The Beatles Unassessed

This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles concert tours). See: Missing articles. Expand : The Lost Lennon Tapes, notable radio series which has spawned many bootlegs. Apple Records See also: Adopt an article Stubs : See: Category:The Beatles song stubs Update : Pics/Graphics wanted: Kenwood. Verify : Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.Template:Omnimusica-canTemplate:Mainpage date

"A common, mythical variation on this lyric often found is "Scrambled eggs / Oh my darling you've got lovely legs". Jane Asher makes a reference to this in her book Things He Said Today: "Don't believe that part about 'how I loved your legs.' That's bunk. My legs are horrid."" Well, the lyrics weren't necessarily about Jane Asher. In "any Years from Now On" Paul McCartney repeats the claim that the lyrics were "Scrambled eggs / Oh my darling you've got lovely legs". Of course, he might just be telling a good story, but if the only reason the claim is said to be untrue is that Jane Asher says she had horrible legs...--Deadworm222 00:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm baffled by the claim that they had 23 singles in the Top 100 in 1976, because there wasn't a top 100 back then. I don't think there was even a "bubbling under" list at that point. Bonalaw 21:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My sources say so – I'll see if I can dig up more. [1] Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

to re-review the article after I re-re-re-re-copyedited it, so I'm listing it here instead. The main complaint was that the facts, etc. were great, but the manner of presentation, particularly grammar, was nowhere near featured standard. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Personally, I think they're wrong. I've reread it again, and can't find any writing problems. I'd renominate if I were you.[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:02, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
• I agree with Meelar. Ambi 07:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Me too. I love it. How long since it was rejected on FAC? I might renominate it myself, but I'd need to look at the old discussion first. Dandrake 02:54, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
• Based on your comments, I've renominated it. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is stupid. Encyclopedias are for the dissemination of information among the general public. Although I understand that there is interesting information here (a lot of interesting information at that) I do not think this would be useful to most people, and I also think that this would not go under the category of one of Wikipedia's most excellent articles.

Luckily encylopedias, like most everything else, are not made for individuals and their personal whims, likes, and dislikes. Your disinterest in music says more about yourself than music or encyclopedias. This article is accesible except in the section on the melody which does not explain (or even link to) the musical terminology used (with the exception of tonic). If this is the source of your complaint, rather than complain about something you don't understand, you could simply have asked people with a different, not infererior, area of knowledge to make those edits and explanations. Hyacinth 00:42, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but is including the lyrics to "Scrambled Eggs" a copyright violation? McCartney may not have released this version of the song, but he did write it and presumedly never released it in to the public domain. It's apparently the complete lyrics so it goes beyond fair use. MK 04:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why are song lyrics included in this article only as external link ? IMO the songs lyrics should be in the article for that song. Are there some copyright problems or what. 193.58.197.218 11:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are a confirmed copyright violation, and as such, cannot be included in the article. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We present three different theories on what this song is about!

First, on the Wikipedia main page:

It is a ballad about unrequited love

Second, in the article:

in June 1965, McCartney completed the finishing touches on the lyric, which touched upon the death of his mother

Third, at the end of the article:

Although the lyric is rather vague, it could be interpreted to reveal sadness about a lost loved one.

All of those make sense. The lyrics were partially inspired by McCartney's mother's passing; the song can be construed to reveal sadness about a lost loved one, which could be McCartney's mother, or a lover who spurned him (unrequited love). The song's about the leaving of a loved one, but the song's never more specific than mentioning the subject is female ("why she had to go"). Johnleemk | Talk 18:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to bust the party, but looking at the Biography, it claims "It has been suggested that the lyrics are about the loss of Paul's mother, and one line could possibly be read as that. If so, it was an unconscious element in the song's composition." I think, therefore, it's a bit of a stretch to say here that the lyrics definitely touch on the death of Paul's mother. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 02:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The top portion of this article says 'Although solely written by McCartney, due to his contract with the Beatles the song was credited to both him and John Lennon as "Lennon/McCartney".' This is incorrect.

The usage of the "Lennon/McCartney" writing credits for songs written by either Lennon, McCartney, or both during the Beatles years, was an informal agreement between the two artists and was never set in contractual form. Lennon and McCartney agreed early on in their career that any song either of them wrote would bear the credits "Lennon/McCartney" with the provision that they could change it at any time to make it seem more equal (for McCartney). John Lennon even honored this agreement for his non-Beatles "Plastic Ono Band" single, "Give Peace A Chance," released in 1969. Eventually, the "Lennon/McCartney" moniker was repeated so frequently that it became the de facto standard, and recent attempts to change the arrangement of the names by McCartney for live cover recordings his of Beatles work (that were primarily or solely written by him) to "by Paul McCartney and John Lennon" met with stiff resistance from Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, and from legions of Beatles fans hesitant to break from tradition.

I thought that most lyrics are copyrighted. The lyrics used in the article... Not sure, maybe fair-use policy will work fine? WB 23:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I know that those lyrics aren't the actrual lyrics of this song, however, does anyone know of their actual copyright status? I'm removing them until it is clarified. --FuriousFreddy 22:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If they are indeed based on an actual recording, then they would, I think, be covered under copyright by default (though I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Wikilaw expert). I'm glad they are gone anyway: I have serious doubts about their veracity and even if they are real it's stupid to have the nonsense lyrics when we can't have the real ones. Jgm 00:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible way the actual original lyrics could have gotten here is if they were published somewhere, recorded or not. That makes them copyrighted by Paul. Fair use/fair dealing only allows a small amount of copyrighted material to be quoted for illustrative purposes. This is a serious issue that music labels are actively litigating against websites that serve lyrics. We don't want to get in the way of ham-fisted music industry lawyers. --Tysto 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCES are borken!!--Herzog 02:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC) someone want to find alternatives?[reply]

Well, the Globe and Mail reference has been broken for quite a while, and I think there's no alternative but to view it in the Internet archive (archive.org). The BMI link has mysteriously disappeared and I think that also will have to be viewed solely from the Internet archive. I have fixed the other two broken links, however. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As regards Lennon supposedly snubbing Yesterday in his song 'How Do You Sleep' I think that this is wrong. When he sings: The only thing you done was yesterday / and since you're gone you're just another day, he is referring to the fact that he didn't think any of McCartney's Beatles music was worth much with the exception of Yesterday. This confirms the ferocity of his attack through the song as he is attacking all the music McCartney had recorded with the Beatles and after (Another Day). Lennon often admitted himself later that he did not truly think this but that it was just the way he felt at the time he wrote the song. It was more an emotional song about his feelings than an actual true reflection of the way he felt about McCartney's music. Regardless of this it emphasises Lennons respect for the song.

I reverted the addition {{fact}} to several places in the article because it didn't seem to make sense to me; any editor who casually browsed through the references would see that the article is corroborated by them. We don't need to liberally sprinkle footnotes throughout the text, if that's what was being requested. One footnote per paragraph seems fine to me. The addition of footnotes to the lead was reverted because the wikipedia:lead section is supposed to summarise the article; footnoting a summary doesn't make sense. I kept the {{fact}} for the stuff about the music because that stuff really doesn't have any sources. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like the story, I can find absolutely no evidence of its truth, and it comes from a domain with a recent history of vandalism. I've marked with citation needed for now, but will probably delete if no one can corroborate. MBlume 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if anyone wanted to make a list of all the bands that have covered Yesterday? I'm not a HUGE fan of The Beatles, so I didn't want to start a list with inaccurate information. BadCRC 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]