Talk:The Beatles

Capitalization

"the Beatles" is used multiple times throughout the article, even though "The Beatles" is also used, and the article's talk page states "The Beatles" shall be used (if you use Firefox, you can press control + F, type "the Beatles," and check "Match case" to find where it is used). I am unable to fix this because the article is locked.

Also, under "Discography," the Beatles' second album is named "With The Beatles." I understand the Beatles should be referred to as "The Beatles," but considering this is part of a title, I do not think "the" should be capitalized. 98.203.152.242 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There were two occurrences of "the Beatles" that needed fixing, which I've done, thank you. There's a reference to the Beatles phenomenon; here, "Beatles phenomenon" is the noun, so that one's correct. All the rest are the ones in quotes; you tend to get that because that's how most of the rest of the world renders the band's name in running prose. (Many Wikipedia band articles still don't—it comes under scrutiny as a stylistic anomaly from time to time, but that's the way it is at the moment.) Per our style guideline, we don't change capitalization or punctuation etc in quoted material.

On the album title in the discography, that's how the WP article With The Beatles is titled. The linked Allmusic and Pitchfork reviews render it With the Beatles, as you did; it's part of the same general syndrome of band names rendered "The ..." in running prose in Wikipedia articles.

The issue came up quite recently in a style guide discussion, and one editor drew attention to the Chicago Manual of Style's guideline:

Capitalization, Titles

Q. For rock fans, such as myself, it is sometimes important to know whether one is to capitalize the "the" preceding a rock group’s name. For instance, the group "the Who." In the middle of a sentence, do I say "the Who" or "The Who," given that the "the" is an integral part of the title and furthermore is the first word in the title?

A. When the name of a band requires the definite article, lowercase it in running text:

When I first saw the Who, they had short hair; when I last saw them, that was again true.

I can’t believe the Rolling Stones didn’t retire with all their money years ago.

The day I was introduced to the The was the day I learned that irony was finished.

It is true that "the" often gets capitalized on album covers, but our rule is to capitalize the first and last word in any title, which fits in with that practice (the The has usually employed a lowercase "the" nested above an uppercase "The" on its covers). Exceptions to the proper "the" rule are names that are captured within italics or quotation marks within running text. Hence,

Have you ever heard "The Real Me," that song by the Who?

I have three copies of The Soft Parade, one of the Doors' lesser-known albums. Chicago Manual of Style Q&A

There seems to be growing support for the view that we should now bring our articles up to date with what most of the world does, and drop the peculiarity of the "The" in running prose. PL290 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What opinions are there currently about making this change to Beatles articles? I suggest we go ahead and do it. PL290 (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was reached not that long ago to use "The Beatles." We do not have to follow the Chicago Manual, we have our own MoS. I don't see any point in going through the whole controversy all over again.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's just the point: our own MoS has never supported the rendering we currently use! And for some months now, it's been specifically proscribed by our WikiProject Music standards. Those are the styleguide discussions I was referring to, which interested parties will have been following. The Chicago excerpt above simply illustrates what most of the world does anyway. So. We should not feel the subject is somehow taboo simply because certain editors made vociferous demands in the past. Times move on. Time to end the controversy, put it back how it used to be, and wave goodbye to this blemish. PL290 (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. In the two months since the more commonly used rendering was mooted above, no one's opposed it. That's strong indication that we now have consensus to comply with our MoS (which is good news, as that's something a Featured Article is expected to do). So let's go ahead and implement this. In accordance with our guideline, let's keep it as "The Beatles" wherever it's wikilinked, bolded, or italicized or quoted in isolation, but in running prose, let's talk about the Beatles from now on:

Names (definite article)

An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name. ... Mid-sentence, the word "the" should not be capitalized in continuous prose, except when quoted or beginning a phrase in italics or bold. Capital "The" is optional in wikilinks, and may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, The Velvet Underground...

(Wikipedia Manual of Style on band names)

PL290 (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

About the personnel

Some pages list the personnel "According to Ian McDonald" and others "According to Mark Lewisohn". And what it´s worst, an album article list the personnel according to one of them, but in every song article, the personnel is listed according to the other one.

McDonald is not accurate. Lewishon is more reliable. I think the personnel should be the result of comparative studies: first source: Lewisohn, then McDonald, ok, then Dowlding, who seems to replicate McDonald; in order to clarify, Martin, Emerick, Pollack, Babuik, Everett and Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know what evidence you have to back up this claim. I can think of at least one song where MacDonald is more accurate: Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, where Lewisohn incorrectly says a Hammond organ was used and MacDonald correctly says it was a Lowrey organ.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn´t say Lewishon is God. There´s some mistakes in his book as well, but is more accurate. At least, Lewishon claims he heard all the original tapes. Where did Ian found his info? He didn´t say anything at all, he didn´t quote any specific source. Evidence? Read the books. All I´m saying is that we need to compare the sources and create an accurate personnel list for every album and for every song.::

That seems to me to to be a lot of unnecessary effort. We are never going to know exactly who played every instrument on every song, and I see no reason why we should regard MacDonald as unreliable. I repeat, where are your examples of his inaccuracies?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"I repeat, where are your examples of his inaccuracies?". "That seems to me to to be a lot of unnecessary effort". His inaccuracies are all over the book. Instead of writing down all the inaccuracies, we better edit every page, but you dont´t want to. Ok. Stick to MacDonald in spite of the evidence: Lewishon, Babiuk, Everett, Pollack, McCartney, Lennon, Martin and Emerick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I´ve checked every album page again, and everthing seems fine: "Personnel according to Mark Lewisohn", except Rubber Soul and Revolver. All we had to do is correct those two pages and then just correct every song article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I notice you still haven't provided any specific inaccuracies. Please do so; I'm genuinely interested:) Revolution in the Head 's reputation is extremely high and this is the first I've heard of it being in any way unreliable.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

McDonald book deserved it´s reputation because of his analysis of the sixties, his cultural aproach; but the personnel is not always reliable. Tomorrow I´m gonna bring my book and show you some examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Some examples of MacDonald inaccuracies: P. 55, "Love me do". Lennon rythm guitar and George lead guitar. No, in this song there are only acoustic rythm guitars. P. 97, "Not a second time". Paul bass and George acoustic guitar. No, neither Paul or George play on this one. P 162, "Norwegian wood". Lennon acoustic rythm guitar. No. Actually, Lennon played both 6-string acoustic and 12-string acoustic. P. 169, "In my life". Paul electric piano (?), Starr bells (?). No. In this song there aren`t electric piano or bells. At least he put the interrogation sing. P. 186, "Tomorrow never knows". George guitar and sitar. No. The guitar parts for this songs are actually tape-loops, and the buzzing sound is just a tamboura, not a sitar at all. P. 210, "Here, there and everywhere". Paul acoustic guitar. No. At least there are two guitar on this one, and one of those is an electric, for sure. Do you want more examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.223.80 (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what edition of Revolution in the Head you have but I have the second revised edition from 2005 and the entry for "Love Me Do" says, "Harrison: acoustic rhythm guitar" so he does not claim that there is lead guitar. On "Not a Second Time" he acknowledges that "some sources deny (McCartney's) presence during the recording" but points out that "his bass can be heard low in the mix." On "Here, There and Everywhere", an electric guitar is listed. It seems that many of the inaccuracies in your edition of the book have been corrected. In any case, there is always going to be a certain amount of (educated) guesswork, as there is no complete, definitive documentation available, and MacDonald is careful to use question marks in brackets to indicate when he is unsure. You may well be correct that Lewisohn is more accurate overall. If you want to go through all 271 entries in Category:The Beatles songs and compare what we have with what Lewisohn and everyone else has, then be my guest. But I still think our time would be better spent on other things.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"It seems that many of the inaccuracies in your edition of the book have been corrected". On the contrary, my edition is the third revised edition, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.5.38 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is actually no difference in the text between those two editions; yours is merely a reprint with a different cover, so I don't understand how we can be reading different things. Anyway, this discussion is getting nowhere, so I'll bow out now.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So do you think we are in a borgesian universe? There´s no diference between second (2005) and third editions (2007)? Ok. I should blame Amazon. Probably they send me an altered copy. You asked for some inaccuracies. I showed you and now "this discussion is getting nowhere". McDonald is wrong. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.5.38 (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as how MacDonald died after preparing the second revised edition, it's somehow unlikely that a "third edition" will be different...--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a case-by-case approach is needed, not a general categorization of one or other biographer. If you feel a particular article presents inaccurate facts, or that there is a dispute about those facts, bring it up on that article talk page. There, the specific issue can be looked at and handled in whatever way is appropriate—perhaps by choosing one biographer over the other, or, alternatively, by including information from multiple biographers and stating they disagree, per WP:NPOV. PL290 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just suggest we should take Lewisohn as the primary source, since he is the only one who has acces to all the original tapes, then let´s compare his notes with Dowlding and McDonald (pretty much identical), then Everett, one of the best scholars out there and so on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.146.28 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The British Invasion

It is an unquestionable fact that the unprecedented success of The Beatles in North America launched the British Invasion so mentioning their launching of the British Invasion in the appropriate subheading is appropriate. What do others think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact sounds right, however the section does not talk about the "British Invasion" per say, it just talks about the Beatles. Moxy (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It does in the second paragraph of the section in question. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It simply mentions it in one fragmented sentence. Clear the paragraph as a whole is about their first American gigs, shows etc. I think to call the section "British Invasion" the majority of the paragraph would have to talk about the "British Invasion". Moxy (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see both points of view here. Clearly the band's US breakthrough is what triggered the British Invasion, and is inseparable from the latter. I agree the section title needs to reflect and emphasize that fact, and for this reason, the suggested Early American releases and performances is not adequate. However, other than by implication, the section doesn't focus very much on the British Invasion per se. I'm not convinced that's a problem, but if it is, here's another suggestion, which overcomes it with a lateral twist: Invasion of the United States. PL290 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not completely accurate as it affected other countries such as Canada and Australia. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

World Invasion! I don't know. My, this Baccardi Silver Sangria is delicious! Best, --Discographer (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As I think Discographer intends to point out, you will not find Canada or Australia mentioned in the article about the British Invasion: On February 7 the CBS Evening News ran a story about The Beatles' United States arrival that afternoon in which the correspondent said "The British Invasion this time goes by the code name Beatlemania". Cronkite was talking about the US. Likewise, his coined term applies to the US. Subsequent effects on the rest of the world are another matter. To stay with the point: the section in question has as its focus the band's US breakthrough, a key moment in history which spearheaded the British Invasion of the US. It is fitting for that chapter in the band's history to be called the British Invasion. The section title was fine as it was. I've restored it. PL290 (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Example genres

"ranging from folk rock to psychedelic pop", those genres are often quite similar really. A much better example would be foxtrot (like Honey Pie), hard rock (like Helter Skelter), avant-garde (like Revolution 9) and/or progressive rock (like I Want You (She's so Heavy) (debatable)). Helpsloose 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind our policies and guidelines that apply: per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the article. And per WP:V and WP:OR, the main article text gives examples of applicable genres, supported by inline citations to reliable sources. Only those should be mentioned in the lead. It's possible one or two more of the many possible examples could be added to the Genres section, if there's agreement that it's necessary and they're backed up by suitable citations and worked effectively into the narrative. I'm not convinced it's necessary, but should that idea gain support, then it would be possible to mention those in the lead. PL290 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just something I found that could be useful: Hard rock and prog rock: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:jifwxql5ldae Foxtrot: http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_7135/beatles.pdf, http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/m4.shtml Avant garde: http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/r9.shtml I'm not that good editing articles, but maybe I'll try later if no one disagree? When using "worked in many genres ranging from", one should try to find genres that aren't too similar. Psychedelic pop/rock and folk-rock are two closely related genres (Listen to bands like the Byrds, Jefferson Airplane, and even the Beatles). Maybe change it to "many genres including folk rock and psychedelic pop" or even remove it completely. It originally had "Tin Pan Alley to psychedelic rock", a much better example, (but still not good enough in my opinion), and why did that change happened without citing any sources or discussing on the talk page? Helpsloose 01:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tin Pan Alley is not an actual musical genre, but I agree with your idea of having two genres in the lead that are farther apart from one another musically than the current examples. Radiopathy •talk• 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "including skiffle, rock, ballads and psychedelia"? --Nigelj (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a genre http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/596493/Tin-Pan-Alley, but I don't know if they really did a song of that genre. skiffle, rock, ballads and psychedelia is a better example than the current, but I still think two or three examples are enough in the intro.Helpsloose 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Brian Epstein

I think they should add more info on brian epstein with the beatles like lifestyle, sexual orientation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master of Articles (talk • contribs) 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much already covered in his own article. Rodhullandemu 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AMAs: Artist of the '60s

The American Music Awards are one of the most important awards in the music. In their over 36 years of life, opened only this poll and the winners of it were recognised with the title of "Artists of the Decade" (one artist for every decade of the Rock & Roll era). This poll was considered reliable because adopt the same method of the votations of the normal AMAs: it's needed a registration where a person give all his dates, so, it's possible to vote only one time. S&J (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Typography

In the bulleted list of albums, we had

• The Beatles (aka White Album) (1968)

And now we have

• The Beatles (The White Album) (1968)

It's a small point, but it still doesn't look right to me. How about dropping the italics on the common name? Putting it in single quotes? I don't think we can keep the italics and put it in single quotes - it'll just go bold (oh actually, that is possible with raw HTML)

1. The Beatles (The White Album) (1968)
2. The Beatles ('The White Album') (1968)
3. The Beatles ('The White Album') (1968)

What looks and reads best? My vote goes for 3, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This came up before: see usage throughout the article. I've made it consistent with that. PL290 (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Former members redux

Consensus was established a long time ago that the "members" consist of John, Paul, George and Ringo and "former members" consist of Stu and Pete. From their first record "Love Me Do" in 1962 to the breakup in 1970, the lineup of The Beatles was consistent. So to avoid confusion, it's keep the lineup as JPG&R. Stu left The Beatles in 1961 and Pete was sacked in favour of Ringo in 1962 before they recorded their first Parlophone record. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with this myself. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

About genres

I want to put other genres in the Wiki, please send me an answer.--Rolando69 (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the vagueness of your proposal, this has been thrashed out ad infinitum, and much metaphorical blood has been spilled on this page. To avoid unnecessary suicides, consensus has been reached that (a) it is ridiculous to list a multiplicity of genres because there is no point in doing so (b) "rock" and "pop" are adequate genres, whereas any subclassifications will tend to be styles within those genres, not genres in themselves. (c) less is more. Rodhullandemu 22:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles were a band

We have discussed in great detail, with much passion, whether "The Beatles" should be considered a plural noun, taking the appropriate verb form, and by consensus have agreed that this should be the case. (:See, for example archives 11 and 21.) Further, the band, sadly, no longer is, so we refer to them in the past tense. Therefore, the correct, and agreed-upon formulation is The Beatles were an English pop and rock band.... This usage of plural noun is followed throughout the article and should not be changed. I have reverted the edit accordingly. Of course this can be discussed again, if anyone really wants to, but I doubt there will be traction for the dissonant wording "The Beatles is a band". I'll say ahead of any discussion that I totally oppose such a change. Tvoz/talk 06:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article is written in British English, so it is as you say. PL290 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Were is correct in American English too. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 08:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The wording didn't say The Beatles are a band.. My edit says: The Beatles, an English pop and rock band formed in 1960....

and yours: The Beatles were an English pop and rock band formed in 1960... Mine is better...it sounds better, feels better, and doesn't say they were or are so it should just stay.(Vegavairbob (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps “was” is being overlooked here? “The Beatles was four lemon squeezers from Liverpool, and couldn’t ‘alf write a ding dong”. I think you’ll find this solves the problem.--Patthedog (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't solve anything(Vegavairbob (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

I don’t know - I think you’re being a little too picky. Ah well, have it your own way - only trying to help.--Patthedog (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Beatles opening sentence can "flow" and still be correct

Ok I corrected my edit..now they both are correct..Pick one

The Beatles, an English pop and rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960, were one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music.

The Beatles were an English pop and rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960, and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the history of popular music.

My version is the first one..reworded for better flow. The second one is from the article.(Vegavairbob (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Ah, the opening sentence! I think your version is okay (apart from the comma after "band", which I've now removed). My only slight hesitation is that, per our guideline, we should keep in mind the purpose of the opening sentence of any article, which is first and foremost to define, and secondly to establish notability. This tweak shifts that balance slightly. But only slightly. PL290 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed the comma..left over from pasting..wasn't intentional. Please explain "to define, and secondly to establish notability" and the slight shift. Thanks (Vegavairbob (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

Just that it subtly shifts the sentence into a statement about their notability (one of the most successful), mentioning incidentally that they were a band (the definition). Comma pairs like the first two act a bit like brackets: they serve to parenthetically offset something from the main point being made. But as I said, it's only a slight shift and I think it's okay. PL290 (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Very interesting. Thanks (Vegavairbob (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC))

…but seriously, if the point was to lose “were” i.e. “and doesn't say they were” then why does the current revision say “were one of the most”? So I say the sentence had more elegance as it was originally - it’s now a little clumsy and ought to be restored. And furthermore, what has happened to the “pop/rock” description? We didn’t have rock bands in England back in 1960, and The Beatles wrote some of the best pop songs ever composed. Well...? --Patthedog (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Patthedog - Read both versions...the "were" is not stressed as much since its the fourteenth word in the article instead of the third word in the article, still is "correct" , plus it just flows better. This article can still be improved; it's not locked up yet and this watchdogging should be reserved for vandalisim. I will improve it where I can. (Vegavairbob (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Actually, I'd say the first [oops] second of the two alternative lead sentences flows better, because the flow is not immediately broken be the parenthetic phrase between the two commas. "The Beatles were an English pop and rock band..." is a straightforward statement of fact and a great way to start the article. The other version looks unnecessarily convoluted in order to solve what I'd see as a non-problem. Bluewave (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You must mean the second version then that says "The Beatles were an English pop and rock band..."? Which I think was how it used to begin. If so, then I agree with you. And I think you are also right about it not being a problem in the first place. Anywhere else in the article and it probably wouldn’t be worth all this discussion, however, it’s the opening sentence and sets the tone.--Patthedog (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bluewave and Patthedog that the main idea is established better in the original version and, for what it's worth, the "flow" is better as well. This is a Featured Article and needs to be looked after carefully. Radiopathy •talk• 14:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Patthedog's correction...Er yes, thanks for pointing out my mistake. I have refactored my post above. Of course I meant the second! Bluewave (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sorry Vegavairbob, 'fraid it was better as it was. I've restored the first sentence from 30 June. PL290 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles were an English pop/rock band...sounds better than The Beatles, an English pop/ rock band...? The lead sentence should not be worded stressing were as the third word (instesd of the fourteenth word). By the fourteenth word "were" is not emphasised as much. Why should "were" not be emphasised? because The Beatles are...everywhere, including these articles edited every day. My lead sentence is more appropriate whether or not it's used. (Vegavairbob (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

"Pop / Rock" or just "Rock"?

I like the description “pop /rock” in the opening sentence as opposed to just simply “rock”. I think the former neatly describes The Beatles music over time, suggesting as it does, their progression from the classic three minute pop song towards their later more experimental compositions. “English rock band” is somewhat misleading though, as they didn’t exist in England in 1960, and sounds too American (to me) for what is supposed to be an English subject. I’d like to put it back, but don’t intend to get into heated discussions over it as I had nothing to do with this otherwise exemplary article. --Patthedog (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think 'pop' should be included as a lot of Beatles' songs were certainly not rock, particularly from 1967 onwards. It would be practical to list every style they did in the lead, but they were cerainly the pop music of their time. (I think English should be British as well, but that's another story) Bevo74 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have also though it was odd to say English considering most say they started the "British invasion". To most out sided the UK English is a term for speech (they speak English)... but from what i see from the past talks the UK people see a big difference in saying English VS British so i guess it up to outsiders to read-up on the difference (as it should be its an encyclopedia).. As for poprock not sure here as they do evolve in-style and its all Pop music of the time, were rock covers the diversity of there music, "poprock" is just a subgenre of Pop music in-general. just mty2 cents Moxy (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with pop/rock, like I did a year ago. I think that bests sums it all up. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For those of us who were alive during the 60s and 70s... we can remember when the word 'pop' wasn't such an insulting label. For some, like The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks etc... 'pop' was a genuine art-form. Unfortunately, today, the word pop is tied to the Britneys, Madonnas and boy-bands... and the result is that it is an insult. As for The Beatles... they made/make the word pop a legitimate art. Wiki libs (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Pop/rock" is ungainly, and an unnecessarily awkward way to begin an encyclopedia article on a band whose cultural context was very much that of rock. The lead section goes on to make perfectly clear that their musical scope encompassed all sorts of popular music. There's no need at all to bring to make this unhappy style part of the article's opening. DocKino (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Sure, they played pop and rock, like the infobox says and the article elaborates upon, but as to what they were, if you ask me, rock band describes it perfectly. Rock bands play pop too. It's the language that has the right meaning today, even if different language might have been used in the '60s. PL290 (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)