Talk:Rubber Soul/Archive 1

Archive 1

<hr />

I added that instead of "----". What does anyone think? Is it better, should it be used for album project multiple chronology? gren グレン 20:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Music

This section is rife with unattributed/uncited declarations, e.g., "The song is now acknowledged as one of the cornerstones of what is now usually called "world music" and it was a major landmark in the trend towards incorporating non-Western musical influences into Western popular music." If it is acknowledged, where is the acknowledgment?

This section is also repetitious.

I come to wikipedia to read documented facts. This is not up to this standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.175.121 (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Brian Wilson's Rubber Soul

Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys has stated many times that hearing Rubber Soul inspired him to write Pet Sounds. Which version of Rubber Soul did he hear that moved him to write Pet Sounds, the US version or the UK version? I'm curious, because the US vs. the UK version of Rubber Soul are very different albums.

I don't know the answer to your question, but the two versions aren't that radically different—four songs were removed and two songs were added (or, more technically, two songs were removed and two songs were replaced). The remaining songs kept the original line-up. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It says "the deletion of some of the more upbeat tracks ("Drive My Car", "Nowhere Man", "If I Needed Someone", and "What Goes On")." I wouldn't call "Nowhere Man" or "If I Needed Someone" "upbeat" :D But on the point of the two variations of albums, 4 tracks are different out of 14 - that's a fair chunk. Both US and UK versions sound very different, although I don't know why "If I Needed Someone" was omitted if they were aiming for more of a "folk-rock" feel for the US version.

Considering that "Wouldn't it Be Nice" & God Only Knows" open the sides of "Pet Sounds", Wilson must have been inspired by the US version. The first song on each side of an album is a primary statement for what follows and "I've Just Seen a Face" & "It's Only Love" create a generally more mellow folk-rock album with a vastly different mood. Opening with "Drive My Car" and "What Goes On" on the sides and including "Nowhere Man" and "If I Needed Someone" paints the album with rock 'n' roll colors like the UK version.--Dcrasno (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It was the UK version of Rubber Soul that Brian Wilson listened to. I was fortunate enough to meet Brian backstage at a concert he did in Canberra, Australia in December 2002. He autographed my copy of Pet Sounds and I asked him if I could ask him a question, he said I could. So I asked Brian if it was the UK or US version of Rubber Soul that he listened to before beginning Pet Sounds, his eyes lit up and he got really excited and said words along the lines of, "The UK version, definitely the UK version- oh man, what a great album!" Then he sort of switched off again. I didn't record what he said so what he said is completely unverifiable, but this was definitely what the man himself said to me. I'd always wanted to know which version he'd listened to being a huge Beatles and Beach Boys fan. Cheers Adam AdamskiOz (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a great story, but you already know it's not includable in WP. I have personally met David Letterman, been an "on-camera" question on The Montel Williams Show, and sat on Abe Lincoln's lap at the Lincoln Memorial. It's all true, but not notable (nor includable) for this site. If Wilson's statement is mentioned by a reliable source, that's one thing - can you provide a reliable source for the reader? We just can't have unverifiable original research here; but that doesn't mean it didn't happen (and I'm jealous you met Brian, I must say). It just means that it's contested material, and should be deleted as a rule on WP because it can't be verified with a reliable source. Cheers, Adam :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeat: The UK version has "Drive My Car", "If I Needed Someone", "Nowhere Man", "What Goes On" and does NOT have "I've Just Seen a Face" or "It's Only Love" (those 2 songs had appeared on the British "Help!" album). There was a TV program about the Beach Boys which showed a living room with a Christmas tree, and then (actor playing) Brian Wilson walks into the room holding a Rubber Soul album cover. You understand why people would guess he heard the US version, because that's where Brian Wilson presumably was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Album Art

The album art, in the top-right hand corner, says “Capitol”. The image has UK in its name, so this must be wrong!

The wrong cover art was used as it was for the American LP. I was replaced by the British cover. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cover story

I just added some story about the album cover. You can rephrase it if you want so. It is not necessarily phrased in the best way, but I thought it was a good idea to have this information on this page.

The information I added about the album's lettering being created and hand calligraphed by Charles Front is correct and verifiable. I do not have any conflicts of interest, I just happen to have all the facts because the artist is my father. I also refer you to look at the Bonham's catalogue website for details of the original artwork's sale at auction along with a letter of provenance from Robert Freeman the photographer. I should also bring it to your attention that Charles Front will be cited in the next official Beatles book by Mark Lewishon who has interviewed the artist, Mr. Front.

I would like to reinstate the text correctly attributing Mr. Front as the artist. I don't think this kind of incorrect editing does Wikipedia's image any good at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFront (talk • contribs) 10:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC) MrFront (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You must FIRST provide the verifiable citation which proves your claim. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you are related to the artist is in fact a Conflict of Interest. please read WP:COI. Ridernyc (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Bonham's website auctioning the item (as clearly stated by MrFront above) somehow not enough? Surely it's a completely adequate citation: [1] - if not, what's wrong with it? RorschachUK (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC) - additional - see also [2] Observer newspaper 2007. RorschachUK (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I will endeavour to provide the verifiable citation which exists. I haven't done this before, so I need to find out how to enter the appropriate information.MrFront (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC) The fact that I stated my relationship to the artist ought to prove that I have nothing whatever to gain other than a fair editorial and credit where credit's due.MrFront (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

None of the Album Artwork section (and most of the entire article!) has any proper citations at all, yet the powers that be seem quite happy to let it stand. Seems rather two-faced. 82.36.232.25 (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better I can remove the entire section. The fact is we had 2 different versions of the history of the lettering, both were removed until someone provides sources. Ridernyc (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Original artwork used by the Beatles on their Rubber Soul album goes up for auction on Wednesday having lain forgotten for 42 years in its artist's attic. Charles Front was a little-known art director in London when he was approached by Bob Freeman, the Beatles' photographer, to create artwork for a new sleeve." J3dburgh (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"Dexter Stereo" version

The "Dexter Stereo" version of Rubber Soul (a.k.a East Coast version, a.k.a. echo-enhanced version) is not the version included on the Capitol Albums Volume 2 box set. Instead, the box set contains the standard US version. I have edited the page to reflect this information.

Harpsichord solo

What's this business about it not being a harpsichord? I know it was sped up, what who says that it's not a sped-up harpsichord? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

no it's a sped up piano. If you play it at 1/2 the speed you can quite clearly hear a piano. Remember, the sound of an instrument is completely changed when you speed up a recording of it (in this case, the sound's attack and decay are faster), not just the pitch. if it WAS a sped up harpsichord, the sped up version wouldn't sound like a harpsichord because the attack and decay would be even faster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.210.197 (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Lyrics Links

The following discussion was posted on Wikipedia's main Beatles discussion page, and appears to also be relevant here:

Are links to lyrics sites appropriate? I have noticed them in some music articles, and I believe they do add value to the listings. I added one at the bottom of the external links section. In the interest of full disclosure, it is a website I maintain. If the interest is positive, I would likely add lyrics links to other musical articles where appropriate. Shadar 19:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that lyrics sites reprint lyrics in violation of copyright, and that's why we're not supposed to link to them. The relevant guideline to check would be Wikipedia:External links, but that page doesn't directly address this question. I'm going to post a question to the discussion page there, and perhaps someone can tell us whether my idea is correct or mistaken. In the latter case, I'd be happy to restore the link myself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted my question Wikipedia talk:External links#Lyrics sites here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the decision is made that lyrics sites are inappropriate due to the copyright violation issue, I would like to delete the links I found. As a newbie, it would give me good practice in editting. Is that an appropriate action for a new user, and is there a FAQ on deletion etiquette? Shadar 19:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we received an answer, and it refers us to item #2 at Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. It comes down to whether the lyrics are actually under copyright or in the public domain, and whether or not the site in question has the copyright holder's permission to publish the lyrics. If you'd like to remove links to lyrics sites that are in violation of our copyright policy, then you're welcome to do so. The best way to avoid offense is probably to mention the External links policy (or WP:EL, as we like to call it) in your edit summary. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly understand that decision. It turns out I violated the self interest clause anyways, since I posted my own site. I should have recommended the change in talk, and then if someone agreed they could make the change. Thanks for the help with this, GTBacchus. Shadar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there are also links to lyric pages on each of the Wikipedia Beatles album pages. I should have time to fix those tonight. I'll follow the above advice of GTBacchus in mentioning the WP:EL, and refer to this discussion on each album discussion page. InnerRevolution7 02:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made the above-stated change. InnerRevolution7 03:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ROAD ABBEY

This sounds like original research. Why is it there? Zazaban 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

-Just because it's original research doesn't mean it's false. Someone even added visual proof. I don't have a wikipedia account so I don't think I can proove this to you, but I found the ROAD ABBEY thing then mucking around in photoimpression. -"Ray"

John´s harmonium

I´ve juts added the credit for John´s harmonium on "If a needed someone", according to the same sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I was checking the Lewisohn book again, , so I´ve made some changes on the instrumentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.25.16 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Electric piano on "Michelle"

George Martin has been quoted as saying he arranged the guitar solo for "Michelle", and he told Harrison what to play, then he (Martin) and Lennon sit on the electric piano. They just sit or they played it? If they didn´t played it, why Martin mention the instrument? Is the solo played both in guitar and piano? Actually, the sound of this solo always have sound very particular to my ears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.0.34 (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mal 'Organ' Evans

Evans' contribution (a single A note held rather quietly) can be heard on "You Won't See Me" from about 2:29 to 3:22. The Rubber Soul page claims it is inaudible. It is not. I don't know how to change this.

Genre

The album has folk-rock aspects. And country-rock aspects. And psychedelic-rock aspects. One can find various cites for any of these, though trying to identify and list them all is a path to madness. But in the end it's a rock album, in fact the blending of various styles into a whole is part of what differentiates rock from rock and roll. Jgm (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If you can't pinpoint one rock subgenre as the primary style through the record (as with Sgt. Pepper and psychedelic rock), just go with Rock music in the infobox. As an aside, I've been listening to Rubber Soul repeatedly this week, and at no point did I think to myself "Here's some folk rock elements!" WesleyDodds (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This album is much more folk-rock than country-rock or psychedelic-rock. Most albums will have many subgenres; however, folk-rock fits well, most of the songs have folk influences. Allmusic say this is one of the best folk-rock albums: [3]. Helpsloose 13:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic lists Pop, Rock & Roll, British Invasion, Folk-Rock and Pop/Rock as the album's genres. Instead of listing all those, we can list just "rock". See how much simpler! indopug (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

what's the problem of listing many genres? many albums got as many as five or more genres listed in their articles. just rock is too inaccurate, rock and folk rock will describe it better. Helpsloose 20:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Folk rock is a subgenre of rock, which is pretty reddundant when we can just list rock and be done with it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a subgenre, but the album is so folk influenced, enough to list folk rock. It will give people more accurate knowledge about the album. The use of a genre and a subgenre can be seen on many articles, example: [4]. I have never listened to that album and I find those genres informative, just rock would not be very informative. The same can be said with this album. I don't think it is a good idea to list all genres if there is many, but folk rock seams to fit well. Helpsloose 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I will add my support to folk rock being included in the album's genres, for the same reason psychedelic rock is included along with rock for Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Folk rock is fundamental to the influence and sound of Rubber Soul. Jakeb (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The general standard has been to list broad genre categories in the infobox and expound in the body of the article if necessary, Therefore, "Rock" should be the only genre in the infobox. Radiopathy •talk• 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's start with this, copied from above: "The album has folk-rock aspects. And country-rock aspects. And psychedelic-rock aspects". Yes it does. But aspects need reliable sources, and to my mind, folk rock is more in tune with Unhalfbricking by Fairport Convention, which defined the genre in UK terms, or The Byrds, who arguably did the same in the USA. However, copying a style (acoustic guitar/social awareness) does not make any track "folk rock in itself. My bottom line is that whereas The Beatles may have been influenced by Dylan in one direction, in no way does that make what they did "folk rock", despite the fact that they emerged in 1957 from the skiffle movement, albeit with additional influences. On the other hand, if any reliable source has described Rubber Soul as "folk rock", we can use that, with appropriate weight. But not otherwise. Rodhullandemu 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the exclusion of "Folk Rock" in the infobox here. This should go to a proposal, though, as I am only one opinion... Doc9871 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been said above, sixteen months ago: "Folk rock is a subgenre of rock, which is pretty reddundant when we can just list rock and be done with it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2008" End of. Rodhullandemu 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. This was an early version of folk rock, so I listed it. Hblackhawks (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Hblackhawks

If the word "Folk" is going to be used it should be noted to be referred as English Folk because I had listened the UK version of the album many times and I don't find any early Bob Dylan's type of elements besides the song "What Goes On", but that's just one song and most Ringo songs are like that. If anything, their Folk album would have to be "Beatles For Sale" and not Rubber Soul. From my point of view it is better to list it just as "rock" instead of "folk/rock" which seems inaccurate to the whole picture of the sound of the album.Stratogustav (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Gustavo Avilés

Info boxes should only list one genre, in some very rare cases it can list more then one. This how ever is not one of those cases. Lets face it if you wanted to you cold list 20 genres for every album in every info box. To avoid this the most prominent obvious genre is the only one listed. If you want to discuss folk rock elements do it in the prose of the article and source your statements. Ridernyc (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Calling it only Rock sort of diminishes what the Beatles were doing on this album. I notice the Velvet Underground and Hendrix get like three to five sub-genres but the Beatles get called rock. I think you are decieving people who don't know the Beatles that well that they might be only one type of music. Rock music was just one of many elements in the Beatles music. There is folk influences all over Rubber Soul. The English Folk you hear in the Beatles might be because of their skiffle influence which was noticed from the start by people like David Crosby of the Byrds. Yes there is folk rock "Nowhere Man", "Norwegian Wood" might be psychedelic folk, and "If I Needed Someone" is classic folk rock. "Girl" is influenced by European folk music. Yes there is country rock "What Goes On" and "Run For Your Life". All Music Guide calls Rubber Soul a folk rock album along with others. RigbyEleanor (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)RigbyEleanor

Lyrics

The writer of the section discussing the subject of the songs Nowhere Man and Help! appears to be utterly unaware that John wrote those songs about himself, and it would be difficult to find a documented source that does NOT mention this. Lewisohn : "...in later years [John] would look back upon the lyric [of Help!] as being one of his first real "message" numbers, the author pleading for help from somebody, anybody, to relieve his insecurity"; MacDonald : "...in 1980, [John] recalled [Help!] as a cry for help from the depths of what he referred to as his 'Fat Elvis' period"; [idem] "...NOWHERE MAN ... is a reflection of himself in his 'Fat Elvis' period ... steadily dissolving the boundaries of his identity with a sapping tide of drugs". Either the references to both songs should be removed, or even better, edited to reflect these well-documented facts. 88.105.140.51 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

40th anniversary tribute album?

Should This Bird Has Flown - A 40th Anniversary Tribute to the Beatles' Rubber Soul be referenced in this article? Maybe under a 'See also' section? Thanks.Airproofing (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd think so; not too many albums get the tribute treatment, and therefore this is a notable aspect of the album's history. (Also, unlike some "tributes" which are really an excuse for unknown acts to get some attention) this one is quite the A-list affair). Jgm (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Done.Airproofing (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not spam, because not exists of any legal ground to think so.

Because not exist of any (external) hyperlinks at these pages of the Archive. Not exist even of inactive links (even hint). Only links to the Internet Archive (at the Archive). I can be spamer at only one case. If I promote the Archive. Only bot can think, that this is spam. People, I ask support, to be free of wrong actions of this man (who made illegal rollbacks in the articles, related to this album, about the songs). Or we will invite very competent people on such issues. See below these links to the space of the Internet Archive only (some examples).

External links:

• Nowhere Man - online audio at the educational edition from Julius Caesar - The Beatles.ogg Source: Internet Archive. Song from the album Rubber Soul.

• Michelle - online audio at the educational edition from Julius Caesar - The Beatles.ogg Source: Internet Archive. Song from the album Rubber Soul.

• Drive My Car - online audio at the educational edition from Julius Caesar - The Beatles.ogg Source: Internet Archive. Song from the album Rubber Soul.

• You Won't See Me - online audio at the educational edition from Julius Caesar - The Beatles.ogg Source: Internet Archive. Song from the album Rubber Soul.

• Think For Yourself - online audio at the educational edition from Julius Caesar - The Beatles.ogg Source: Internet Archive. Song from the album Rubber Soul.

• Girl - online audio at the educational edition from Julius Caesar - The Beatles.ogg Source: Internet Archive. Song from the album Rubber Soul.

• Run For Your Life - online audio at the educational edition from Julius Caesar - The Beatles.ogg Source: Internet Archive. Song from the album Rubber Soul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy1980 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the link on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Further, you wouldn't have the legal right to stream Beatle songs and Wikipedia cannot link to a site with illegal streams. Please see WP:EL and WP:NFCC and read it. freshacconci talktalk 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• You make lobby of interests EMI, possible. This is very bad action. Copyright material in a format OGG, plus the fact, that such material from the Internet Archive (open source), this is already not copyright material. This knows the child even. Plus: spam not exists. You must stop the lobby and the violations. How about expert from the highest staff of the CC, for example,Mike Linksvayer ....? He has the account here. Directly at the Wikipedia. I can invite him now, if you will continue violate the conception of the openess. The shame. Copy of this message at the my talk page and can be somewhere else. Crazy1980 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Wait for the solution of the most competent person on these issues. He will not be afraid of responsibility, because all more, than on legal grounds, including. It should be note: almost nobody takes a part at this discussion, because people know only one: I am right. Supreme judge will give answer on our issue (solution) soon. He: Mike Linksvayer. This message from: Crazy1980 (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC).

I'm not the most competent person on these issues, supreme judge, nor anything close. I'll note one thing though -- just because something is available from archive.org in a format not encumbered by patents doesn't make the thing "open source". Also, the legal status of a particular use of material referenced by a link in any particular jurisdiction is a complicated matter (greatly de-complexified if copyright holder offers under a free/open license, which is clearly not the case with Beatles tracks). Finally, these unfortunate legal matters are just one of many factors to consider concerning whether a link would make a good addition to an article on Wikipedia. I have no idea nor interest in whether the links above ought be included in this particular article about a subject of which I have no knowledge. Sorry, no solution from me. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should ask the representative trade unions at the Creative Commons (John Varis). His opinion is one of the most authoritative in the legal sense. Including, because he carries all responsibility for the actions of a large number of people, whose interests he represent. This is any contributer, who related to the Creative Commons, including: the IA, the DMOZ, the CC, projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, any volounteer and so on. One man, thousands of of people, only one responsibility. The problem is whether can he give consent to help in this issue, risking to become a scapegoat. If yes, he will sign our request to him and this document (reply by e-mail) will the greatest warranty in the world for us. I think so. Because he not has the user account at the Wikipedia, need write request from this page at the CC: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/United_States . Question to Mike Linksvayer: How much wait for the answer from this person, approximately? - Science111 (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC) .

I have no idea who John Varis is. The name was added to the page you link above incorrectly. I have rolled it back. Neither Varis nor a trade union federation are CC affiliates in the US. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Instruments

Let's delete the Instruments section. I realise that it's sourced, but it's repetitive and it's trivia. Besides, how does the chap who wrote the book know for sure? Radiopathy •talk• 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up

I've tried to organize and streamline what is a very chaotic article filled with superfluous and often duplicated information. There were too many single-sentence entries disconnected from each other, and I have tried to re-shape them into more coherent paragraphs. I have moved the instruments section to the Beatles article on that topic. I haven't added much in the way of text, just a bit here and there, and have tried to keep as much of the old text as possible where relevant. I am trying to do this as well with the other American Beatles catalogue entries, some of which are also pretty sloppy at this point. PJtP (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

when were some songs composed?

I find: "Virtually all of the songs for this album were composed immediately after the band's return to London following their North American tour."

The Beatles Bible site says that John Lennon STARTED composing Norwegian Wood early in 1965; I don't know how far he got with it before that North American tour. Also, "Wait" was recorded in June 1965 as the Beatles were providing the rest of the songs for the British "Help!" album, but then was shelved (then, when the Beatles were a song short for "Rubber Soul" album, it was resurrected and, according to what I read, given some overdubs).

We're considering the UK (not US) version of "Rubber Soul". The U.S. version has "I've Just Seen a Face" and "It's Only Love", which were also recorded in June 1965 and then saw their 1st release on the British "Help!" album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that there should be a explanation for such kind of information. Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Also notice this in Wikipedia regarding "What Goes On", which is on the British "Rubber Soul" but on the U.S. "Yesterday & Today":

'The original version of the song was written by John Lennon in the Quarrymen days[2] and considered as a follow-up to "Please Please Me" in early 1963,[3] The song was not used until 1965 as Ringo Starr's vocal piece for Rubber Soul.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles "The/the" Issue Mediation Input Request

Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood

"The consensus" (from books, websites, magazine articles etc) is that Norwegian Wood is not about John's failed relationship with his wife. It's a sort-of confessional story of a brief affair he had with a woman, apparently a journalist. In real life he didn't actually sleep in the bath, that bit was added in to spare Cynthia Lennon's feelings, since deliberately mocking her in a song would be a bit harsh.

The alternative view offered here is one I've never heard of. The version I offer I've heard lots of times. Don't have a cite off the top of my head.

92.40.254.101 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)