Talk:The Beatles

Parenthetical Descriptors in the lead

"John Lennon (rhythm guitar, vocals), Paul McCartney (bass guitar, vocals), George Harrison (lead guitar, vocals) and Ringo Starr (drums, vocals)."

Does anyone else find these a bit tedious, misleading, and incomplete, e.g. both John and Paul played some piano, and lead guitar, live and in the studio. Paul played the drums at times, George played the bass, etcetera. As it stands now, a quick glance of the article's lead would leave the reader assuming the lead guitar work on "Tax Man" or Sgt. Pepper was Harrison. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is fine. These are the instruments they're most identified with. Many musicians in many bands sometimes pick up secondary and tertiary instruments, but there's no need to get more detailed in the lead section. This is a perfectly standard and informative way of describing the members' customary roles in the band. DocKino (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we "get more detailed in the lead section", I was suggesting less detail, remove the descriptors, let the article explain their various roles in the band, not the lead, it's way too complicated with this band to do it justice in the lead. — GabeMc (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Doc on this one, I think. As an overview of roles it's fine, and details are fleshed out later. If you remove it, and the theoretical "only person in the universe who doesn't know", has to start searching the article to find out Ringo was the drummer, for instance, the lead is failing its purpose somewhat. Begoon ^talk 06:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But what about the reader who leaves thinking Paul only played bass, the lead isn't doing it's job in that case either. — GabeMc (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I take your point, but it still reads fine to me, especially in context (it's part of a dated narrative). I'm not saying I object to any change because it's perfect, but I can't think of a way to improve it without making it messy, and I'm not in favour of removing it entirely. Begoon ^talk 07:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Afterword: I guess removing "lead", "rhythm", and "bass" would solve one of your issues - but I'm not too keen on that, either, really. Begoon ^talk 07:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Instrument list from http://www.beatlesbible.com/

GEORGE HARRISON Acoustic Guitar 12-String Acoustic Guitar African Drum Bass Claves Drums Electric Guitar Finger Clicks Güiro Hammond Organ Handclaps Harmonica Harmonium Maracas Moog Synthesiser Organ Percussion Samples Sitar Svarmandal Tambourine Tambura Tape Loops Timpani Violin Vocals --Roujan (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC) JOHN LENNON Acoustic Guitar Acoustic 12-String Guitar Banjo Bass Clavioline Cowbell Drums Effects Electric Guitar Electric Piano Hammond Organ Harmonica Harmonium Lap Steel Guitar Maracas Mellotron Organ Percussion Piano Samples Tambourine Tape Loops Tenor Saxophone Timpani

--Roujan (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine, but I would add "piano" to Paul's description, since he played quite a bit of it, some of it is actually signature, and was the band's principle piano player. Carlo (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rock'n'Roll

shouldn't this be in their genre? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Rock and Pop covers it, to add Rock'n'Roll is redundant and confusing IMO. Rock'n'Roll implies 1950s music. — GabeMc (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, rock and roll and rock are pretty much the same... 24.89.194.251 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

WTF pop wasn't there genre look through their wiki albums pages and you'll see only one album had pop songs and 3 had rock and roll and there not the same please listen to rock'n'roll and then a rock song you'll see a clear difference and the 60's were a year for Rock'N'roll too 82.0.95.94 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.95.94 (talk)

There have been many discussions here about the genres to be included which you probably haven't seen - try reading these discussions as it may help you to understand why the article includes what it does. Here's a link: [1]. Maybe there will be parts of those discussions which you think need more consideration, or maybe the links will explain the reasoning. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 06:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

82.0.95.94, your unsourced claim that "only one album had pop songs and 3 had rock and roll" does not hold up to scrutiny. In fact it would be easier to argue, IMO, that every Beatle album had both pop and rock songs. — GabeMc (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay then please provide a source that say's there pop 82.0.90.251 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.90.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_The_Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatles_for_Sale as you can see they released 3 albums with the genre "Rock N Roll" and below you'll see that this is there only album with the genre pop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Hard_Day%27s_Night_(album) Ericdeaththe2nd (talk)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Eric, first, other Wikipedia articles are not considered RSs for this article, second are you really claiming that the Beatles were not at least in part a pop group? Which Beatles album do you think contains no pop songs? On, "please provide a source that say's there pop":

• Davies, 1985, p.71
• Gould, 2008, p.162
• Brown & Gaines, 2002, p.122
• Spitz, 2005, p.657
• The Beatles, 2000, Paul: p.219, George: p.349 — GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly my name is Ben "Eric" is my online ID, none of them contain many pop songs if you read through the albums Pop isn't considered a genre, but 3 of these so called "reliable" articles have the genre Rock'N'Roll and you can ask anyone nowadays and they would agree, and the so called sources you pasted ", Davies, 1985, p.71, Gould, 2008, p.162, Brown & Gaines, 2002, p.122, Spitz, 2005, p.657, The Beatles, 2000, Paul: p.219, George: p.349" that's just writing there's no links whatsoever 86.25.245.177 (talk)ericdeaththe2nd86.25.245.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Okay Ben, but I think you missed my point. Other Wikipedia articles are not Reliable Sources for this article, so it really does not matter what other wiki articles say about the Beatles genres, what matters is what the high quality reliable sources say do you understand the difference? But really, I'm curious, can you name one Beatles album that does not contain at least one pop song? And no, I didn't provide links to the sources, but I have hard copies of the sources listed above, and I gave enough detail so that anyone can check what the sources say if they are willing to make an effort. Also Ben, remember to sign your comments with four tildes, ala: ~~~~ And thanks for joining the discussion, a fresh perspective is always appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well i decided to be mature now, I think most of them don't have any pop songs the album "A Hard Day's Night" has loads of pop songs and the song "Love Me Do" would be considered pop but i think there last 3-4 albums don't have any pop songs nor do the first 2 but that's my perspective and yeah i know i accidently added 3 by mistake, Thanks 82.0.88.36 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd82.0.88.36 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ben, do you think "Here Comes the Sun" is a rock or a pop song? How about "Anna" from PPM? "Till there was You" form WTB? "If I fell" from A Hard days Night, "Eight Days a Week", "Yesterday", "Michelle", etcetera. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here comes the sun i would say rock, anna is a mixture of pop and rock, till there was you is pop, if i fell i would say rock, a hard days night i would say both, eight days a week i would consider both, yesterday is pop, michelle is quite hard i would say it can't be rock but it doesn't sound popish, and nothing i'm going to say is going to have "rock n roll" added to the genre is it? 86.2.129.71 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd86.2.129.71 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily Ben, you just have to make a strong arguement for it. But I can tell you that this issue has been dedated here before, and the general consensus was that Rock covers it, and to add rock'n'roll isn't necessary. You can search the archives for the topic to look at previous discussions. But thanks for your input, and don't lose hope. You won't win every arguement here, but you may win some if your position is well-stated, and sourced. — GabeMc (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine but I think it's still misleading, and on another note after reading through the archives It has come to my attention that theres a current members section and a past section members, the beatles ended years ago so why have it up? 86.25.244.103 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd86.25.244.103 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, IMO there are no current members, however, in order to change it one would need to build a consensus. — GabeMc (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What is a consenus? Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The public infobox indicates "members" and "past members" with no mention of "current members." To avoid confusing the Fab Four for the never existed Fab Six, the members are John, Paul, George and Ringo and the past members are Stu and Pete. That is the consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah i see, so is that why there isn't on of these below

Member's John Lennon - Vocals, Rhythm Guitar Paul McCartney - Vocals, Bass Guitar snd Guitar (1960-1961) George Harrison - Vocals, Lead Guitar Ringo Starr - Vocals, Drums/Percussion

Former Members Stuart Sutcliffe - Vocals, Bass Guitar Pete Best - Drums/Percussion Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2ndEricdeaththe2nd (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I think the section "CD releases" should be integrated into the section "After the break-up (1970-present)", because 1) it breaks up the chronological order, and 2) both sections are currently incomplete or redundant if completed. As the section "CD releases" stands now, it excludes 1, Live at the BBC, and the Anthology, but if we complete it it will be redundant with the previous section. — GabeMc (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All this would be covered in the The Beatles discography article anyway, wouldn't? Which lists in addition to Anthology 1, 2 and 3', Yellow Submarine Songtrack as a compilation release in 1999 as well as several compilation releases in the 2000's. There is also the mid-nineties singles releases (incl. "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love"). I agree with your overall sentiment that the section "CD releases", as it is now, does not work well. As I don't edit music articles very heavily or often, I don't know what the definition of "CD release" would be exactly; or the difference between it necessarily and other discography lists (album, compilation etc.)--Racerx11 (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it seems we agree that, "the section "CD releases", as it is now, does not work well". So, Racerx11, do you support a re-work of the structure in this regard? Are you suggesting that rather than integrating the "CD releases" section within the current article, it should be integrated at The Beatles discography article? — GabeMc (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine with integrating the section into this article. As for The Beatles discography, that would be fine too, but I dont understand the difference between a list of "CD releases" and the lists already in that article now. Would it simply be a list any Beatles music released in the CD format? with the dates each first became available in that format? That article already appears fairly exhaustive. In other words, I am leaning toward suggesting that we simply delete the entire 'Discograhy' section here and just have the link pointing to The Beatles discography, but not 100% sure if thats the best thing to do unless there is consensus for such an action.--Racerx11 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Specifically, I suggest some variation of this, versus this, any thoughts? — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about all that. The general idea you suggested in your original post is fine with me as far as removing 'CD releases' and incoporating the info into the section 'After the break-up (1970-present)', but I suggest you tie in with User:DocKino, the editor who reverted those changes, before putting all this back. I am stepping out if this dicussion more or less nuetral on the issue of restoring your edits. Thanks.--Racerx11 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The CD releases section should remain as is, as it's about the tracks The Beatles released while they were together. There is a hatnote for The Beatles discography. My suggestion is to add a 1990s section to talk about the compilations from Live at the BBC onward. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Steelbeard1, please explain how/why "CD releases" is "about the tracks The Beatles released while they were together." Why do we need a separate section for CD releases of music previously released on record? Also, Live at the BBC was not released (in any format except live on the radio) while the Beatles were together, so I am confused by your example. Further, to add info to "CDR" about the 1990s and 2000s would be redundant with the previous section, "After the break-up (1970-present)". Either way, "CDR" is incomplete or redundant. Can you give a good reason/s why "CDR" should not be integrated into "ATB"? — GabeMc (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"The tracks" refer to the core catalog. Nothing else. The details are in the linked album articles. I'm also referring to commerically released recordings of which Live at the BBC did not qualify because it was released after they broke up in 1970. As for the potential redundancy, just list the new compilations of previously unreleased recordings as well as the single CD 1 compilation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in contributing here. I was traveling with limited Internet access.

First off, I'm unconvinced by the primary stated premises behind the restructuring. The "Discography" section as currently constituted no more "breaks up the chronological order" than do the "Musical style and development" or "Awards and achievements" sections. What we currently have is a large "History" section, followed by several topically focused sections that naturally reference periods of time also surveyed in the "History" section--that's an entirely standard format for a culture article, generally, and a pop music artist article, specifically. The question of sections being "incomplete" is similarly off-point; we choose what information goes in what section (chronological-history or topical-focus) to make each as effective and useful as possible; what's important is that the article as a whole is comprehensive and as complete as appropriate, which it is. As for "redundancy", I see all of one sentence that's arguably redundant--the final sentence of the "2000s" subsection; that hardly constitutes a redundancy problem.

Second, I think the "Discography" section as currently constituted has served and continues to serve the positive purpose of focusing on and clarifying the various permutations of The Beatles' canonical recordings. As the sources indicate, the story of what happened with those recordings in the digital era is more noteworthy than what has happened with the classic recordings of almost any other pop music artists, and I believe clearly continues to warrant its own narrative section. That story gets muddied, I believe, when it is divorced from the "Original UK LPs" list and threaded into the "After the break-up (1970–present)" subsection, which currently focuses on post-band activities and the latter-day release of recordings that are supplemental to the canon.

Third--and this is relatively minor--in terms of execution, I saw a very odd structure where sub-sub-sections titled "1970s", "1980s", "1990s", and "2000s" were followed by one titled "2009—present." Furthermore, "2000s" included events from 2009 and "2009—present" included events prior to 2009.

In sum, I believe the restructuring is unnecessary, solves no pressing problems, and actually weakens the narrative. While it doesn't strike me as impossible to come up with a more successful restructuring approach, for now I believe the structure with which the article achieved FA status clearly remains the superior one. DocKino (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc, on your first point, I feel the chronology is broken because "ATB" contains sub-sections for the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and 2000s, yet these sections do not include the entire Beatles output, and are therefore incomplete. Then later in the article we have sub-sections for the 1980s, and 1990s in "CDR". So to me, we already have an "ATB" chronology that is incomplete and should be completed rather than making "CDR" redundant. Further, why is there a need for a "CD releases" section in the first place? We have no vinyl, 8-track, or cassette sections, and one could argue that with digital downloads, CDs are just another soon to be obsolete format. On your second point, why should this info not be at The Beatles Discography? We could reduce the size and load-time of the Beatles article if this info were smerged into the Discography article. On your third point, that is a simple editing issue that could easily be fixed, and was merely the result of my being bold and trying a new approach, that needed some tweaking. Also, the section, "After the break-up", mentions Live at the BBC, the Anthology, 1, Let it Be- naked, Love, and the 2009 remasters. So why does the section mention these CD releases, yet not the others? I do understand what you mean about the canon versus compilations, but again, couldn't/shouldn't this issue be addressed at the Discography article rather than here? — GabeMc (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I just added onto the CD releases subsection to show my version of how it should look. How is it? Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's well written, really, but I wasn't saying that the section couldn't technically be completed, it's just more redundant now that it's complete, and the Beatles is 1000 bytes larger and a slightly slower article now. The core of my initial arguement was that the section is by nature either incomplete or redundant, and I think your edits have proven that assertion to some extent. — GabeMc (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Please indicate here whether you support or oppose GabeMc's proposal to integrate "CD releases" with either "After the break-up (1970-present) or The Beatles discography, or a combination of both. — GabeMc (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified Support While it certainly seems like a good idea to me, I have not, to the best of my recollection, edited this article before, and my opinion probably should not carry the same weight as those of regular contributors. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I support altering the article as discussed. Either method would be acceptable to me. And Joefromrandb, your opinion is as valuable as any other editor's. The number of edits you may or may not have to any particular article is irrelevant. Don't let anyone tell you anything else. Sure, the editors who regularly edit an article tend to be more knowledgeable about that article, but the good ones amongst them recognise that outside views are a breath of fresh air, often allowing them to "see the wood from the trees" and spot issues they otherwise might not because they are so closely invested in the article.Begoon ^talk 01:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support* 153,126 bytes. As this page takes so long to load, any kind of brevity would be helpful.--andreasegde (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Andreasegde, is that a support, or an oppose? — GabeMc (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a support for any kind of trimming. Certain sections are way too long.--andreasegde (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Please see my comments above. DocKino (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support The CD releases section is either incomplete or redundant, in the project as well as the article, and it should be merged as much as possible into the Discography article, reducing the size and load-time of The Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with DocKino. I think an overview of how the band's core catalogue has been handled since the CD era is useful and works better in a separate section. Restructuring seems to me like yet more unnecessary work.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What about merging the CD info with The Beatles Discography? And as far as, "more unnecessary work", I will do the work, so that should not be an issue for you IMO. — GabeMc (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur that "unnecessary work" is an invalid argument against. Both in general and in the particular case. Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Just a few comments on some of the changes that might be required if we decided to move the "Discography" section's content elsewhere:

1. Whatever restructuring is done, I still think the "Discography" section should at least mention MMT, Past Masters, Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2, Anthology, Live at the BBC, the remasters, and the digital releases. But it should do it much more concisely (maybe in list format?), with the most complete descriptions reserved for the page The Beatles discography.
2. The Beatles discography is currently set up primarily for table content - it'd need some restructuring if we wanted to incorporate much of the prose text from this article's "Discography" section.
3. The "Discography > CD Releases > 1980s" section's paragraph on how the band's albums were released on CD in 1987 could easily be transferred to the "After the break-up > 1980s" section of the timeline without much editing.
4. The same goes for the paragraph on the Capitol Albums vol 1 and 2.
5. As for the paragraphs on the 9/9/09 remasterings and the iTunes downloads: whether or not it's decided to leave the structure as it is, incorporate that information into the main History timeline, or transfer it across to The Beatles discography, these paragraphs could do with some trimming! Mainly, this article is supposed to give a general overview of the band, and I don't think such detailed quotes from Mojo about the remasters' sound quality really belong here. The Beatles discography, The Beatles in Mono and The Beatles Stereo Box Set would be the best places for detailed summaries of the remasters' critical reception, as those articles could accommodate further review quotes from a wider variety of sources.

--Nick R^Talk 03:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a support to me. I agree with all five points. — GabeMc (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose--Just concentrate on the core catalogue and for the 1990s onward, just mention the new compilations from LIve at the BBC onward in passing. The details would be in the main The Beatles discography article with the hatnote already in place. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you support the proposal Steelbeard1, as that's essentially what I want to do. — GabeMc (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

But keep it within the CD Releases subsection of the discography section of this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, to it I respond with a question: why do we need a CD section at all, there is no vinyl, 8-track, or cassette sections? Is it particularly notable that the Beatles material has been available on CD for 25 years, and do we really need the details of such here? Why not link to the the canon here, with some key additions (MMT, Past Masters, Capitol Albums Vol 1 & 2, Anthology, Live at the BBC, the remasters, and the digital releases), and move as much info as we can to the Discography, and integrate any key points into "ATB"? — GabeMc (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The 8-tracks and cassettes were identical to the vinyl albums. With CD releases, The Beatles' catalogue was standardised world wide. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point there, but it still does not answer why the details of their CD releases should be at The Beatles versus at their discography. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support merging with "After the break-up". -- I've been out of the loop for a while, but I just wanted to get my two cents in here. The discography section, as is, does seem a little overly complicated. I wouldn't have a problem with moving much of the "CD Releases" section into the history article. It would fit in the narrative pretty seamlessly, most likely. The discography really should be just a list of the original UK albums, and maybe the EPs as well. Some articles (Frank Zappa comes to mind) eliminate the discography section entirely and just link to an external article. I don't think we need to do that here, but restructuring would definitely help. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as I can't see there's much point in keeping a separate CD section. If it is necessary to document in full detail every single release of each album the Beatles made, then perhaps that ought to be done on the individual page of the album in question. Whether to have a CD section at all - don't see it's necessary. --Matt Westwood 06:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support I would say put it in the Discography article. Not to do so throws away a chance to keep the Beatles own article as short as posssible. A small amount of redundancy in the main article (a paragraph rather than just a redirect line) draws attention to the subject and stops editors from coming in and rewriting the whole thing, thinking it's been left out, because the redirect is small and hidden in the text. Britmax (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I've always taken the view that artist articles should be limited to their original releases and a few re-issues, where notable. It's a long article anyway, if such things aren't to be in prose then move them into the discography article. Parrot of Doom 14:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support moving CD releases into The Beatles discography. The article is overly long anyway, and that's the logical place for the material. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I don't understand why a Discography section should exist at all when an article with that title exists. But the "CD Releases" subsection is not discography. It's history of the band. If there's discographic information in there that isn't already in the discography article (I haven't looked closely enough), it should go in there, but the story of CD-era releases should go in the after-breakup history section. Bryan Henderson (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment ~ Unless my math is off, I count the poll at 10 to 3 in favor of integration of the "CD releases" section. This seems a clear consensus so I'll go ahead and make the edits. We can take another poll afterward if the community does not like the changes. Thanks for your time and participation. — GabeMc (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Added the Long Tall Sally (EP) which is the other Beatle EP with exclusive song content to the list. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice addition Steelbeard1. — GabeMc (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Critics' comments on 1987/2009 CDs

Starting this new section to avoid bogging down the straw poll. Further to my Point #5 above:

1. As I said above, I don't think this article's Discography sections should include critics' comments on the 1987/2009 CDs. But while editing the section just now, I realised something that might be relevant if that text is incorporated into The Beatles discography. At the moment the 9.9.09 paragraph basically goes: "Facts about the remasters -> Brief skips back to 1965 and 1987 -> Critics' comments on 1987 CDs -> Critics' comments on 2009 CDs." That's a bit awkward! So IMO the Danny Eccleston quote about the 1987 CDs' sound quality (and his PW/Rain example) would be better placed in the paragraph on the the 1987 CDs.
2. But wherever this text ends up, "ever since 1987 there have been complaints about the sound" is a strong claim; do you think we'd need more sources (like reviews written in the late '80s) to support it?

--Nick R^Talk 04:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and it's part of what I was trying to say above. — GabeMc (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi

< In any case, the sound of these remasters, mono or stereo, is exceptional. I've always felt that the sound quality of the original 1987 remasters was slightly underrated. The CD issues were well received at the time and were considered state of the art, but as the years wore on and the label never did anything to improve them, resentment set in and people began to focus on their flaws. Fair enough. But whatever you think of the 1987 remasters, these new versions are a marked improvement. In terms of clarity and detail, they are consistently impressive. But they're also successful for showing restraint> http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/13425-stereo-box-in-mono/ --Roujan (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Need a fix

Number 236 ref need to fix from Southall 2006 to Southall & Perry 2006. 46.35.206.137 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hot 100

The article makes at least two references to the Beatles 'topping Billboard magazine's list of all-time best-selling Hot 100 artists'. The Hot 100 mixes and sales and airplay so this sentence is misleading. Something like 'topping Billboard magazine's list of all-time most successful Hot 100 artists', or even 'topping Billboard magazine's list of the Hot 100's top 100 artists', the latter phrasing as lifted directly from their website, would be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.248.197 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point 92.14.248.197, thanks for your input! I think your former suggestion is better than the latter, as it avoids the redundancy of "100". I've made the needed changes. Thanks again for your contribution! — GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Free as a Bird/Real Love, Active Dates

If Free as a Bird and Real Love were released as singles by the Beatles, wouldn't that mean that the group was active from 1995-1996 as well? Just because one member of the group passed away before more music was produced doesn't mean the group can no longer be active. The Doors is a good example of this. NintendoNerd777 (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That was discussed before. The consensus was a firm NO. It was simply the three surviving Beatles and Yoko Ono collaborating on The Beatles Anthology projects. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Steelbeard1. — GabeMc (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "firm" no. There were several (including myself) who concurred with the logic that inactive bands don't release newly recorded material. Not that I want to dredge this thing up or anything like that; just for the benefit of the OP... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point Evan, you are correct, some did agree, and remember, consensus can change, it is not written in stone. — GabeMc (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

...but it is writ rather large at this time! Radiopathy •talk• 01:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't Pass Me By is not owned by Startling Music Ltd. but by Universal Music Publishing MGB Ltd., proof on the remastered booklets for White Album.