Talk:Come Together

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Lawsuit re "You Can't Catch Me" (Lyrics)[edit]

This article states that the Chuck Berry lyrics in question are "Here come a flattop, he was movin' up with me." However, to my ears it sounds like "Here come a blacktop, he was movin' up with me." If this is accurate, many web sites in addition to this article incorrectly identify the Berry lyrics. Depending upon responses to this comment, I'll update the Wikipedia article. Noah Spamoli (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I listened and it was pretty hard to tell either way. The flattop disambiguation page states "A name for an American police car", which would make sense in this lyric. The lawsuit is concerned with similar lyrics, so how would "blacktop" make sense? This section is referenced and should remain "flattop". CuriousEric 20:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
For context, refer to the lyrics at any of the (illegal?) lyrics sites such as http://www.metrolyrics.com/request.php?target=_blank&lyricid=126784&dothis=printlyrics. I didn't extract the contextual stanzas because I'm not too familiar with fair use (Could I have extracted whole stanzas while still conforming to fair use?). Note that the lyrics page contains the term "flat-top," which I can't help but think derives from Morris Levy's lawsuit proceedings in which he might purposefully assert the term to support the suit, hoping that a judge would, upon listening to the song, not be able to determine which term was used (I guess I would retract my assertion that the correct term is "Blacktop" if there was a 1950s-dated publication of the lyrics). Also, I listened to John Lennon's version of the song and, to my ears, it sounds like he's singing "blacktop."
There are three automobiles referenced in the lyrics: 1) the protagonist's "Flight De Ville," 2) a jitney, and 3) a police car. The jitney's passing of the De Ville caused the De Ville driver to speed up, which led to the police car chase. "Flat-top" refers to the jitney, not to the police car; so flat-top's police car sense would be out of context. The term "blacktop" is associated with two-tone cars, the distinctive color of which the De Ville driver might first notice in his rear view mirror ("he was movin' up with me"). The term jitney is "an American term for a small bus or station wagon" (http://www.oldwoodies.com/resource-woodies-terms.htm). I further assume the jitney was not an undercover police car, which I think would be most unusual for the American 1950s. Hence the song describes an illegal race between two cars: the customized De Ville and the souped-up, "two-tone" jitney.
The comment that this section should not be changed because it is referenced, means, I assume, that many other pages depend upon the use of the term flat-top rather than blacktop. If my assumption is correct, are there any examples other than the song's Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can%27t_Catch_Me), for which a minor emendation would resolve referential dependencies? Noah Spamoli (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

Anybody know what that strange song in the beginning of the song, and throughout the song?

according to yahho answers, it's either a vibraslap or more likely one of the members saying "shuk" into a microphone with some echo. Joeyramoney 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It's Lennon, with heavy echo, whispering "Shoot me", no joke. (The "me" is quieter but audible.) Presumably he was alluding to heroin rather than handguns. Vonbontee (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Added how marilyn manson covered the song..Don't believe me? Try Dling the song..type in "Come together, marilyn manson" ON limewire or something. Song information box now seems to be there. The list of cover versions is full of opinion and imprecise language, and needs tidying up. For example, the Williams/McFerrin version might be distinctive, or unusual: it is meaningless to describe it as unusual; who was inducted into the Hall of fame in 1989 and what relevance did this recording have to that act; and what on earth does "very grunge" mean? Kevin McE 12:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

other songs called "Come Together"[edit]

i know the Beatles are, well, the BEATLES, but....the MC5 have a song called "Come Together" released on their live (and fucking awesome) album Kick out the Jams. i think some sort of disambig link or foward at the beginning of the article should be placed. also keep in mind the MC5's version was recorded on Oct 30th, 1968, which i believe predates this album. JoeSmack Talk 17:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean this MC5 - Come Together(live 1968)?
:-)68.179.108.25 (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also a blur song called "Come Together". Gershake (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Misheard line...Not![edit]

"At the end of the second verse, the line "Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease," is apparently 'Hold you in his arms, yeah you can feel his disease,' and is quoted like the first nearly everywhere, including on 1967-1970 (the "Blue Album"), but the discussion remains unsettled as it can also perfectly heard like the first one. Lennon never did have a problem with making nosensical lyrics and it must also be noted that the Blue Album Compilation is an official Beatles-album."

The line is "Hold you in his armchair" not "Hold you in his arms yeah" as someone has wrongfully posted. I am absolutely positive that what everyone thinks the line is indeed what it is, because using high end computer speakers and the CD, Lennon sounds like he is saying, "hold you in his om-cheer". If anything, people may be mistaken about the first syllable, but anyone who hears an "s" sound and a "y" sound on that song needs their hearing checked. By the way this is between 1:45 and 1:50 on the song if anyone wants a quick reference to where the line is.

In regards to this I am deleting the above quoted paragraph.

Also, "Come Together" is one of the top 20 Beatles songs ever made.It is an awesome song. Maybe it is derivative of R&B, but it is R&B derived for gods.

-NF

I agree, it definitely sounds like "armchair"

-Plarter

It doesn't matter the tiniest bit what you think you hear, that is original research. The only thing of relevance is what a citation says the lyric is. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Meaning[edit]

--I think this song is about each the beatles. Each stanza is about a different beatle. Think about it, maybe do a little research if you want. Just my two cents.

--After reading the lyrics I think you have a point, but which is which do you think. I think the first is Ringo, hence the joker part, then you have Paul with the 'He wear no shoeshine' maybe in reference to the fact that Paul was often seen without his shoes on, like on Abbey Road (the album this song comes from!) and in Magical Mystery Tour. John is next, the 'Ono sideboard' gives that away, then George who's 'so hard to see' maybe because he was the quieter one? Only guesses. I don't know but well spotted and worth debate.

--And then think about it, all of those verses (members) come together to make the Beatles. But something to ponder- if the first is Ringo, he was one of the ones without long hair. Also, the 3rd verse with the "walrus" reference-- i thought Paul was the Walrus? And then later in it, it references feet again. But then again the Ono thing is strongly for Lennon. Someone should find out if either of them had a disease, hence the armchair disease line.

Song Facts discussion --202.47.51.191 01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article[edit]

The following seem to be unsourced speculations/rumours about the meaning of the song. (And, of course, ones that I personally don't find probable, although that's not the point). --194.145.161.227 14:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the song refers to the late eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes. Lines such as "hair down to his knees" and "shoot coca-cola" parallel the billionaire's behavior at the time this song was written. The line "Got to be good lookin cause he's so hard to see" could refer to the billionaire's reclusiveness. Another, possibly apocryphal story is that John Lennon grew frustrated at the tendency of music critics to read heavily into and interpret his lyrics, and wrote nonsensical lyrics simply to spite them. The same story is also said to be the origin of "I Am The Walrus."


I agree that the song Come Together is about each individual Beatle. Although Lennon stated in a 1980 interview that the lyrics were gobbledygook, I believe a close examination reveals the life cycle of the fab four from John's perspective. In my opinion, the first stanza speaks of George with the remaining three referring to Ringo, John and Paul respectively.

Lennon was introduced to Harrison when George was fifteen years old. He was tall and thin, quite lanky, with a flat top hairstyle (Here come ole flat top / he come groovin' up slowly). The line juju-eyeball may refer to George's lazy eye. Holy Roller is a reference to George as the spiritual Beatle. Moving towards the breakup, George had the longest hair of any of the Beatles. He was also regarded as the joker during early press conferences as well as the one who was the quiet/loner type (Got to be a joker / he just do what he please).

Ringo was infamous during Beatlemania for not joining the others in polishing his boots (He wear no shoe shine). As a youth, he was reportedly quite good at English football (soccer) until he sustained a foot injury (toe-jam football). Monkey finger may be a reference to the movie "Help!" in which he wears the ring of the monkey god. Shooting Coca-Cola can be either a reference to later drug use or possibly refraining from alcohol during the early Hamburg days. As the Beatles pondered disbanding in '67-68, Ringo and Paul came to the conclusion that "you have to be free".

Paul was the roller coaster (up and down mood swings?) who gave early warning to the others that he was intending to quit the band. He was known to be influenced by Muddy Waters career early in his life. Mojo Filter refers to Paul as the center of the group's sex appeal. The Let It Be sessions were actually recorded before Abbey Road but the release was delayed due to disagreements within the band. It was at this time that Paul actually decided that the end had come (He said, "one and one and one is three" refers to the three remaining Beatles). The good looking Beatle was now nowhere to be found (so hard to see).

Finally, John recognized himself as the groups founder (He backed production). Walrus gumboot refers to the Magical Mystery Tour era as they each started to become disgruntled with the others. Ono sideboard refers to Yoko's presence towards the end leading to what John refers to as the spinal cracker (the straw that broke the camel's back). Feet down below his knee could possibly be a reference to the Amsterdam bed-in (see The Ballad of John & Yoko / clarification needed). At the time of Abbey Road, John was in his "white period" (white clothing/furnishings/etc.). All the pressures from the proceeding years may have been catching up to him (his divorce from Cynthia, "The Beatles are bigger than Jesus" quote, the super stardom in general must have been overwhelming). Is it possible that some sort of depression was setting in and he felt somewhat diseased? Could the repetition of the phrase "shoot me" throughout the song have been a pre-occupation with death (see Julia/ White Album / as he deals with his mother's early demise) or even a premonition of the end of his own life?

In closing, is Come Together indeed a gobbledygook of lyrics with no apparent meaning, or is it a detailed history of the rise and fall of the greatest rock and roll band of all time from the founders perspective? I'll let you decide. Hope that I've provided you with some food for thought.

Beatlefanatic (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Bruce (e-mail your thoughts to dadeo460@aol.com)

The song is indeed meaningless gobbledygook, and not about the Beatles. Or possibly gobbledygook about a single Beatle (specifically, the one who wrote the song) but certainly not all four, not if you look at the song logically. When the first line of the song introduces an individual ("Old Flat-top") and every subsequent line in every verse begins with the pronoun "he", it can be pretty safely assumed that the song is all about that ONE individual and nobody else. But of course, people are free to have fun and think up their own meanings if they wish. And they do - I've read independent interpretations that agree that the four verses are about the four bandmembers, yet differ on which verse corresponds to which Beatle! 207.219.94.49 (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Digs at McCartney & Harrison?[edit]

This isn't citated did Lennon actually say this or is it POV? Apepper 21:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Aerosmith's cover information?[edit]

Is it really necessary to merge information of Aerosmith's cover of this song with information about the original single? Laurent 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the current procedures dictate that yes it is. I'd prefer articles to cover singles but currently they cover songs. However, I'm sure we can't have infoboxes for every band at the foot of these articles (imagine the mess that could result given how frequently The Beatles get covered). I've removed the Aerosmith footer box twice but keep getting reverted... --kingboyk 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Since Aerosmith is the only band whose cover of "Come Together" was a Top 40 single, I think it is appropriate to keep them. "Come Together" was a big hit for both Aerosmith and The Beatles. Additionally, I have to put up with the Sugababes and Girls Aloud infoboxes at the end of the "Walk This Way" article...I think it is only fair. --Abog 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just had a look at that page, and it seems to be using some div trickery to show/hide the boxes. Could/should we do that here? --kingboyk 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to it. --Abog 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the overabundance of Aerosmith information either, because it demands that for some reason their cover is more important than all the other covers. Tina Turner's was on the charts, so was Diana Ross' and The Supremes released a separate version without Ross, which also entered the charts. There's also been covers that were more successful in Europe than in The States, even breaking the top 5. The Across The Universe soundtrack, which features a version by Joe Cocker was a huge seller, and the song has recently been covered on American Idol, becoming a top download on iTunes.
Just look at the article. There is almost more information about the Aerosmith cover than there is about the original version. I love Aerosmith as much as the next guy, but there is simply no reason for all that. BubbaStrangelove (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BubbaStrangelove that the amount of information on the Aerosmith cover is disproportionate. I didn't even know that they had covered this song whereas I am well aware of other covers by Tina Turner, Diana Ross, Joe Cocker, the Smokin' Mojo Filters and others. I see no reason why the Aerosmith version should be singled out as an especially notable cover that deserves to be highlighted while relegating versions (some of which have had greater chart success) to the category of "Other Notable Covers." The emphasis on the Aerosmith version is not justified and looks more like a promotional puff for that band than an objective reference. Henry Clarson (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Something single.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Something single.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mistake in the "Origin" section[edit]

Someone wrote in the "Origin" section: "In the end of the track the guitar from "Baby You're a Rich Man" can be heard clearly." This is not true. The guitar riff is from "Dear Prudence." 72.43.143.184 20:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Typo Guvernatorial?[edit]

according to the American Heritage dictionary, there's no word "guvernatorial." The word is gubernatorial. Here's a link, if you'd care to check it out: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gubernatorial.

I'm sure it was a simple typo: v and b are very close together on the keyboard... --Slashme (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reload[edit]

As far as I know there is no cover of Come Together on Tom Jones's Reload. Perhaps there are different versions of the album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.70.52.62 (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


The standard issue Reload album does not feature "Come Together." However, there is a Reload+2 release which contains two extra tracks including Jones's version of the song in a live performance with The Cardigans. Henry Clarson (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

All on Rock'n'Roll?[edit]

Regarding the sentence: "After settling out of court, Lennon promised to record other songs owned by Levy, all of which were released on Lennon's 1975 album Rock 'n' Roll."

This is sourced to Wenner, Jann S (2000). Lennon Remembers (Full interview from Lennon's 1970 interview in Rolling Stone magazine). London: Verso. p. 90. ISBN 1-85984-600-9.  (a book I do not own), but my book, Turner, Steve (1999). "Abbey Road". In Nicola Hodge. A Hard Day's Write =: The Stories Behind Every Beatles Song (9 ed.). HarperResource. p. 189. ISBN 0-06-273698-1. , says "He fulfilled this promise when he recorded Berry's 'Sweet Little Sixteen' and 'You Can't Catch Me' for his Rock'n'Roll album and Lee Dorsey's 'Ya Ya' on Walls and Bridges.

Can somebody with access to the Jann Wenner book please check the statement, and evaluate which of the sources is most reliable? Thanks! Dendodge TalkContribs 12:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, from page 90 of Lennon Remembers:
The owner of the song's copyright, Big Seven Music Corporation, owned by the notorious Morris Levy, filed suit against Lennon for copyright infringement in 1969, claiming that he used a few of the 1956 Chuck Berry song's ["You Can't Catch Me"] lines in "Come Together". The suit finally settled in 1973 in the publisher's favor, and to compensate Levy, Lennon agreed to record three songs [it doesn't say which ones] owned by his publishing company (Lennon was recording Rock'n'Roll, a collection of his favorite songs of the Fifties and Sixties). Levy actually released a bootleg version of Rock'n'Roll prior to its official 1975 release; Lennon sued Levy this time and won.
This was a footnote to a two-page explanation by Lennon on how he had actually used words from the song "You Can't Catch Me" as filler lyrics (similar to Paul's "scrambled eggs") in what started out to be a traditional style rock & roll tune. This got merged with the 1970 gubernatorial campaign song he was supposed to be writing for Tim Leary. Typical creative process stuff. Lennon warns Wenner not to print that part because people will say "Oh, look, he admitted it."
My copy was put out by Warner in 1980 right after John died. And it's a straight-ahead reprint of the 1971 edition, not one of the expanded edition ones from later.
Levy really was apparently notorious for this kind of thing. Musicians always borrow from one another, the whole thing was absurd. It's like suing Springsteen for saying "mystery train" in "Radio Nowhere". --17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nortel[edit]

(From Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2009 August 1#Come Together...)

Who sung a version of "Come Together" in this commercial? It is something like African-American style though. JSH-alive talkcontmail 08:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognize the singer. It may be a band/singer hired specifically for the commercial, and not anyone overly "famous". --Jayron32 13:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Could it be Joe Cocker? --NorwegianBlue talk 16:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
To me, it sounds like the main part of the commercial is John Lennon's solo version of Come Together slowed down a bit, giving it a bluesy feel. The very end is clearly the Beatles version. Because slowing a song down can change how it sounds a lot, it is possible that it is all the Beatles version until the very end when they play it at normal speed. -- kainaw 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
That is definitely not the original version, slowed down or otherwise. Slowing a song down does not change the singer's accent or intonation; that is clearly not John Lennon singing. The end segment is not the Beatles' version, either. Listen: [1] Malcolm XIV (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Definitely not Lennon. As the wikipedia article indicates, there are countless covers of this song. Joe Cocker is a good guess. But there's always the chance it was recorded specifically for these ads, by some unknown studio group. I'm not finding anything useful in Google so far. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continues here. -- JSH-alive talkcontmail 12:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No way that is Joe Cocker or John Lennon. I think it's probably just a session singer that the ad agency paid. I think http://www.mccannsf.com/ has the Nortel account, so you might want to email them. --Rajah (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


different video, same song version, lyrics spoken by actors. Comments indicate John Roth era, but that wold be OR pending further 3rd party sourcing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdLgUPgq8-g User:VulpineLady (not logged in) 74.4.91.87 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Random prank calls[edit]

Ever since I first heard the song as a wee lad, I always pictured the musical prelude to each segment as the sound of an old rotary telephone being dialed. I know it's not a real phone dialing, only that the music seems as though it's meant to resemble the sound of a dialing phone. From this, I got the impression of John calling people on the phone at random, and singing these lovely nonsense phrases to them. Even today, I can picture John Lennon doing something like that when he was in a playful mood.  :) --Modemac (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Covers[edit]

Didn't Kid Rock do a version of this song? Seems like every other cover on the planet is mentioned. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


There's also a cover/remix by Garth Brooks during his "In ... the Life of Chris Gaines" project. On the album it's titled as "Right Now", but it's built around "Come Together". It's credited as "(Let's) Get Together" by Chet Powers, but anyone who's listened to it will hear the riff's and wisps endemic to "Come Together." User:VulpineLady (not logged in) 74.4.91.87 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit re "You Can't Catch Me"[edit]

From the evidence I can source, which isn't much so far, the lawsuit against Lennon due to similarities to Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me" was not just about the line "Here Come ol' flattop", it was also because the songs sounded very similar in tune. This is supported by Paul McCartney's account on p.553 of "Many Years From Now" who said that he and Lennon deliberately slowed down the track and made it "swampy" so that it would sound less like Berry's song. However they did not remove the line "Here come ol' flattop". The tune is still basically the same as Berry's. (This is my fav Beatles song though!)

Therefore I am removing "because one line in "Come Together" closely resembles a line of Berry's "You Can't Catch Me": (i.e., The Beatles' "Here come ol' flattop, he come groovin' up slowly" vs. Berry's "Here come up flattop, he was groovin' up with me")" and replacing with known evidence"

"Shoot Me" reference[edit]

This is incorrect just romantic wishful thinking from fans. Lennon is not syaing "Shoot Me" so I've removed it, in fact as you can clearly hear on the multitracks itself he's just making a shhhh noise, listen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEJkQtoyJCo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.162.176 (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Listen to the Anthology 3 version and see if that changes your mind; "Shoot me" is pretty clear on that mix. In any case, Geoff Emerick was the engineer on the session and he says that Lennon said "Shoot me". The info has been restored and I've updated the citation by changing the citation from "The Beatles Bible" to Lewisohn (1988), p. 181. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've heard it and I hear no 'me'. Have another listen to the link I gave where you can hear the original stems in isolation. He says 'shhhhh' and occasionally what sounds like 'shoo' and 'shoot', but never 'me' except in the preceding sentence ('Come together right now over me'). Not to cast aspersions about Geoff Emerick but everyone's memory tends to play up a bit over time. Just read Recording the Beatles to see how many of these stories have conflicting accounts. I think this is a marvelous piece of romantic nonsense, it adds depth to an otherwise nonsensical but fun track and to the character of the Beatles, but it's a case of if enough people state it it becomes "truth" (and if Wikipedia says it then a lot of people say it) contrary to empirical study.98.210.162.176 (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree; I can clearly hear "me". Neither of our opinions matter, however, as we have to rely on reliable sources. The citation is from a reliable source (Lewisohn) and he is quoting a person (Emerick) who directly participated in the recording. While no one's memory is fail-safe, Lewisohn's book was published twenty years ago, with interviews conducted before that, and so Emerick was asked about it much closer to the original events than we are today. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Go to 3:39 in the YouTube link above and tell me you don't hear "Shoot me"??? — John Cardinal (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys are both right. While I do agree that he says "shoot me", Mr. Emerick's account of this song is flawed in places, especially with regard to McCartney's vocal contribution. He (Emerick) states McCartney did not sing backup on this song; Lennon did all the vocals. I have heard isolated tracks that separate McCartney and Lennon's voice. It is obvious (and clear) McCartney is singing backup. You can also clearly hear that Lennon is saying "shoot me". If you search YouTube for a video titled "The Beatles - Come Together (Dissection)" there will no longer be any question as to how it all went down.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.199.59 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 

Cover pic[edit]

Unless there are reliable sourced articles on this subject in which this obscure cover is treated as particularly significant, per WP:NFCC, please do not include it here. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is listed with a fair use rationale for "Something" and "Come Together", and has been in place for almost five years with no objection. It meets all 10 criteria for use per WP:NFCC. It is used "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question". We should keep this image for "Come Together" since there is no other free alternative. CuriousEricTalk 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a free alternative, which is to have no picture. There is no requirement that the article be illustrated; there is, however, a requirement that the use of copyrighted images is minimized. The single was not released with a picture sleeve, so whatever this pic is, it can hardly be said to give (as required by NFCC) a significant understanding of the topic, unless, that is, article RSs indicate otherwise. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The web page here (about 1/3 the way down the page) shows this picture sleeve used for a 3" CD single, described as "Beatles, Something, U.K. 3" CD single.* Ref: cd3r5814. Long deleted U.K. 3" CD single released 1988. Tracks are: Something/Come together". There's no requirement that the image must be from a 7" 45 RPM disk. The 3" CD single cover serves to illustrate the audio recording. CuriousEricTalk 19:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well done in tracking it down but you have to show that a picture used for an obscure re-issue, almost 20 years after the event, gives the reader a significant understanding of the topic that could not be gained otherwise. As I say, there is no requirement that the audio recording be illustrated at all, only a requirement to minimize use of copyrighted images. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Song Analysis[edit]

OK, I boldly deleted (or re-wrote) a lot of text from this section that I found to be non-encyclopedic, entirely subjective, and poorly-written as well - basically, anything that wasn't pure neutral fact. ("The refrain stands out brilliantly as we find the highest notes in the piece (A) and we come across that sparkling F#. We are then back to the tonic and as if you thought it would stop there it doesn't and we have a B natural that is borrowed from the D major key." being the best/worst example.) I really feel that this sort of thing has no place in an encyclopedia. But if anybody objects and reverts it, I'll just sigh and say "whatever" - I won't waste my time further by trying to delete it again. But I definitely feel that the material I deleted is detrimental to the article. Vonbontee (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also nonsense that the refrain should be 3 bars long. Everyone with the slightest musical education can easily count that its two bars long. I guess the whole "musical analysis" is bullshit and should be rewritten from scratch. 85.177.157.82 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Harmony?[edit]

Paul provides backing vocals, not harmony. I've tried to edit this, but it keeps returning as 'harmony'. Where's the harmony? in Paul's voice w.r.t. John's in this song?

Also, the lyric is gobblygook, but as with all poets, there is a message in the madness. :) The detailed interpretation has merit, altho I do believe some of the metaphors are stretched past their limits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.204.243 (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Vocal[edit]

I changed Paul's contribution from 'bass' to include backing vocals - which is obvious to anyone who listens. I see the 'harmony vocal' has been finally removed, but w/out replacing with 'backing vocal', which is the case - listen. Paul also comments that he wanted to sing with John, but did the backing as a seperate track. I haven't noted the source, as I've read too many sources on the Beatles, & will have to research that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.204.243 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear that Mccarney sings the backing vocals. Now there is even an isolated backing track circulating (youtube) where it is even more obvious. McCartney's remarks about him not singing with Lennon meant that he did not do it at the SAME TIME with John but later to a separate track. Geoff Emerick remember's wrong, but that's not the first time ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funk76 (talkcontribs) 07:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the personnel to the correct one: McCartney sings harmony here. Also thr quote of McCartney from Beatles Bible about the singing was mis-quoted, he's NOT talking wether he singing there or not but he's not singing there live with John. McCartney's harmony was "punched in" on the same track where part of the John harmony vocal is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkFunkFunk (talkcontribs) 09:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no harmony, leave it alone 'FunkFunkFunk' - don't look for quotes or comments, listen! There is no harmony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.164.162 (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Other notable covers[edit]

This section does require proper references, just like all material on the project. If none can be found I propose to remove the section altogether. --John (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC policy on Coca-Cola[edit]

Since the lyrics directly reference Coca-Cola as did The Kinks' song Lola a few months later, was there a similar objection from the BBC about using government radio to advertise a commercial product? If not, why not? Asat (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes there was. I've added that info to the "Release and acclaim" section. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Song Analysis? This needs to be removed[edit]

The entire "Song Analysis" section is unsourced and is riddled with tons of POV phrases and assumptions. For instance:

This classic 1960s rock anthem with deep bluesy style was unlike any other song of its time in that it was constructed entirely of verse/refrains...to interrupt the radical song structure

"Classic?" "Unlike any other song of its time?" "Radical song structure?" Who says?

"...a progression rarely used, the song "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" being a rare example."

Again, says who? How do you know it's rare?

"John Lennon decided to use modal interchange."

He did? Where on earth did you get that? Whether or not it IS a modal interchange, where was it ever written that Lennon ever "decided" to make use of such a thing, as opposed to just writing what he thought sounded good. Since he openly admitted many times to not knowing the technical aspects of music theory, I highly doubt he ever deliberately decided any such thing.

Beyond that, the entire section is unsourced and smacks of original research. Until any of this is properly notated it should all be stricken.

And what does this mean?

"constructed entirely of verse/refrains. There is no chorus..."

A refrain IS a chorus. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)T

I've added {{unreferenced section}} in that section. Thanks for the feedback! GoingBatty (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've gone ahead and removed the obvious POV and interpretive wording ("classic rock anthem," "rarely used," "John Lennon decided..."). I still think this whole section should be deleted unless there's a reference for it. My opinion is that the sheet music would not be a proper reference as it's still being interpreted and analyzed by the contributor...and is hence original research, but that seems to be an issue with a lot of music articles and the sections on structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.35.27 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)70.91.35.27 (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)T
I'm removing it. It's nonsense and has no source. It's OC. 70.189.92.149 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Recording[edit]

Hasn't anyone noticed that the entire "Recording" section is pure fiction? Paul does not sing lead and play rhythm, and John was not upset that Paul didn't let him sing. Because John sings it.--Daveler16 (talk) 04:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Who played the keyboard part?[edit]

It says that "Paul McCartney composed the electric piano part while John Lennon looked over his shoulder so he could learn it and play it himself" and I see that it is cited. However, all other sources (e.g. The Beatles Bible) say that McCartney played electric piano in the song. I don't know which bit of information is more accurate.--Kevjgav (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference in question[edit]

Quoting: "Come Together" is a song by the Beatles written by John Lennon[1] but credited to Lennon–McCartney. The book used as the key reference has 192 pages actually, so how is it possible that the relevant information may be found on the p. 201(!)? MiewEN (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Sheff, David (2000). All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. New York: St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-25464-4. 
  • If there is no progress with the clarification needed tag, I will remove it in a few days. It's pointless as it's pretty straightforward. It's sourced, and the page number is provided above (which appears to be the main issue?) I added a citation from MacDonald which also supports the statement. This was removed because it apparently didn't address the "clarification needed" issue, which frankly hasn't been brought up for discussion. When tagging articles, the editor should start a discussion. What do you want clarified? freshacconci talk to me 20:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I am way busy these days. Anyway, the main point was said above — "the key reference has 192 pages actually, so how is it possible that the relevant information may be found on the p. 201(!)" —, so hope you can read. Secondly, and with all due respect to Lennon, just because an interview with him quotes his own words, that does not make a thing also a matter of fact. If so, then let speak McCartney as well when they are both officially credited as co-writers of the work actually. Simple as that. MiewEN (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
From what is here and on User_talk:MiewEN, my understanding of the original editor's problem was 1) the page number of the Sheff citation and 2) the use of a "primary" (Lennon) source for the citation. The MacDonald quote takes care of the second. I've left the Sheff hoping someone might find the right number as it would be useful. That is all the "clarification" that has been requested, but I've left the tag as there appears there is possibly more. Barring further comment on the matter, I agree with Freshacconci that the tag should go away after a bit. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Removed --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Come Together/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The "Come Together" article indicates that the law suit filed by Chuck Berry's publisher was because of a single quoted line from "You Can't Catch Me." That line would probably not have been sufficient cause for the out-of-court settlement. The case was reinforced because the verses of the two songs have virtually identical melodies. The choruses are similar, but the verses gave the Berry interests a compelling case.

Jhclinton 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jhclinton

Last edited at 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Come Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Come Together. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sheff 2000, p. 201.