is. I pity them coyotes that doesn't know what they is talkin' about. It's jus' plum ignorance, and lazy what go with it.--andreasegde (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis true. We werz always agreeing. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's either Vera, or Joe. Which one? "Nice to see ya, to see ya, nice!"--andreasegde (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a soapy dish...alcoholic side-effects!?!? Bless you!!! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Stuff somehow previously placed in the previous section that actually has nothing to do with the "was" vs. "were" arguments

Good openning sentence for this article, Unschool. It's about time somebody got it right (i.e., refering to this article's "veteran editors"). Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here; however, it seems somehow ridiculous that a consensus cannot be reached on how to describe The Beatles at the most basic level. About a year ago, there was a debate going on, and I boldly wrote] "The Beatles were a pop and rock band from Liverpool, England" as the opening sentence. That version persisted for a long time, until people thought it should be tinkered with. Why on earth cannot we stick with some basics? Rodhullandemu 23:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Why on earth cannot we stick with some basics?" Probably because "here's another place you can be: fixing a hole in the ocean"... many of us have been there (and will probably go again). PL290 (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Stereo Box Set Image

I uploaded a promotional photo of the new remastered stereo box set for viewing. It has been tagged for speedy deletion, which I have contested. The purpose of this photo is to show a new item in the Beatles catalog. Please comment if you think this image is helpful and should stay.

The image is copyrighted by the person/company who created it. You have to prove either that you are the author of the image, or that the copyright holder consents to having it used (e.g. the source of the image contains a statement to that effect). ... discospinster _talk 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lennon & McCartney Sutcliffe

The Stuart Sutcliffe Estate sell memorabilia and artifacts of Sutcliffe's, which includes a rare sheet of white paper on which is written the chords and lyrics to a song Lennon and Sutcliffe composed together: "As I stood on the doorstep of romance, You told me, Then you threw your loving arms around me, and you gave me, yes gave me, you gave Peace of Mind..." The Stuart Sutcliffe Estate

So now we know why Macca got upset with Sutcliffe.--andreasegde (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More like why Lennon got upset with Wooler. PL290 (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

:))) Wooler forgave J. Lemon after having seven bells of faeces kicked out of him, and it being reported in a national newspaper. Now that's what you call a real man, or one sandwich short of a picnic.--andreasegde (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagship

I have been working through this article to clean and polish it, because this article should be the flagship.--andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, I have had to put quite a few of these, , in. It's quite shocking, frankly.--andreasegde (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

09/09/09

I can't wait for 9 Sep 2009 to get here. I'll make sure I'm getting my CDs. For those young people out there, this will be a good time to discover The Beatles for the first time. For those older people (including myself and my Beatles colleage editors - most of whom I've yet had any communication with, but soon will), this will be a great time for us to personally re-discover their music. There is no music on Earth since the great European composers of Bach (1600's), Moazrt (1700's) and Beethoven (1800's), that really changed music like The Beatles (1900's) have. To my editor friends, we know that both this article and the discography article (and possibly the other side-articles) will definately change. I'm ready to work with all of you on this when it happens (yes, and that includes you too, Andre!) Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you sign in with a name you will. BTW, remastering the albums is selling coal to Newcastle, or a fridge to an Eskimo, IMO.--andreasegde (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My friend andreasegde, I think it'd be best if I stay working on discographies rather than main articles, of which you're an expert on (I might contribute through messages via talk page --like this one-- if the page is protected like that of The Beatles), because I'm just not sure anymore if to use the word "was" or "were". Best, Mr. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 06:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of humorous conversation

20:07, 16 July 2009 Radiopathy (talk | contribs) m (43,884 bytes) (→One After 090909: deleted per WP:Talk_pages#Important notes)

I knew, I just knew it. Call me an old duffer and a pig in a poke, but I knew it. I did, really.--andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll you what; I'm going to save the deleted discussion on my page. So there, with knobs on.--andreasegde (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks andreasegde, good idea. I accept that Radiopathy was right to ban it, really, if fun is dirty and naughty, or it was excessively frivolous and irrelevant to improving the article. My intent was to boost morale, thereby precisely contributing to improving the article, but that could only work if all can receive the material in that spirit which evidently is not the case. Let's take heed and respect the wishes of others in this regard in future. To those finding it a funny and morale-boosting exercise though, please now switch channels to User_talk:Andreasegde#One_After_090909 where the vision may yet evolve further! Sir PL290 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course he was right, but he's not getting a Xmas card.--andreasegde (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop/rock

For God's sake's Andre, change the lead back to how it was, and take "and" out. It's not supposed to be "pop and rock", it's supposed to be "pop/rock"! I know you agree with me my friend, like I agree with you on "was and were". Thanks... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Of all the article I watchlist, this is about the worst for unnecessary tinkering with minor details that I have ever seen. I'm not surprised in the slightest that many otherwise committed editors have long since given up the futile struggles here. We are volunteers, remember, and supposed to be a community, but I despair that this article will ever regain its featured article status while this trivial wrangling continues. I have better things to do than argue an established convention about "was" and "were", or genres. Keep it simple, Let It Be and don't rock the boat, otherwise I, for one, am out of here. Whilst that may mean you get your own way, well fucking hot dog, but does it improve the article? Rodhullandemu 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Rod! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Put simply: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That's where I stand. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this pop/rock thing and trying to avoid despairing about the article too, but my take is different: I've never heard of a group being called that with or without a slash! The Beatles were a rock group. Their musical style encompassed many genres (which we all keep hearing about too) including, of course, pop. But they were a rock group. PL290 (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear PL, rock is spun-off from pop, which as you know (pop that is) happens to be the older of the two, and encompassing a wider range of music, giving pop (genre) presedence over rock. Back in the 1960s, '70s, and 80s, this wording was often coupled together, with a dash in-between them, forming pop/rock. This type of grammer began to cesae in the early 1990s with the overall change in popular music itself, as the days of "good" music of the '60s, '70s and '80s was coming to an unfortunate end. Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OY, Mush! Don't start getting on your "Let's find a scapegoat" high horses with me.

1. Is "was/were" or "pop/rock" such a big deal? Nobody's gonna change anything without concensus. Notice how I didn't get into an edit war about it? I've had experience, Sonny Jim.
2. If 76.198.234.254 would get a soddin' account, he wouldn't have to keep posting complaints here. I changed it to pop/rock, Mr User.
3. If Rodhull wants to sod off because of this, then that's his business (well-respected as he is) but I could find much better reasons.
4. This article will ALWAYS have little differences and complaints, because of the group it's about. It's like going on holiday with your in-laws - it will never get better, no matter how many times you say you like them.
5. It's like this: If people want to leave complaints here, then just let them. You don't have to answer. If there is an edit war, it will be taken care of by the boys upstairs.
6. This project has never had the massive amount of input it is now experiencing (said the actress) so look on the bright side, and "cheer up", (Lennon) --andreasegde (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, 76.198.234.254, don't bring God into this, or people will come round your house and start burning your records.--andreasegde (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have records any more, my friend! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

IT DOESN'T MATTER! Nobody is going to care about whether we use a slash or the word "and". Come on, guys - can't we go one day without a grammar argument? I suggest that everybody here participate in The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, and concentrate on working on articles for a change.

Back to the point at hand - I think it looks better using "and", but the difference is minuscule and not worth arguing about. Dendodge _T\^C 19:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dendodge , don't contribute to the hysteria by shouting. I have been bloody working on articles, and not "for a change". --andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the wording to the opening paragraph, I think I have a solution:

“The Beatles, a band that rocked Liverpool before blowing the rest of the world away were fucking awesome”. Or: “The Beatles, yeah? The fucking BEATLES for fuck’s sake! You want some?” Or: “You. yeah, you, ya fucking knob head! We’re talking Beatles here for Christ‘s sake, and if you don’t know who they were, then leave your head up your arse where it obviously belongs”.

I don’t mind which one is used.--Patthedog (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Socks are being well and truly laughed off. Now That's What I Call Humour III.  :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Records/CDs

Andre, I only have CDs, my friend! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You can sod off as well. My name is not Andre, and I am not your friend. You didn't send me a Xmas card.--andreasegde (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll send two cards to you my friend, Andre. It's like this: Tom Baker appeared in the best Dr. Who episodes, but Tristan Farnon portrayed the best Doctor! How's that? --76.198.234.254 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor old Johnny Gentle

Why is there nothing about Johnny Gentle and the tour of Scotland in this article or in The Quarrymen article? Not one mention. Tommy Moore? Who's he? Not a mention.--andreasegde (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is me thinking that anyone reading this actually knows who these two gentlemen are.--andreasegde (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They're nobody, Andre (like us). Tom Baker or Peter Davison? Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Gentle was a brand of condom. Tommy Moore only had a snare drum. Tell me though andreasegde, Ringo was left handed - but set up his kit in a r/h format, is that correct? --Patthedog (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentle condom? No. Moore snare? no. Ringo? Yes, and that's why it's so hard to copy his fills, because he started them with his left hand on a right-handed kit (if there is such a thing...)--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. Ringo's a lefty (I myself right-handed), but was both-handed when playing drums...maybe our friend Andre is too! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This dick is getting on my mammary glands.--andreasegde (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

So, a good example would be perhaps the intro to Drive My Car? (Yes, and mine too!).--Patthedog (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll send the girl I had over last night to ypur place. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, by the time you're done, you might be calling each other "bland glands"!!! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, do you mean Johnny "the gentle" Lennon"? One and the same, maybe... --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Tommy Moore was one of Lennon's original school buddy members of the group. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, I don't know. Dis-regard the above I said. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We already have. Don't you have something important to do on The Bee Gees page? --andreasegde (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Course we know about the Moore Gentle insertion into the scheme of things. Dendodge said anyway. There are some funny words I don't understand appearing at a different place on this page, but perhaps it's because for the third day running I'm unable to read the screen when doubled up with tears of helpless laughter streaming down my face. PL290 (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I put poor Johnny on the Macca page aeons ago (he's still there as one line) but had to cut it back for the FA boys upstairs. The Scottish tour should have a paragraph all to itself. Look at the timeline and see where the towns were (in order) that they played in. The back of beyond and over the hillside just don't come into it, no-how.--andreasegde (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, does it go on The Quarrymen page, or here? They were called Long John and The Silver Beetles in Scotland, after all. Don't all rush at once...--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I put it at the end of Lennon's ex-school group page, but it should be more, such as: Tommy Moore having his teeth knocked out by a guitar after the van crashed, Lennon visiting him in hospital the next day and telling he had to get up and do the gig no matter how poorly he felt, and poor Tommy going back to the bottling works in Liverpool as a forklift truck driver because his girlfriend told him to. Now that's what I call a story, and it's all true, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say Quarrymen (well actually I'd say Quarry Men, but that's another story). It has all the background, and already has a.k.a. Silver Beetles in its infobox; Long John could join them there. After all, let us remember what Patthedog reminded us: we are talking The Beatles here. PL290 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I copied over a sentence from Macca, but I'll look for more. It was a classic crap tour, and very informative about how The Fabs lived up there. Sleeping on stairways, out of their trees most of the time, and having it away with anything that didn't have testicles.--andreasegde (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This remark has evidently been reverberating in my subconscious but had become abridged: I thought you said they were sleeping in the trees most of the time. But of course if they did happen to do that, then we should note it somewhere (assuming there's a reliable source) and it should probably make its way into the first sentence of the Lead, in due time. PL290 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No wonder Ringo's left-handed, 'cause he was snaring the "drums" with his right hand! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Darren Young

Seriously, Andre, as you probably already know, Johnny Gentle is really Darren Young. But quite honestly, concerning Tommy Moore, that is a good question. I'll check my vast assortment of EMI discographical records I have and get back to you on this... Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Andre, there is no Tommy Moore to be found...I've checked and checked, still nothing (though Tommy Steele toured with him breifly back in 1960). Also, Gentle's adoptive last name happens to be Askew. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Darren? Sounds like a child of the 80s. "Neighbours, everybody needs good neighbours..."--andreasegde (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for acting like a fool above, my friend. Darren Young "could" be an alias that Johnny Askew (a.k.a. Johnny Gentle) used. So, I may quite possibly have the two names turned around, meaning that Johnny Askew is the actual birth name and Darren Young the adoptive. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It was John Askew (see Larry Parnes) and Askew and I share the same birthday. It explains a lot.--andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good info, thanks Andre...Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First live appearance?

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "America" the wiki states that the first time The Beatles were on TV in the US was on the Ed Sullivan show - in fact they were first on the CBS News with Walter Cronkite FIRST. In an interview I saw when Walter passed (last night) he stated that he wanted that little piece of trivia to be acknowledged. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5170603n&tag=related;photovideo Thank you. NativeSonKY (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a source that states that the Beatles appeared live with Cronkite? The way the article currently reads, it was a recorded segment on the CBS News, but their first live appearance was on Sullivan. —C.Fred (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Declined Nowhere in that clip does it mention the Beatles, much less that the broadcast was live. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5170873n - at about 2:45 of the video "Walter Cronkite: In His Own Words" the Beatles are seen talking to the reporter saying "We hope we have a good run..." NativeSonKY (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

But nowhere does it say that clip was live. I see no need to change the article, which reflects that the Beatles first appeared on American TV on the CBS Evening News and first appeared live on the Ed Sullivan Show. —C.Fred (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point - well taken - also didn't realize the #%@!storm I might have been walking into! Thanks for keeping it civil in my case! I didn't mean to cause you any pain, Uncle Albert  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeSonKY (talk • contribs) 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's okay. Erm, have a cup of tea and butter pie. :) And you've got a point about CBS Evening News being their first appearance; as I noted before, that is in the article. If it weren't, I would have added it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Beatles first performance on TV in the US was on the Ed Sullivan show". Mine's a steak and kidney pie and a bottle of stout.--andreasegde (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"didn't realize the #%@!storm I might have been walking into!" - NativeSonKY. #%@!storm? You don't visit this page very often then... :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a statement of fact that the first "live" performance of the Beatles in the US was on The Ed Sullivan Show. The first filmed appearance of The Beatles in the US was a little seen segment aired on the CBS Morning News on 22 November. It was this filmed segment which aired the following month on the widely seen CBS Evening News. The reason for the delay was the JFK assassination. If you really want to be anal retentive, Jack Paar played a filmed performance of The Beatles playing "She Loves You" on his show before they appeared live on Ed Sullivan. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Moore and Cronckite

I've checked my discographical records for both Tommy Moore and Walter Cronckite...can't seem to recall either one. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, it was Thomas Moore, and Willie Crankhite. Try again.--andreasegde (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Group or band - which one?

                                                                                       STRAW POLL CLOSED

I know the fuddy-duddys like me will say "group", because Long John and Pauly always referred to them as a rock 'n roll group (Macca once said they were "a great act") but some of the lads in short keks will go for "band", as in rock band. I'll go either way, but no funny business after the lights are out... Straw Poll time, as it makes it less painful, especially if you're swinging both ways...

(Note: It's strange that nobody has gone solely for band yet...)--andreasegde (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(Note #2: Isn't it nice? Tea with the vicar, a game of bowls, and a straw poll for afters. Nice, and not a smidgin of rain. Lovely stuff.)--andreasegde (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Group:

• --andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• I say group also, because The Beatles was a (pop)/rock group. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Well, they were definitely a beat group, at least to start with, so I say "group."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Well, if Pawnkingthree can say they were a beat group and be on this list then so can I! Beat group/group/phenomenon/ensemble. But definitely not a band.--Patthedog (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Group is the term that was generally used at the time and should be used first in an article, but if band is mixed in later a few times, no harm done. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Chaz (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• ClonedPickle 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hotcop2 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Score one for the old folks - "group" is what we always said when we could talk about the Beatles in present tense, so I'd go for that if we want to choose only one but an occasional "band" here or there is ok. (My son saw Macca at Shea/CitiField on Friday, and he'd probably say "band", but he doesn't get a vote because he took his girlfriend to the concert instead of his mother.) Tvoz/talk 07:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Band:

• They were a group, that is true, but they played instruments. I have nothing else to say. I think I would go with band Zobango (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Beatles were a band, they weren't some opera. I'm pretty sure that George Harrison said that they were a Rock and Roll Band some time in The Beatles anthology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FootyStavros (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Either is fine and both can appear in the same article:

• Either is fine; both can (and indeed should) appear in the same article. There is The Beatles: Rock Band—"The game has been developed with the blessing and critical input of Apple Corps, including former Beatles members Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr". But "group" is fine too and per User:SilkTork, variety is good. PL290 (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Per WP:DGAF :) ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Is there really a difference between the two? Both terms redirect to musical ensemble, so you won't find a reason there. As far as I'm concerned, a rock 'n' roll band and a rock 'n' roll group are one and the same, so I'm fine with either or both appearing in the article. Krobertj (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• The terms mean exactly the same thing as far as I am concerned. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Both are fine, and are interchangeable. Group gets 2,222 mentions in GoogleBooks, while band gets 1,757 mentions. A slightly different result on the internet where band gets 20,600,000 hits, and group a mere 7,440,000. I hope this is a fun poll and that nobody is going to start some kind of ethnic cleansing with a Beatles mop at the end of it. Besides, there are other alternatives - I remember they were quite frequently called a beat combo or just four lads. Text is more attractive to read (and provides more information and education) if a variety of descriptive words are used. We are not Wikipedia Simple. Simples. SilkTork *^YES! 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Vint (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• "Group" is a Sixties (or maybe even Fifties) term; we started hearing "band" in the Seventies. I still feel that either is fine, even when discussing a "group" that was only active until the end of the Sixties. Radiopathy •talk• 05:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• faithless (^speak) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• --Betty kerner (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think both terms mean the same thing, so either one is acceptable and can be used in the same article. -JayLeno175 (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Either noun is fine with me.
• Raiku :  Chat  21:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC) - There's really no difference.
• This is silly. They were both. And the two terms can each be used for the Beatles in different contexts. They were the world's greatest rock group and also the world's greatest pop band. Why do you need to call them one or the other? Is the US a country or a nation? Grutness...wha? 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• John in interviews used both -- "I met Paul and said, ``You want to join me band? Then George joined, and then Ringo joined. We were just a band that made it very, very big, that's all", "I started the band. I finished it" vs "It's only a rock group that split up, it's nothing important" etc.
• ΠΑΕ.ΠΑΟΚ ₯ (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree this is silly! What next LP vs Album? The band used both; "rock band" didn't exist as a phrase in the UK in the early 1960s, the Beatles were a pop group, or a rock n roll group. Later on, they started calling themselves a rock band - probably through US influence. I find it unbelievable that anyone would be confused by using both terms. Apepper (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• All of the interviews I recall of the Beatles included them saying that it was a band, however I really don't think this is really important. Seriously, what is te difference between a group and a band. Most importantly, WHO CARES! I am not dissing my favorite band but I have to say that this is a waste of time.--Ezekiel 7:19 ^{S†rawberry Fields (sign)} 13:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I am surprised at people saying how silly this was, but felt they had to leave a comment. It's like complaining about the price of stamps when you don't use them.

1. I brought this up because when reading paragraphs with band, group, band, group, it left me confused, as in, "Hello, this my wife, Edna. She's my second spouse, because my first bride ran off with my ex-fiancée." Maybe I work too much on The Beatles' articles, and I'm going snowblind.
2. My thanks to everyone who took part, but especially because nobody argued (even though they did complain a bit). Democracy (ouch - not allowed) is alive and well, albeit living in a small vegan restaurant in Hove.--andreasegde (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• What's wrong with people saying something's silly? It's relevant to their vote! When I first added the "either is fine" choice, didn't this edit and then this one say "that's silly" to me? I got over it! I don't see the need to castigate people who've helpfully participated in a straw poll and given their honest, relevant opinion to supplement their vote. But I do see that I'll be getting no Xmas card either this year. :) PL290 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from blatantly ignoring the "Straw Poll Closed", it seems you feel the need, PL290, to drag this into an argument, specifically when that is something everybody had had enough of. OK, Big Yin, I will tell you this:

• I asked people for a simple vote. I didn't ask people to comment on whether it interrupted their dinner, or made their blood boil. It couldn't have been simpler.
• If the people that seemed so hot under the collar about this poll put just one single reference onto the main page, it wouldn't have "citations needed", would it? You're backing the wrong horse, but I'll let you find that out for yourself. (Note: It doesn't have any now, because somebody decided to work on it.)
• The edits I made were trying to be humorous, and lighten it up a bit. You should get out more.
• I don't give a flying frig if you "got over it" or not. I started the soddin' thing, and I closed it. I don't need your take on my state of mind, and I certainly don't need to know yours.
• I wasn't castigating anyone, I was expressing my opinion. You forgot to read that I thanked everyone, or are you selectively blind?
• True, you're off my Xmas card list, because your kind of arrogance gets up my soddin' nose.
• Now go find something better to do, and read the capital letters underneath.--andreasegde (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

                                                                                             STRAW POLL CLOSED

P.S.

The Beatles were quintessentially English weren’t they? McCartney met Lennon playing skiffle at a church garden fete. They then formed a group and (initially) wrote pop songs whilst drinking tea (spilling most of it). They lived here (lovely wet England) and paid a ridiculous level of tax for the privilege. It was “group” until “band” began to creep into our vernacular along with “guy” instead of “chap” in around ‘69. They were definitely never just a “rock band” anyway. I agree, it’s probably not worth getting out the axe for, but to those who ask “who cares?” well, I do actually, and that's why I voted. --Patthedog (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering exactly when groups were started to be called bands. I'm sure Macca would have thought of his father's "Jim Mac's Jazz Band", or the local brass band concerts his father took him to watch in the local park. How fashions change, as words that were once associated with the old fellas are picked up again. Anbody for a spot of sunbathing, a dip in the sea, a quick cuppa, whizz-bang tally-ho and all that malarky? Kettle's on...--andreasegde (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting the article structure right

The structure goes a bit funny in the middle of the article at one point. What do people propose about a better structure and naming for the period of history shown below? I've not shown the detail so you'll need to look at the real thing but this outline makes the point. To bear in mind when considering this question: the section currently lacks mention of the 1965 and 1966 U.S. tours, and there's been some kind of vague muttering about the Elvis bit once or twice I seem to remember (though to what effect I cannot say).

== American releases ==

===America===                           ! not an American release
===Australia and New Zealand===         ! not an American release
===MBE, Elvis and ''Rubber Soul''===    ! not an American release

PL290 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Australia and New Zealand" section was always strange, as they toured/played in Germany, Holland, Sweden and other places. The "MBE, Elvis and Rubber Soul is also strange. The Beatles at The Cavern Club being a prime example. Is it a timeline article? This may be the result of an explosion of new articles, without taking a step back to look at the main article from a distance. --andreasegde (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point we must remind ourselves that attempts were made to do exactly that (step back and review the article structure) before the new sub-articles were created. At the time those involved couldn't seem to find common ground on which to base the discussion. But anyway, that's the past so let's not dwell on it beyond learning a lesson from it. Straight away, andreasegde's reply's given me the thought that the article should have "Tours" or "International tours" as a section. Under "Tours" could go the summary of the U.S. tours, along with summary or summaries for all the others andreasegde just mentioned and more. "MBE, Elvis and Rubber Soul needs dismantling, I suspect. It's all about 1965, which may explain its existence, but of course touring happened in 1965 too. I think "MBE, Elvis and Rubber Soul needs to break away from chronology. "Tours" will include 1964, 1965 and 1966, while other sections devoted to significant themes ("Influences" for instance? e.g. Presley, Dylan, "their idol" Little Richard ...) can quite happily mention things pertaining to those years too. Food for thought, perhaps. Personally I think getting the structure right is the key to sorting the article out and getting it shining, flagshipshape and Bristol fashion. But for that to happen we are going to need some suggestions about an effective process; do we draft an outline structure (like mine above, but the whole article) on a subpage, and all keep editing it till it's right, conversing the while in edit summaries? Or perhaps there's an established and better way someone knows about. PL290 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Everything from "Formation" to "Recent projects..." is the group's biography/history. This is reflected in the outline structure we've now arrived at which is shown below (detailed levels not shown). These level 2 and level 3 sections are necessary to allow the TOC to make sense. The detailed levels and content still need work, but this gives a better basis for getting things into shape.

== History ==

===Formation===
===Hamburg===
===UK chart success===
===U.S. chart success===
===Touring years===
===Studio years===
===Post-breakup===
===Anthology===
===Recent projects and developments===

== Influences ==

== Musical evolution ==

== Films ==

== Legacy ==

== Discography ==

== See also ==

== Notes ==

== References ==

== Further reading ==

== External links ==

PL290 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The format (as it is) is not good, or shite if one was honest, as it should be divided into years, or albums. They did so much in each individual year that it should be noted. The Beatles in 1966, being a prime example as a good (but not yet a GA) article, and The Beatles at The Cavern Club being a bad example. Time to stop spewing articles into the ether, and concentrate on the facts.--andreasegde (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support splitting the History section into subsections by year. I wouldn't limit all of the sections too a single year, however. The pre-fame years can probably be collapsed into a section or two, and similarly the post-breakup years don't need a section by year. They can be split into decades, perhaps. The high-activity years should have a section per year. I also wouldn't get too hung up about year boundaries. For example, The Sgt. Pepper stuff should be discussed in 1967 even though the recording sessions started at the end of 1966. Let It Be can be discussed in 1969 even though the album was released in 1970. So, I propose:

1960 and prior
1961 and 1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s

I am not opposed to combing some years or grouping the early pre-fame years differently. I think the key is to make it an explicit timeline by year (or more). — John Cardinal (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I support year-grouping if it can be shown to work. So I'd avocate taking this a stage further and seeing what's in each group and whether this approach presents any difficulties. (BTW Hamburg included 1960, 1961 and 1962 so would end up in two sections per the above outline.) I suggest we need at least bullet points to indicate contents of each section to give confidence that the approach will work. PL290 (talk) 09:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's OK to split up the trips to Hamburg. Each particular trip should be in one section, even if it spans the section's timespan (just pick a section).

That triggers a question: do the sub-articles have to cover the same time spans as the sections? My opinion is no. While "1960 and prior" and "1961 and 1962" are shown as two sections above, both sections could have "The Beatles - 1962 and prior" as their main article. I think one-to-one is better, but if the main article devoted to a specific section was shorter than we want, we could combine that section with the main article for the next or previous sections. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with all that. Hamburg (or whatever theme we use as an example) could appear in more than one section in this article; and be covered in detail by a single sub-article—however, it may be that that sub-article would become overcluttered and lose focus if we force it to be the one place for all expanded detail pertaining to that timespan. So, using your timespans or similar for sections in this article, should we perhaps aim for a complete set of timespan sub-articles (combined where size dictates, per your comment), but also some "theme" (as opposed to timespan) sub-articles where useful (the obvious example being Hamburg)? PL290 (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is bloody madness. The Beatles in Hamburg is a perfectly good article, and splitting it would confuse the situation even more. There isn't an article about the 62 trip there, because it wouldn't be long enough. It is dealt with in the main article. The confusion is the main section. The Quarrymen deals with The Cavern, Brian Epstein deals with his involvement, Beatlemania the same, so what's missing? --andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall structure sucks, but I don't want to participate in bloody madness, so I'll bow out and you can decide whether to leave it or change it. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

John, please come back, this was a misunderstanding and I for one appreciate your input and hope it will continue. Andreasedge, you asked, "What's missing?" A wet fish is what's missing! No one's suggested splitting the Hamburg article. John was talking about sections in this article. Calm down and re-read! PL290 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, PL290, I'm out. I got a reminder of why I avoid editing the main article and the other biographies and so now I'll return to defending the articles from vandalism, removing unsourced stuff, helping with citations, etc. Less drama. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed

I added these to this article, because I was shocked.

As there were so many people willing to contribute to the the straw poll, why are they not willing to erase (by adding references) the "Citation needed" tags in the main article? Where are you when we need you? You have a voice that you are ready and willing to use, but how about some real edits? Are you all here just to state your opinion and/or complain? Please feel free to write "I do what I can", but when the basics are not there, don't even pretend that you care. "All mouth and no trousers", as the old blokes used to say.

Don't even dare to say that I should do it.--andreasegde (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you need a job doing, do it yer bleedin' self. Thanks for the input, y'all.--andreasegde (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Glam band?

I know they started before the early 70's, but is The Beatles' later work ever considered glam rock? Look at their image from the Sgt. Pepper era. David Bowie's early work is very Beatlesque too, and Roxy Music I know covered several Beatles songs, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana Joye (talk • contribs) 21:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's cobblers.--andreasegde (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is cobblers? I think someone's drenched in drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana Joye (talk • contribs) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dialect for not a good idea. They were glamorous before glam rock, but at the end they all had (mostly) beards, which was not very glam rock, and was considered a bit hippy.

BTW, there's a little box at the top of this editing page, to the right of a 'W' with a red circle. Click on it.--andreasegde (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Members in the infobox

I was wondering why All four are listed as "members" even though the band broke up. Other bands that broke up like Cream (band) and Led Zeppelin have members listed under former members. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your answer is right here; have fun!

Welcome to Wikipedia, also! Radiopathy •talk• 04:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The way it is here actually makes more sense to me than listing them all us former members. I was wondering why no consistency though. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Digital Distribution Tweak

The article refers to music distribution services such as "Napster" but clearly seems to be in the context of iTunes. Changing the text "Napster" (and the accompanying hyperlink) to "iTunes" seems prudent. Titomuerte (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Years active

Shouldn't the 'years active' be '1957-1970'? The band technically formed then, not in 1960. A name change does not create a new band. See Radiohead. Zazaban (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you mean 1957, but apart from that I tend to agree. PL290 (talk) 09:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thank you. Zazaban (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we include folk rock in the genre

The Folk Rock article mentions the beatles countless time. I think we should include it in the genre. Since I'm not a regular editor here I'll let you guys decide. --Fire 55 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian Epstein is a HOMOSEXUAL

I would like to add that "Brian Epstein is a homosexual" it is a proven fact