Yesterday (song) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 27, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted June 15, 2009 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

The Beatles B‑class High‑importance

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. This article was the project collaboration on at least one previous occasion. 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?

Rock music B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Somebody has delited my comments that Yesterday is not the most recorded song. There is a documented discography over I Ain't Gonna Study War No More / Down by the Riverside in the Danish Peace Academy with about 3400 recordings of I Ain't Gonna Study War No More / Down by the Riverside:

http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/abase/sange/diskografi.xml

What about "Summertime"? The wikipedia page for that song lists 26,000 recorded versions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.238.32 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holger Terp, Editor, The Danish Peace Academy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.0.198 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over 3000 versions? Article at The Independent, says that Eleanor Rigby is #1 with 131 covers and Yesterday #2 with no number mentioned. Also, somebody said Summertime has been recorded almost 14000 times. Well on The Independent's list it's #7 only... Is The Independent usually considered a good source? 85.217.45.151 (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction one can read: "The song remains popular today with more than 3,000 recorded cover versions." [REFERENCE NEEDED. Pointing out that the Guinness World Records says so is not enough. You need to state which edition of the book is used as reference etc.] However, under the heading Reception one can read: ""Yesterday" is the most recorded song in the history of popular music; its entry in Guinness World Records suggests over 1600 different cover versions to date". Very confusing. Furthermore either write 3000 | 1600 OR 3,000 |1,600 but not 3,000 | 1600. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"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)

Per the book "The Billboard book of Top 40 Hits" by Joel Whitburn, ISBN 0-8230-7499-4, pg. 9, The Hot 100 is the "main" billboard chart. I don't know if the "Top 100" chart also existed. I doubt it, but I can't say for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BooDog (talk • contribs) 09:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

When Paul learned of his Mother's death, he made a joke about the family losing her income. In a 1984 Playboy interview he said he regretted that comment for years. In the lyric he says something wrong after she leaves...just as after his mother died suddenly of breast cancer (and Paul and his brother were not told she was dying)he said something wrong. The lyrics are obviously and deliberately about his mother's death. Paul doesn't want to talk about it but it is pretty easy to figure out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.9.90 (talk • contribs)

This thread is 3 years old and the article has changed significantly since then. If you have reasonable sources for this information, then it would be good to have it in. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (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.

Nice how Ono undid John's gesture of friendship to Paul by removing Paul from the "Give Peave a Chance" credit in the '90s. I don't recall any stink over that, and it was not put back as far as I know. John Cardinal 06:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

If you're talking about the "Scrambled Eggs" lyrics, don't they need to be removed from the Spanish page as well? 71.131.255.155 20:50, 13 June 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]

Just happened to try the five Craig Cross links under References and all appear to be broken. Perhaps someone else could try them to verify and, if necessary, one of the editors of this page come up with alternatives or archived versions. Cheers, Ian Rose 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I was just wondering how I go about fixing the broken links mentioned above. I am Craig Cross, and my Beatles book has been cited in numerous places throughout Wikipedia. All of the pages linked to still exist, but have slightly different URLs due to a website redesign. (The actual text quoted hasn't changed, and they do remain part of the same website -- wwww.beatles-discography.com).

Is there any way for me to fix the links? For example:

http://www.beatles-discography.com/y.html should be http://www.beatles-discography.com/song-by-song/?s=yesterday

and http://www.beatles-discography.com/us-singles.html, http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-albums.html, http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-eps.html, and http://www.beatles-discography.com/uk-singles.html should all be http://www.beatles-discography.com/record-by-record/

Londrummer (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2008 (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]

WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information, so we don't as a rule include a list of every group to have covered a song (especially since there are thousands of cover versions for Yesterday). I don't have many covers of the song, but I know that some of those who have produced a cover include Ray Charles and Richard Clayderman. Johnleemk | Talk 09:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't as a rule include a list of every group to have covered a song (especially since there are thousands of cover versions for Yesterday)". You could turn that around and say that if any song deserves to have a list of artists that covered it, it would be "Yesterday". That's pretty discriminate. (Not that I'm advocating or editing such a list, mind you.) JRM · Talk 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states:

“

On take 1, McCartney can be heard giving chord changes to George Harrison before starting, but he does not appear to actually play. Take 2 had two lines transposed from the first take: "There's a shadow hanging over me"/"I'm not half the man I used to be".

”

While it's true that take 2 has transposed lyrics compared to take 1, it should be noted that this is due to a vocal flub in take 1, not a re-working of the lyrics between takes, as is implied in the article. McCartney can clearly be heard smiling through the end of the second line and even more clearly in the "Oh" preceding "Yesterday came suddenly", indicating that he knew immediately that he flubbed the lyrics. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 05:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summertime by George Gershwin is stated to have 13,985 recordings, why is this not mentioned?--Jaapkroe 22:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"We called it 'Scrambled Eggs' and it became a joke between us. We made up our minds that only a one-word title would suit, we just couldn't find the right one. Then one morning Paul woke up and the song and the title were both there, completed. I was sorry in a way, we'd had so many laughs about it."

This quote appears in The Beatles' Anthology (p. 165) and the credited source lists that book as a reference though not specifically for that quote. The actual quote says 'Scrambled Egg' rather than 'Scrambled Eggs'. Gr8white 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found this first set of lyrics to Yesterday, from Keith Badman’s The Beatles Off The Record P.166:

"Scrambled eggs / Have an omelette with some Muenster cheese / Put your dishes in the wash bin please / So I can clean the scrambled eggs

"Join me do / There are lots of eggs for me and you / I’ve got ham and cheese and bacon too / So go get two, and join me do

"Fried, or sunny side / Just aren’t right the mix-bowl begs / Quick, go get a pan, and we’ll scramble up some eggs, eggs, eggs, eggs

Scrambled eggs / Good for breakfast, dinner time or brunch / Don’t buy six or twelve, buy a bunch / And we’ll have lunch on scrambled eggs"

It’s interesting, as it appears McCartney went to a lot of trouble with these lyrics, almost as if “Scrambled Eggs” was more than just a working title. Anyway, is it worth putting into the article? --Patthedog 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the copyright bit further up, seems that you've already covered this. Does that mean that the lyrics can't even appear here? --Patthedog 16:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics are fake in any case, see this article: [2]. 69.196.137.181 (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beatles-singles-yesterday-uk.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any proof apart from the cited website? Perhaps a link with some audio/video sample could be posted if it exists... 81.96.127.28 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No trace of a recording of this song on the net today. Even from sheet music, I would be able to tell. However, if it was from 1895, as claimed, by the time "Yesterday" was written it would probably have been out of copyright anyway, so it scarcely matters. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what matters is that we don't propagate a hoax (or a gross exaggeration). The Antara report is vague: the actual quote from Greco is only two words, and the statement "sounded remarkably similar"—to whom? If this were truly notable, a mainstream news organisation or publisher would have covered it. Not only is there no trace of a recording of the song, this story aside, there is no trace of any kind at all. I propose to delete this para. from the article. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For starters it seems a pretty dubious claim, and as such I'm not sure it's worth perpetuating from an unsubstantiated source, even if cited. That said, without any citation, it has no place in the article. Jun-Dai (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought "Happy Birthday to You" would have a better claim to this. I don't have a Guinness Book of Records to hand, but I remember reading something about it. It may well be the song with most recorded versions, but that's not the same thing. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the most performed song was the one sung outside the pub at 11 o'clock that nobody can remember the words to. :)--andreasegde (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always wake up with a bad back after one of those nights, and I can never remember why. --Patthedog (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather Baroque pop than simply Pop. Why not to mention it in the infobox?--Betty kerner (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, that seems plausible, but considering that the referenced genre is entirely unsourced, I wouldn't see it lasting long. Do you have a citation for this? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this merge. This article is about a song; the EP article is about a record. Two different things. Jgm (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge also. The only reason to merge appears to be that the article about the EP is a stub. Hyacinth (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Yesterday (EP) could be regarded as a complete list (rather than a stub); a stub suggests there is more that should be added (maybe there is in this case - it will have been extensively reviewed). Plenty of album articles are little more than a list of the tracks. In any case, why merge to Yesterday rather than to one of the other 3 tracks? Occuli (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two full weeks with no defense of the proposal; I'm removing the tags. Jgm (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well,everybody celebrates yesterday's birhtday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.113.66 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the fears of Paul McCartney about the presumed imitation of Yesterday, we should pay attention to the following: Checking the scores of pieces from different composers, which were played by the Beatles, we should notice that in the famous song composed by Consuelo Velasquez "Besame Mucho", the musical structure of the intital phrases is very similar to the ones of Yesterday, furthermore, the harmonic composition, follow the same parameters in the two melodies, without one being a copy of the other. One should notice McCartney's inclination towards Latin American music, specially "Besame Mucho", which he sang and recorded at least twice without commercial interest. Recording "Till There Was You", was one of his ideas. The song is more or less a bolero sang in English by himself. Paul McCartney once wanted to be named by the pseudonymous of "Paul Ramone", another evidence of his Latin American inclination. There is another coincidence between these two songs: "Besame mucho" is the most often recorded and most popular spanish speaking song of the Twentieth Century--Marquez (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one thing you surely got wrong, he never called himself Paul Ramon, he called himself Paul Ramone, that's why the ramones where named the ramones, after his old pseudonym.

It would be interesting to list the films in which we can hear Yesterday; like for example Once upon a time in America. Eschette (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Eschette[reply]

You can't ignore the fact this song has Classical instruments and playing. If you were just listening to the background instruments it was a pure classical music song. I saw earlier someone added this and it was deleted so... Yeah I think it's a good idea... I mean, there isn't an official genre for that, and: Acoustic rock / Ballad for Paul and his guitar + Classical Music for the background instruments. What d'you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilmccartney (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wiki libs (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the current article:

The string arrangement supplements the song's air of sadness, especially in the groaning cello melody and its blue seventh[33] that connects the two halves of the bridge (on the line, "I don't know / she wouldn't say")

The term "blue seventh" mentioned usually indicates a note played slighty lower in pitch from the seventh scale degree. In this case, key of F major, the seventh scale degree note is E, the leading tone. The blue seventh would be a slightly flatted E, its pitch falling somewhere between E and E♭.

However, in the song the cello plays an E♭ proper. Or a least to my ear, very nearly an E♭. This is confirmed by Pollack, a fequently used source on this article and all Beatles music:

In response to a question he includes in his article. "There is a very strange (and interesting) seventh (E-flat in the key of F) played by the cello, in the middle of the bridge..." Pollack writes, "that E-flat in the cello is the only occurrence in the entire song of the flat seventh melodic degree and, showing up so late, lends an isolated, even surprising touch of the blues" - Pollack, Alan W (1 February 1993). "Notes on "Yesterday""

note: the term "seventh" used by the questioning writer is used correctly here in a general sense. This is different, however, then my use here - "seventh" as in, the seventh degree of the major scale(leading tone). More accuratly the sentence should read "...very strange (and interesting) flat seventh degree (E-flat in the key of F major)..."

The E♭ in key of F major is rather rare. It could be labled as: the subtonic(although this somewhat implies a context of a minor scale/key), the augmented sixth (in terms of intervals), or as Pollack calls it, the flat seventh melodic degree. Considering the latter, it is possible someone reading a source confused "flat seventh melodic degree" or other similar term with a seventh (an E) intentionally played slightly lower in pitch, "bent" or "flattened" by the cellist for effect.

I am also considering the fact the WP article on blue note states "[a blue note] is a note sung or played at a slightly lower pitch than that of the major scale for expressive purposes. Typically the alteration is a semitone or less, but this varies among performers and genres"

This implies that a flat seventh degree note proper could be labeled a "blue note". I agree with this as far as in loose or common usage it would be acceptable. However in a strict musicological sense, a flat seventh degree note(E♭ in key F major) should be called exactly what it is. The subtonic or flat seventh melodic degree. The term "blue note" should be reserved for certain "blue sounding" notes that fall in between the notes of the chromatic 12 TET musical scale.

It is also possible the article's cited source - Cahill, Greg (June-July 2005). "Encore: It Was 40 Years Ago Today..." is claiming that the note is, in fact, a slightly flatted seventh. This would conflict with Pollack, but since I cannot access the Cahill source online, I don't know if this is the case or not.

I would like to change "blue seventh" to "melodic flat seventh" or an equivalent, using the Pollack source, but I want to make sure I'm on the right track here. And if so, is this the best way to fix it? Racerx11 (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ehh, once again I've overworded. Let me sum it up in a nutshell.

The article makes a sourced statement that the strange cello note is a blue note. I have a source stating its merely an E-flat. Are these the same thing? I believe they're not the same. If so, should we make a change?Racerx11 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, it's not a blue note, it's just that an E-flat there produces a slightly bluesy effect, as Pollack says. However, I suggest keeping the wording and book cite (since the Pollack website, while informative, doesn't really appear to constitute as reliable a source), but fixing the erroneous wikilinking to blue note. It should just link "blue" to blues. I've gone ahead and done this, pending any further comment. PL290 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will go along with that for now, but I feel the need to point out: Alan Pollock's notes on... series is already being used countless times as a source on many and most WP articles concerning Beatles music, including this one. No less than seven times in this article alone. Racerx11 (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; my only reason for mentioning it is to recommend keeping the book cite too. PL290 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, whatever further edits I make, if any, I will keep the book cite.Racerx11 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple minor edits and noticed another problem. The viola line described in the same paragraph alludes to the decending run F-C-B♭-A, is also the vocal melody in the word "day-ay-ay-ay" at the end of the line "now I long for yes-ter-day-ay-ay-ay" and refers to this as the segue from the chorus back to the verse. This is fine except its calling it the end of the "chorus" and we were refering to the very same section of the song as the "bridge". It could be either but to be consisten it has to be one or the other. I chose bridge because the real "hook" of the song is the at the end of each verse. The melody in "I believe in yesterday" and hummed at the end. This hook can serve as the proper "chorus" if one insists there be a chorus.

I made the change and I am satisfied with it now.Racerx11 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "baroque" about yesterday... it should be "classical music, pop" Pilmccartney (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so please can you offer assistance?

I heard on the radio that Yesterday was the very first no 1 in the Uk charts without any percussion (the vast majority of course having drums playing the beat in a pop song - maybe one or two had some other percussion instrument (does anyone know - out of interest?). I believe Yesterday was unique in that the beat was played out by the bass strings of McCartney's guitar, with no other percussion instrument present.

My article was reverted due to lack of a credible citation. Can anyone help with corroboration of this proposed information? Thanks! Spursguy (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the last section on the Wet Wet Wet cover offers any clue as to why it would merit special mention over the thousands of other covers. Perhaps an overzealous Wet Wet Wet fan? Seems like that should be omitted. 63.139.189.34 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let consensus be reached; this can only be achieved given a reasonable time for discussion. It seems to be usual for notable cover versions that have charted to be included in the song's article- see Video Killed the Radio Star, for example. Arguably, this might mean including versions by Matt Monro, Marianne Faithfull and Ray Charles as well, but until that happens, perhaps we should keep it. If it happens, there would be little objection to forking the article into Cover Versions of "Yesterday" that Charted. Rodhullandemu 22:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions Paul singing "original" version "Scrambled Eggs" with Jimmy Fallon on Late Night. But really this version is most probably was written for the show (there are some speculation on various boards about who actually wrote it and if Sir Paul had a hand in this). I already wanted to fix the info, but then I realized that there's actually no source of information. While everybody agrees that this is a joke, but it's really only a speculation. On the other hand, currently article makes one think that this was actual performance of a real temporary lyrics. So, one is speculation, another is (most probably) just wrong. What should be done in this case? --188.134.32.80 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone explain how the uncited reference to the lyric by Kanye West relates to the reception of the song? It seems to me that is simply an attempt to link West's name to this song. Is there any way that a vote can be held to decide whether this sentence be removed? --95.112.222.74 (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted if those covers were done by professorial artists and if they were released professorially or not. Because 1600 just has me thinking youtube, Guinness or not... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.199.45 (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to say 1600 by 1986—I don't think they had Youtube then... Uniplex (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to "The Compleat Beatles" this was 1600 recorded and released versions. The "Summertime" note is, I believe, spurious. There may well be 25,000 recorded versions of performances of Summertime, but these are not released versions, they are probably almost _all_ merely recordings of the work being performed. This is akin to buskers or piano bar players or cover bands recording their versions of Yesterday and adding that to Yesterday's total. I think the Summertime note is irrelevant and apples to oranges and should be removed. Yesterday, by many sources, claims the most professionally recorded and released versions of any song. The GBWR may not be completely definitive, but it is an accepted, well researched source, by all accounts. Tasterson (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article looking for contemporary reviews of the song, as it was at the time unlike anything The Beatles had released before, or indeed unlike anything that had been released in pop music at the time. I wanted to see what original reviewers of the album had to say about this new direction and maturity for group, but there is nothing! Could there be a section added for this? Crazy Eddy (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation should be reinstated. I came here not looking for a song. The last commenter above (Andrewa) is spot-on. It's misleading to hijack such a generic word using statistic misapplication. By same shoddy trick the page titled "Apple" should be redirected to the company and not the fruit since that's what the stat indicates. --Loginnigol (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What were you looking for? GoingBatty (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for info on Yesterday (similar to this). The more relevant & ontopic question you should ask is, why are a clique of pop star band fanatic editors so obsessed with hijacking a generic every-day term in an ENCYCLOPEDIA to express their rabid worship and adoration? Loginnigol (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Loginnigol and the opposers in the move discussion above. This is the silliest article move I've seen. WP:CONSENSUS was against the move in that discussion and I'm not basing that on "votes." That move should be sent to WP:Move review. Flyer22 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Loginnigol: - Once you discovered that Yesterday is an article about the Beatles song, did you find a Wikipedia article that contained the information you're looking for? Or to ask another way, if this was article was to be renamed to Yesterday (song) or Yesterday (The Beatles song), what would you want users to see when they type Yesterday? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I expected to discover is either (1st option) an article or (2nd option) a redirect to a broader article daling with days or (3rd option) let that be the disambiguation page with just a sentence or two written in the "refers to" and a list of the other alternative things that are associated with the word. All these three options were not taken - instead a clique of rabid 1960s pop music fanatics decided to hijack the word for a commercial product - fraudulently pretending as it wasn't an extremely common English word that is literally spoken by a person almost every single day! Loginnigol (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they were pretending it's not an English word - they were tying to figure out what people who search Wikipedia for "Yesterday" really want. Other than a dictionary definition of the word, what information about "yesterday" were you looking for? Are you going to write an article about "Yesterday" the common word, or are you going to suggest where Yesterday should redirect to? If you ended up at Yesterday (disambiguation), where would you go from there to get the info you wanted? GoingBatty (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's hard to imagine from the above discussion how the RM closed for move. This needs to be fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to the idea of revising Wikipedia articles.

I simply attempted to revise and more accurately report the chord structure of this song "Yesterday" in the section of the article, if I recall, and I am probably paraphrasing its name, called "Structure of the Song". I have 58 years of learning to render songs on the keyboard by ear. This means I hear it, i.e. I hear the actual artist(s) singing and/or playing his/her/their instruments, seek the chord structure, the movements by the "bass" notes of the music between chords, other "additions" played by the various voices and instrument to the chord, and the notes hit by possible singer(s) of a song, and then I play the song as I hear these things on my piano or whatever keyboard I have at the time.

Wikipedia's formal approach to editing caused me some difficulties, so I stopped. Mostly, the referencing rules of Wikipedia were a challenge to me. How does on "reference" what one "hears"? I don't know....

Thank you Wikipedia for this fine article, although I wish I had the time to fix the purported chord structure of this song given in your article by one Pollack in 1993. Indeed, as at least this man BENSON writing this hears the song, there are several errors in these two paragraphs about the two "parts" of the song's structure...errors can be clearly seen there regarding the chord descriptions, in particular. This is quite sad to see on the "most important" or whatever, song of the 20th century. So, everyone will see the incorrect information given by Pollack.. This is not meant as any attempt to criticize the fine reputation of M. Pollack, merely to suggest that some important chords he/she describes that are in the song are either missing from Pollack's description, or improperly described, at least in this man BENSON's point of view, I. E. from his "ears" point of view.......So good by for now to Wikipedia editing for me.....I wish you all of the best, but I have a gig to prepare for................... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corky at (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday → Yesterday (Beatles song) – The above move request was clearly against this, and yet it was moved anyway. That is the silliest reading of consensus I've ever heard. It should be undone. wirenote (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It should never had been moved as there was no convincing case of primary topic. The first criterion is A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.; page views of 2-1 certainly does not suggest much more likely than any other topic. Zarcadia (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Yesterday" should be or redirect to the disambiguation page. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Or move to Yesterday (Beatles song). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - it is not easy for an article to be written on the concept of yesterday. This is really the only encyclopedic claimant to primary topic (a slew of minor instances on Yesterday (disambiguation) notwithstanding. It bears mentioning that this was a malformed move request, anyway. Red Slash 21:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Red Slash, now written, a stub at least, and surprisingly it was relatively easy to source and write. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, you're kidding me! No way! Thank you on behalf of the encyclopedia and readers everywhere. That's really cool! I loved your article. Okay, maybe this page could move... I'm not sure yet. Red Slash 06:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Yesterday (Beatles song) :: Yesterday (disambiguation) is a long list of other uses of the word, and the Beatles are no longer current and first in most people's minds. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The stats in the previous move request show that the song is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as far as encyclopedic uses of "Yesterday". Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Dohn joe (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The concept is what people think of first - Zarcadia nailed it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  But there's not even an article on the concept - just a link to Wiktionary, right? Dohn joe (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Article or no article, the song isn't the primary topic in my view, and the main page should be the DAB. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of DAB pages and PRIMARYTOPICs is to quickly navigate the user to the information we have on what they are looking for. With that in mind, the song wins hands down, as far as I can see. To me, this is the main point of discussion here: Can the PRIMARYTOPIC be a topic that we don't have a page for? To me, it is makes it very inefficient to include non-page topics in the possible list of PRIMARYTOPICs. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support How the hell did it take so long to find this out?--JOJ ^Hutton 01:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but User:Wirenote, can you please amend RM as per User:Anthony Appleyard: according to WP:SONGDAB we should not move to ambiguous disambiguation (song) because of Yesterday (Toni Braxton song) and Yesterday (Shanice song) should move to Yesterday (Beatles song). There is no primary topic. Yesterday (time) could easily be written, and sourced, but even without it there is still no primary topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As I read the current statistics, a vast majority of the people who arrive at this page are happy about reaching here and do not click through to the DAB page. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's here. Also we have now way of knowing how many people are "happy" any more than how many are violently pissed off. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They may not have been happy, but unless they were exceptionally high strung or not especially interested in the topic they were looking for, they would click the DAB. I stand by my argument. Putting it in numbers (just as a guide), changing the status quo would, in my opinion, increase the average amount of clicks it would take someone to find the right page for the "Yesterday" concept they are looking for. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jwy, how or why would someone looking for Yesterday (Beatles song) walk past Yesterday (Beatles song) and click Yesterday? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least as things are now (and I think have been for a while - if I'm wrong, someone give the history here, its important when looking at the stats), Yesterday is the song. Someone entering Yesterday in the search box would get to the song, be "happy" and not click the dab link. If entering Yesterday brought them to the DAB page (as proposed), they would have to click the song link to get to where they want to go. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this answer, perhaps my fault, but let me restate the question: the situation prior to the problematic close above was that someone typing in "Yesterday" got the choices Yesterday, Yesterday (TV channel), Yesterday (song) - the question is why would anyone walk past Yesterday (song) to click Yesterday if they were looking for Yesterday (Beatles song)??? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear on the history. When entering Yesterday brought you to the DAB page (the "choices" page you mention), someone looking for yesterday would have to click a second time to get to what they need. Those looking for other yesterday topics would have to click to the DAB page ("for other uses" link), then their topic. If I am correct in interpreting that the number of visits to the song page are significantly higher than anything else, then the status quo (Yesterday being the song) is the most efficient arrangement. To me, that's a reasonable metric for choosing. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "yesterday" is not the song. Clearly the song isn't the primary topic of "yesterdays", and that the past is the primary topic of yesterday. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per PRIMARYTOPIC and to make it much easier to spot incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is no other encylcopedic topic for the term that can claim to be a primary topic. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yesterday is a synonym of the past which is an encyclopedic topic. The day yesterday is part of the period yesterday (time). And that is the primary usage and primary topic of yesterday in the world at large. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (redacted)Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 05:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The past article was created in 2004. The primary topic of "yesterday" is the past (either as a day in the past, or as the entire period called the past) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Doesn't the word "yesterday" have other meanings other than as suggested by a gang of balding 60s sycophants? How important is the song to a Lady Gaga fan, to somebody interested in the philosophy of time? Or just a simple question about "the past." There is nothing that should have primarytopic over a dicdef. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get personal. My comments are based on the statistics. No other page, especially the DAB page, has more hits. Why not just put a wikitionary link box on this page? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look beyond the self-deprecating joke. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am (but for the one sentence). It appears to be important to the current users of wikipedia. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]