Talk:Cultural impact of the Beatles

List of bands

I don't understand the list of bands in the second paragraph. Wasn't just about every rock band since 1963 influenced by the Beatles? If so, why even bother writing a list? It seems completely arbitrary to me.

I'd say it's just some examples of the most prominent names...you make a point, but it would be a little bit broad to phrase it as you have, so I guess the original author decided to give some examples to illustrate the wide variety of artists influenced by the Beatles. --Lora 00:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the list is completely arbitrary and really serves no purpose. I totally agree that every band since '63 has been influenced by the Beatles. That list definately needs to be removed. --MKultra

I took it off because it looked ridiculous. 3 out of 4 people who commented on it think it's unnecessary clutter, so it seemed like a good idea. Plus it made my very worthy segment fit in a little better :D --WAM

The list needs to be clean again. Why not make individual pages for each band listed here on how The Beatles influenced them? Now this is subjective, but when I think of Beatleseque, I think of bands that have a R&B and soul influence to their sound regardless of what genres they play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.218.28 (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

"Paul McCartney was not only cute and loveable, he was also a very melodic bassist and listeners learned to listen more carefully because of it.".

Schumann or Schuman?

I'm wikifying a few references in this article, but does Schuman in the "Composition and Recording" section refer to Robert Schumann or William Schuman? --Lora 00:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) I don't remember the Schumann reference. The Schubert reference came from William Mann the Times critic in 1963 referring to the pandiatonic clusters of "That Boy" http://www.terramedia.co.uk/quotations/Quotes_M.htm So Sgt Pepper did not inspire these comparisons [Fred Garnett]

I think this should be moved.

I think this should be moved to "The Beatels' Influence on Popular Culture." "The Beatles' Influence" sounds terribly incomplete.

Lockeownzj00 20:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eleanor Rigby

Wasn't it a string quartet that backed up Eleanor Rigby, not an octet?

I'm pretty sure it was 2 to a part, thus an octet. Sometimes, one of the pair plays a solo line and you can still hear the other performer on that same instrument playing background. - MA

Eleanor Rigby was an octet. - leo

Charles Manson

should there be any information about The Beatles' influence on the murders of Charles Manson in this article?

Yes there should. Charles Manson was heavily influenced by the Beatles and John Lennon. In the version of Revolution found on disc 2 of the white album, the lyrics are "[...]don't you know the you can count me out...in!". Charles Manson saw the included 'in' as a hidden message. Honestly, i'm not so sure of all the details, but i'll try to find them.

This should be in The Beatles Trivia. It deals with the effect of The Beatles on other people, but who were not directly linked to them. andreasegde 18:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutralising Tone

I have added, from the fifth down, paragraphs in the introduction, which serve the purpose of neutralising the tone of the article. I felt the whole thing was too one-sided and seemed to state as facts opinions which are the subject of debate.

Also I finally removed that totally redundant list of random band names, which someone had to do sooner or later.

Hopefully my actions won't come as too controversial - if you feel very strongly perhaps that the introduction is too long now, you may want to think about moving my newly added portion to somewhere under a seperate heading (perhaps entitled something like "Differing Views on the Influence of The Beatles".)

You could of course just revert and get rid of it altogether, but please try to at least include something in the article that makes it clear that the specific magnitude of The Beatles' influence is a very subjective matter. And don't forget to keep that silly list of band names out! --WAM

Ringo's Stick Grip

I have doubts about Ringo's role in the popularization of matched grip drumming. Certainly he was a highly visible matched grip drummer, but I don't think it's true that he was the first or the most influential. It was more of a combined effect with the visibility of several such drummers of the time.

I would also challenge the claim that Ludwig Drums became the standard rock instrument. Ringo originally played Premier, an English brand. Slingerland was another Chicago area manufacturer that competed heavily and successfully with Ludwig. Charlie Watts of the Rolling Stones played Gretsch drums. Though very popular in the 60's and early 70's, Ludwig is only one of numerous drums used by rock musicians today. - MA

I got the info about Ringo's stick grip and drum brand from here [1] -Surachit 02:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This article underestimates the influence of The Beatles

There is so much more that could be written about the influence of The Beatles that is not included here, but I feel I should be cautious in editing. One thing I would like to add is that The Beatles popularized the 4-man rock band, a format they borrowed from Buddy Holly and The Crickets. The main difference in The Beatles' band and Buddy Holly's band, is that Buddy Holly's bassist played a stand-up bass. While Decca records may have told The Beatles that "Guitar Rock was Pass.", The Beatles re-invented guitar rock at a time when Rock and Roll had been tamed by the likes of bands and performers such as The Four Tops, Frankie Avaolon, and Chubby Checker. For all intents and purposes Rock and Roll had sort of died by the early 1960's due to several factors including but not limited to Jerry Lee Lewis marriage to his thirteen year old cousin, Chuck Berry's violation of the Mann Act, Elvis' induction into the Army, and Buddy Holly's untimely death in 1959. With it's primary performers out of the way, the music industry clamored to tame Rock and Roll to pacify conservative parents and religious leaders. The music that was being called 'Rock and Roll' after 1959 was softer, lacked guitars, and was full of pretty boys tailored especially for Rock and Rolls new image. This is one reason why Capitol Records in the United States continually turned down Parlophone's attempts to get The Beatles music released in The U.S., but eventually could not deny the "mania" that The Beatles were generating in Europe. I could write an whole other article, from an optismistic point of view, but fear POV would contaminate it. I feel the current article is slanted and is written from a pessimistic POV and does not include 1/16 of The Beatles' actual contribution. How could an article be written about The Beatles and mention nowhere the influence of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, an album that literally changed music, fashion, culture, and the recording industry forever. If someone who is more skilled than I would be interested in a colaboration at writing a more favorable article, please let me know. Mirlin 06:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

You seem entirely skilled enough to improve the article by yourself. Citing sources for your claims would certainly be a bonus. Algae 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that sounds like it came straight out of "The Compleat Beatles" (the best documentary on the band, as far as I'm concerned.)--190.37.176.12 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the Grey Album?

In the last section, Beatallica is mentioned, but DJ Danger Mouse's more popular and more controversial mashup of Jay-Z and The Beatles is not. If Beatallica is relevant, surely the Grey Album is as well. 64.252.70.137 19:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

New/The Same Article created

Here it is: The Beatles have had a very profound effect on music today. In the studio, the Beatles used many unique techniques and instruments for their recordings. They invented many effects used in music and have changed music forever. In 1964, the world heard the first use of intentional feedback from an electric guitar in a song. Before the Beatles, feedback was thought to be a nuisance. Since the release of “I Feel Fine,” countless other bands have used feedback in their songs. Although the Beatles were the first ones, Jimi Hendrix mastered the use of guitar feedback.

When the Rubber Soul album was released in 1965, the George Harrison played the sitar on “Norwegian Wood.” The Beatles would use the sitar in other songs in the future. “Rain” (1966) was a song that featured slowed down instruments and vocals, but also contained their first use of backwards vocals.

With the release of Revolver in 1966, the songs were getting more and more unique. Paul McCartney’s “Eleanor Rigby” contained a string octet, which was very unusual for a “rock” song. “I’m Only Sleeping” contains backwards guitars. “Yellow Submarine” contained the use of sound effects. George Martin was very good at this sort of thing because of projects he had worked on before the Beatles. “Tomorrow Never Knows” is a very unique song of this album. It featured five tape loops that replayed sound effects. It also featured the first use of what George Martin coined “flanging.”

The most significant effect the Beatles had on music was the release of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967). This album featured vari-speed vocals, sound effects, instruments, and studio effects never before used in rock music. These effects are still used today by bands and recording studios.

Use what you will, I just stumbled on it. Makemi 05:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

??? Stumbled on it where exactly? --kingboyk 06:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Bent

This article - like many at Wiki unfortunately - suffers from a typical (and typically annoying) bent on the part of uneducated and unread US enthusiasts.

It needs to be pointed out until more people get it: the US perspective is not that of the entire planet. You in the US continually make the clumsy assumption that what you know of the planet is either 1) sufficient as no one else really counts anyway; or 2) an opinion held by everyone everywhere - without checking your sources and doing proper research.

(This comment was not signed by the user)

Uhhh, Fred (It is Fred, isn´t it?) That sounds a bit "over the top" to me. Take a deep breath and write it again... please.... andreasegde 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Geez, Fred, chill. Don't gripe, edit. If you think we're idiots, show us where and how.McTavidge 03:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Miles

I took out the Miles Davis reference, because Miles was purely influential for a jazz audience. If we talk about influence, then we have to cover the broad spectrum of influence, and not just aural. andreasegde 12:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Influence

"The Beatles influence" should be written from a global perspective, and not concentrate on a local effect. Otherwise this page would be massive, and too long, because it would deal with The Beatles influence on the "Vera, Chuck & Dave Band" in Alabama (or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.)

Nearly all of the article seems to be about what The Beatles did, and not their influence on the world. Why?

I have added {{Fact}} quite a few times, because it definitely needs them. References, anyone? andreasegde 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess

Horribly sloppy and extremely amateurish. Somebody should probably just delete it and start over from scratch.

Agreed, absolutely. The Beatles influence on popular culture is immense, but this article is just a series of random lists with an entire section devoted to the band Oasis. Start again, please.PJtP (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Move trivia to here?

As it looks like The Beatles trivia is going to have its genitalia removed, a lot of the articles on it could be moved here. They reflect the influence of The Fabs on popular culture. Better look at it quick though, because the clock is ticking... andreasegde 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No need; trivia is still there, although I wonder if anyone visits this page? Hello? Is anybody home? Hello? (Sound of deafening silence...) andreasegde 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged a lot of stuff from Trivia to here, as it fits better. --andreasegde 17:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot of references need to be included, but it´s hard to track down bands that actually admit to copying The Beatles. --andreasegde 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Scientific" belongs here as it's not "popular culture". --kingboyk 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But it does show how their influence is now in outer space :) I took it out of trivia because it wasn´t really trivia that was really connected with The Beatles, but their influence on the blokes that look at stars all night. --andreasegde 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, but those blokes like to think of themselves as higher brow than "popular culture", I'm sure :) --kingboyk 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Really? Ok, I´ll do it, but it means that "trivia" has a higher profile than "influence". --andreasegde 09:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Conundrum, huh? Don't know the answer, sorry :) --kingboyk 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This means that I am now working on something that has a lower profile than Trivia. I can see it now... "andreasegde made a magnificent start in Wikipedia, and it all went downhill from there." I´m the unofficial admin for the Bargain bin --andreasegde 15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"andreasegde made a mediocre start in Wikipedia, and it all went downhill from there"? :) I see your point, that the net result is science being trivia and popular culture having its own article... maybe this article should be renamed to accept scientists too? I'd suggest asking for advice on the Project talk page. --kingboyk 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I was joking about the "downhill" thing. I often make fun of myself... --andreasegde 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-publicity

I have taken Richard Cummins out because it was self-publicity. It was also in the wrong place, and badly edited. (I worked on it before I realised that it was self-publicity.) --andreasegde 11:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This new article is horrible. It's a mess. I'm sorry. And I definitley think the pop culture and Beatlesque articles are completely different.

1. Pop Culture Influences - The Beatles effect on today's modern culture. 2. Beatlesque - Band that sound like the Beatles.

I'm sorry but this article just doesn't work as one. Sam 04:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it up with the powers that be, because Beatlesque was voted "Merge". You can´t please all of the people all of the time.

BTW, being Beatlesque is a reflection of the influence of The Beatles on pop artists, who copied them. --andreasegde 03:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gorillaz?

The gorillaz connection to The Beatles is merely superficial and I do not think they really belong in the article, especially with no citations made. The0208 23:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that they are a techno hip hop band while the Beatles are rock pop. And they suck.--Canadian Reject (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Jet

They did a remake of Look What You've Done and it was a Top 40 hit.. In fact I just heard it on the radio this morning.. I think it should be included in the covers section.

Put it in - whoever you are.... :) --andreasegde 19:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Jimi and Sgt Peppers

I heard that John and George wanted to go back and rerecord Sgt Peppers the way that Hendrix played it, but I have no sources. cool little bit of trivia though. Zzz345zzZ 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Zoot

What about the band Zoot? I just listened to them and they sound Beatlesque. 67.188.172.165 06:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Youtube links + Clean-up

Per WP:EL

Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites: There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

I have taken down all youtube links that obviously link to copyrighted music videos.

Also, I have added clean-up tags to this article, which is too structured (i.e. too many headers but too little information). The Cover version section might need its own article, as it likely will get more more expanded in the future. The Beatlesque section (especially "Oasis") should get trimmed or partly moved over to / merged with the relevant musician articles. The way it is now, the article doesn't look inviting to be read. (Those are just suggestions though, if someone has the time to fix this.) -- Sgeureka 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to make this article somewhat better (it's a first step). I'll add some {{fact}}'s where appropriate so that someone can back them up. Putting up some images to illustrate sections is helping much already. I'll delete the major rewrite note at the top when I'm finished, but I'll probably leave the cleanup note there. -- Sgeureka 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are a gentleman and a scholar, and I thank you. andreasegde 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The work is mostly done now. I have trimmed a lot.

• I have changed most sub-section headers from ===xyz=== to '''xyz''' so that they no longer show up in the table of contents.
• I deleted the Recording and Instruments sections from "The music" (now: "Music") (before the edit) as most of it was without source and was much better described under The Beatles' influence on music recording anyway. (I'm not going to put that up there for discussion there, although I said so in the edit summary.)
• I moved everything related to music into the "Music" section.
• I deleted information from less important but still not unimportant artists/tv shows/films and created several "Other" sub-sections instead where there's a wikilink to the appropriate wiki article, so that it looks less cluttered.
  • In the "Cover version" sub-section (before the edit])
  • In the TV section, only The Simpsons and Absolutely Fabulous deserved to have more detail (before this edit). The other occurrences work better as a mention in a list and link to the correct article.
  • I deleted all information for the film That Thing You Do! (before this edit) as the film's article already covers all the Beatles references.
  • I deleted several artists from the Beatlesque section (before this edit) because it was too much WP:OR. Those artists now just have a link to the artists' wikipage. Oasis is still unedited because I asked whether Oasis (band) would mind getting that part into their article. I'll change this section when we have found consensus.

– sgeureka ^t•c 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Defaultsort to where?

Do we want this article to defaultsort to "P" for popular or "I" for influence? I just changed Beatles' Influence on Music Recording from defaultsorting to "T" for "The" to "I" for influence. We should be consistent, but what is the consensus on what word in the title to use for the default? KConWiki 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Please see hidden comments in the article for outstanding issues.

Jungle Book

The article says: "In the Walt Disney film The Jungle Book, the 4 vultures that Mowgli befriends look very much like the Beatles. They were supposed to be the voices of the vultures (whose names are Flaps, Dizzy, Buzzie, and Ziggy), but could not for some reason. They do have cockney accents though, and they can sing."

Did the Beatles speak cockney? Helpsloose 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the Beatles did not speak with Cockney accents, but then, neither did the vultures in the film. I've corrected the article. Shsilver 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Meet.the.beatles.back.cover.closeup.jpg

Image:Meet.the.beatles.back.cover.closeup.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Elliott Smith should be mitioned much more significantly in this article. At the music awards he appeared on for "Miss Misery", in the ending credits you can hear him playing several of The Beatles songs in the background. Elliott Smith said himself that The Beatles were one of the biggest influences on him,though he is and independant artist, I think his style reflects The Beatles more than is mentioned. I think he at least deserves a section. He is for sure esstablished as one of the most underappreciated modern musical artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.11.170 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pinky and the brain

There's a TV show missing, and it's Pinky and the Brain. There's a whole episode includes Beatles references, melodies, and even the beatles themselves, featured as "The Feebles", when they stay and the "Mousarishi" and meeting "Yoyo Nono". The episode's name is All you need is Narf. Don't you think it should be included here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.70.134.70 (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pinky & Perky - the Beakles

I've added a mention of the Pinky & Perky show's appearances of the Beakles - a crow puppet version of the Beatles which, ISTR, mimed to Beatle records - that was peak time viewing in the 1960s! Apepper (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Homers Barbershop Quartet.PNG

The image Image:Homers Barbershop Quartet.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A Sorry State

This article is in a sorry state. There are way too many unsourced statements; if they were removed there wouldn't be much content left. If I go through the article and remove the unsourced stuff, who'll complain? — John Cardinal (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

re-evaluation of the album section

The part about "redefining the idea of an album" was discussed on the actual page for the Beatles. Yet the idea that the white album inspired all single colored albums is a testament to how biased how you people are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.102.234 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Dream Theater in cover song section

References in lyrics is different than a cover song and his hardly noteworthy Kgarr (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Television Trivia

In an episode of the american sketch show "Robot Chicken" a parody of the "Yellow Submarine " film is used. Is it worth including? ThanksI AM TEH WALRUS (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Klaatu

Why isn't Klaatu mentioned under the Beatlesque sub-heading? People thought they were the Beatles at one point. that's something to mention.--Canadian Reject (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oasis

I merged the two seperate segments on Oasis into one. As I suspected, there's such a vast amount of content it could proably do with its own article. As it is, I've left it a little messy, but more detailed and tidier than it was before I'd gone near it. (Chill (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC))

Source

This could be a helpful source:

• Shaw, Karl. "They Don't Love You, Yeah Yeah Yeah ." The Wall Street Journal. October 4, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Goldfinger

Should the following be included? It seems as notable as many other entries in the 'Film' list, but might be trivial (?) I provided one source, but many others could be had. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• From Goldfinger (1964):^[2]

My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That's just as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs!

— James Bond (Sean Connery)

Oasis "bigger than the Beatles" and subsequent reaction from McCartney

Is this OK for a source? Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Split article: Cultural depictions of the Beatles / The Beatles in popular culture

I believe the first step in rewriting this article is to relegate all the trivia to a new article akin to Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley or Frank Zappa in popular culture and giving Cultural impact of the Beatles the purpose of informing the band's:

immediate wave of changes—including a shift from US global dominance of rock and roll to UK acts, from soloists to groups, from professional songwriters to self-penned songs, and to changes in fashion and lifestyle.

...as stated in the lede.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, with some trepidation about the lowercase "the". Jenks24 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The Beatles' influence on popular culture → Cultural impact of the Beatles – Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, etc. Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, why the hell not? Also note the existence of a somewhat parallel topic at The Beatles in popular culture. Should the two be merged? —  AjaxSmack  00:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles in popular culture was an effort to remove all the most trivial references to the Beatles in pop culture (e.g. transforming this article from "list every single time somebody mentions the band on television" into something a little more like what can be seen at British Invasion#Influence)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand that but is there any reason why two different articles are needed? Neither is particularly long. —  AjaxSmack  01:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Because they focus on two different subjects: the group's influence on culture versus the group's appearances/depictions in culture. More about these types of articles at WP:IPCA.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. —  AjaxSmack  03:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support I think that is necesary to homologize this article. Chrishonduras (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/~beatleboy1/flipmay66.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hard Days Night hotel

The article is concerned with the cultural impact of the Beatles on fashion and music, but there's no mention of their cultural impact upon public buildings, streets, etc, which are also worthy of inclusion; the Cavern Quarter, Beatles-Platz and the Hard Days Night Hotel being good examples. Could someone suggest a heading name?Obscurasky (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Obscurasky: I agree it merits inclusion. It would be fairly trivial in the Beatles biographical article, but not here as long as we're discerning about what's included.

Added to what you've said, there are individual streets in Liverpool named after the four Beatles. And Penny Lane, Abbey Road in London, and Blue Jay Way in the Hollywood Hills have all becomes synonymous with the band (per Steve Turner's A Hard Day's Write, I've got page numbers). Also, we could mention the Liverpool and London "Beatle tours" – very popular with tourists (I think that's in Chris Ingham's Rough Guide book). I suggest any such section go at the end of the article. As for a name, I'll have to pass for now. I was hoping to find something suitable at Elvis Presley or John F. Kennedy, but nothing yet … JG66 (talk) 14:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

How does any of that impact culture? Those are just isolated cases of fan tributes. Unless you can find a source that says something like 'the Beatles invented crosswalks on the album cover to Abbey Road', It belongs in The Beatles in popular culture, not here. And if you did find something more general and noteworthy than 'the Beatles have associations to some locations', it would best fit under the 'In popular culture' section that already exists, since it's incredibly doubtful you could expand upon a section like 'Influence on public spaces'.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree to an extent, but there certainly are some areas where The Beatles have impacted upon areas of modern British culture - other than music and fashion. The statues around Liverpool (and elsewhere) are not just 'fan tributes' they form part of the cultural makeup of that city and, as such, are worthy of inclusion in this article.Obscurasky (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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

Article is being actively worked on by User:Andreasegde, bringing together the preexisting material and overlapping material from Beatlesque and The Beatles trivia. --kingboyk 13:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 12:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

"Challenges to the cultural impact of the Beatles"

@JG66:

1. What content should be removed?
2. Where is the "list" that you've compiled? I'll gladly integrate whatever's missing from the article.

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll do it myself sometime. I'm sorry but, to my mind, you've got the entire focus wrong. It's simply not a case of integrating whatever's missing. What's needed is to base the article on works that are widely acknowledged as the prime sources, the authoritative/definitive texts, on the Beatles' cultural impact and influence. Some sources from further afield are always welcome, but the top Beatles authors have to hold sway – because they've nailed it. There's almost a whole publishing subgenre on the Beatles, after all.

The dedicated sources I'm talking about, for instance, handle the whole issue(s) of mutual influences, contemporary rivals, and whether they brought anything new to music, so authoritatively, with great insight into the culture and the times: it makes much of the discussion you've added on significant competition/charts rivals, influence on music, etc redundant. With the extent of the detail on "contemporary rivals", imo, much of the text reads like it belongs in 1960s in music anyway. (It is meant to be the Cultural impact of the Beatles, not the "Culture that the Beatles found themselves in and also impacted upon".)

The Beatles authors capture what a phenomenon the Beatles were, because those writers fully engage with the subject. All the influences (both in and out) and competitors/rivals are handled accurately, but the books also offer incredible insight along the way, into the UK and US cultural forces that propelled the band's career, and how they both influenced and reflected the changes occurring throughout the '60s. The long, long introduction to Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head is the best thing about his book: fascinating overview on the Beatles' place in the '60s, and how & why exactly they came to adopt that place. That section alone could form the basis for this article. Nicholas Schaffner's Beatles Forever and Gould's Can't Buy Me Love are vital too, I'd say. JG66 (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this notion: "It is meant to be the Cultural impact of the Beatles, not the "Culture that the Beatles found themselves in and also impacted upon"." Of course not — this article is also not titled "The Beatles' influence on music" or "Critical assessment of the Beatles". Those are all sub-topics of the Beatles' cultural impact. Other ways you could title this article: "The Beatles and popular culture" or "The Beatles' role in culture". Different phrasing, same general scope. Articles like Beatlemania, British Invasion, List of cover versions of Beatles songs, The Beatles in popular culture, and Tributes to the Beatles are essentially "child articles" of "Cultural Impact of the Beatles".

A space to provide some historical context should be expected. The article should also answer these questions: "What were the Beatles' popular standing?", "How were they treated by the culture they were affecting?", "Who were the Beatles competing with?", "Were the Beatles' competition influenced by their music", "Were they even close to matching the Beatles' popularity?", "Was there interplay between the Beatles and other prominent cultural forces?" — I think that those are all frequently-asked, fair questions. How many times have you read that a band was the "American answer to the Beatles"? Who was right? Were any of them right? I'd want to know.

By the time this article is "finished", we're likely going to end up with a couple more sub-articles. Full disclosure: I'm most fascinated by American "counter-counter-cultural" figures like Frank Zappa, Lou Reed, and Van Dyke Parks who opposed the Beatles. I'm not specialized in the more obvious things — hippies, flower power, the '60s revolution — it's the only reason why I (allegedly) engage in the "tedentious editing" you often refer to. I can't write things I don't know.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

After reading Revolution opening

I'm just taking a few notes of some of the only things that I thought were relevant to the article

• p. 14 "fall of conservatism in Sixties Britain ... UK center of pop world"
• p. 18 "rock mentality"
• p. 21 "post-Christian 'nowness'"
• p. 22 "unlike previous pop stars ... before them, pop acts ... introduced to the cultural lexicon"
• p. 25 "only significant aspect of pop the Beatles failed to change"
• p. 27 "readable nowhere more vividly"
• p. 36 "cultural document of permanent significance"

--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Source verification needed

Has anybody got access to the book For Better or Worse: The American Influence in the World (1981), by Allen F. Davis? I'm concerned about a statement attributed to Davis, in an end note in the 3rd para under "Contemporary rivals", which reads: "By the time the Beatles arrived in the US, the Beach Boys (along with the Four Seasons) had already established themselves as major chart successes on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve." I've found several statements in that section, all regarding the Beach Boys, where an editor has clearly misrepresented what the author says, so I'm highly sceptical about this one. But aside from that, as I've read in countless books and online, there had never been anything comparable with the Beatles' success (even Elvis, apparently) before Beatlemania hit the US in January/February 1964. I've got an old book by Castleman & Podrazik (''All Together Now: The First Complete Beatles Discography 1961–1975) that lists every Billboard and Melody Maker chart entry for the Beatles. The pages covering the Billboard singles and LPs are extraordinary – the longevity of the charts runs for the albums, particularly later on. When it comes to singles, our statement that "On 4 April 1964, the Beatles occupied the top five US chart positions, as well as 11 other positions in the Top 100" only touches on the situation. From 25 January until 13 June, the Beatles were never out of the top 3 on the Hot 100 (eight of their songs made the top 3 in that time) and the band often held the top two positions simultaneously. So, even if the statement about the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons does appear in the Davis book, can we realistically say that their commercial success was "on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve"?

In fact, talking about anyone being a genuine commercial threat or equal to the Beatles during the '60s seems fanciful. Particularly worldwide, which is how far their "cultural impact" reached, after all. Here's a list of Australian number 1 singles from that decade, for instance: [3]. JG66 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Piriczki, in case he's interested. JG66 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears the passage from the book in question reads: "America already had two comparable groups established in the charts, the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons." which doesn't exactly support the statement in the article. Also, the statement in the article simply doesn't match the historical record. By the time the Beatles arrived in the US (February 1964), the Beach Boys had had 11 songs make the Billboard Hot 100 chart over the course of 24 months, including 4 top 10 hits. In their first 12 months on the Hot 100 in 1964, the Beatles had 30 songs in the Hot 100, including 11 top 10 hits and 6 No. 1's. The Beach Boys first No. 1 didn't occur until July 1964, by which time the Beatles already had 4 No. 1's. Piriczki (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The source appears to suggest that they were "comparable groups" in the sense that they were four- (or five-) piece predominantly vocal groups whose records regularly reached the higher reaches of the pop charts. But, I think it is highly unlikely that the source (which I haven't read in full) would imply that the commercial success of the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons reached the same level as the Beatles - it clearly didn't. The simple solution might be to remove the editor's words "... on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve". The source would then seem to support the text that remains. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

In writing that, it was to acknowledge that before January/February 1964, the Beatles did not have the same number of hits in the US as the Beach Boys and the Four Seasons, in other words, "they later would", or, "they caught up". After all the paragraphs about the Beatles breaking chart records that have never been matched, it should be obvious to the reader that they ended up having many, many more hits in a 10-year-span than those two groups did their entire careers.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. You seem to be agreeing that those two groups' success was not "on a level comparable to what the Beatles would achieve." Best simply to leave those words out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You're not confused, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's ironic because I only added that embellishment to keep a certain editor from doing exactly what he's done here (suggest that I've taken credit away from the Beatles). I was thinking that the unaltered text would be misread as "The Beach Boys and the Four Seasons were as successful as the Beatles". Damned if I do, damned if I don't.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

How on earth can that have been helpful? Nothing was obvious to the reader apart from the comment being misleading and redundant. And at no stage have I said that it's an issue of you taking credit away from the Beatles. That's what you do at Beach Boys articles, certainly, but here, as at other Beatles articles and at music genre articles, it's a case of you forever trumping up the Beach Boys. You're bloody shameless. JG66 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I could probably add a whole paragraph for exposition on the Stones with only one or two Beatles references scattered throughout and you wouldn't care. Yet adding six words about the Beach Boys being compared to the Beatles gets me the electric chair. Even if it puts them in a negative light -- I could write "Brian Wilson has and never will come close to the sheer ingeniousness of Revolver and Abbey Road" and I'll still get accused of "trumping" him up. Haha. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

1) I would care if it weren't relevant to the Cultural impact of the Beatles. 2) You'd get accused of adding irrelevant crap, for sure. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ilovetopaint: "dumb editing decisions" are most surely your domain. Your typically inaccurate representation of what sources say confirm it. You select sources that say what you want to be said about the Beach Boys (add creative embellishment, then stir), here and all over Wikipedia. As so many sources state – here's another one – the Beach Boys' ability to match the Beatles was for a very short time. JG66 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sanchez

@JG66: I've uploaded a pdf of Sanchez's book so that maybe you can continue "fact checking" the claims, or perhaps even find something better to add to the article. Then I won't have to argue with you about double standards. (Bits about Dylan's audiences = perfectly fine! / bits about Beach Boys audiences = instant revert? Where is the logic here?)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Because if we're talking about the cultural impact of the Beatles (and shucks, we are – it's the title of the article), then Dylan most certainly matches the Beatles in importance. That's a book celebrating the Beach Boys' Smile – why on earth should it be trusted on this topic? JG66 (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There is probably more written about the Beatles' cultural impact in this book than Smile's actual music. If you're of the opinion that Dylan is the only one who matches the Beatles' importance, that's just more reason to include the sentence, and it's more reason for you to find the author credible, because that's exactly what he maintains throughout the book. As for "why should it be trusted", it seems to have Simon Frith's endorsement, and he should know about pop music, since he has written numerous books about it.

It's logical that a critical assessment of the Beatles' cultural impact should invite comparisons to artists of similar stature. There's already multiple sources that reference the Beach Boys as one of those artists. Why are you removing content that diminishes their cultural standing in favor of the Beatles? Are you some kind of Beach Boys fanboy?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Beach Boys fanboy? JG66 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wilson then produced the 1966 works Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations".

• In this brief time, the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds album and "Good Vibrations" single nearly elevated the band to the same level of cultural influence as the Beatles and Dylan.

1. Why is the first version better when the second is the one that says something about the Beatles' cultural influence?

• All the second version does is mention the Beatles (and Dylan). It tells us nothing about the Beatles' cultural influence, just about the Beach Boys'. It belongs in Cultural impact of the Beach Boys. JG66 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Giving a reason why the second version is bad doesn't answer my question. Try again maybe? Why is the first version better? The rationale you gave also applies to the first version. So why is the first version better? There is a similar detail regarding the Byrds a couple paragraphs earlier, except it's about their record sales compared to the Beatles - it's topically relevant considering that they are discussed as an American rival to the Beatles - and it was merely echoed for the Beach Boys in the second version. So why is the first version better? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Dylan and the Stones were symbolic of the nascent youth revolt against institutional authority, something that was not immediately recognisable within the Beatles until after 1966.

• Another group, the Byrds, were widely celebrated as the American answer to the Beatles, and while their long-term influence has proven to be comparable to the Beatles and the Beach Boys, the Byrds' record sales failed to match those groups.

• Dylan is described by Ian MacDonald as "the only figure to have matched The Beatles' influence on popular culture since 1945"

• The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame states that, with regard to 1960s rock bands, the Beach Boys "place second only to the Beatles in terms of their overall impact on the [US] top 40"

• According to Sanchez, in 1965, "Dylan was rewriting the rules for pop success" with his music and image, and it was at this juncture that Wilson "led The Beach Boys into a transitional phase in an effort to win the pop terrain that had been thrown up for grabs."

2. Why are these points OK, but not a reference to how the Beatles' cultural influence was approached by the Beach Boys for only one album and single? What's the logic here?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• You're talking about this stuff, I assume. This article is about the Beatles, and there's plenty on the competition offered by the Beach Boys – commercially, and then as creative equals ("the Beatles 'publicly anointed a new favorite and rival in chief, the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson'" – an exaggeration, imo; as many sources have it, this was mainly McCartney). The statement you favour there – "the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds album and 'Good Vibrations' single nearly elevated the band to the same level of cultural influence as the Beatles and Dylan" (from the source: "it seemed Brian would take his place next to the Beatles and Bob Dylan on the board of pop music luminaries") – concerns possibilities, it almost happened: "nearly". It's of no use in this article, but belongs in Cultural impact of the Beach Boys. I think more should probably go. Especially: "Previously in July 1964, the Beach Boys had achieved their first number one single with 'I Get Around', which represented the start of an unofficial rivalry between the Beatles and Wilson, principally for McCartney." There's no denying the importance of "I Get Around" for its role in interrupting the dominance of British Invasion acts at the top of Billboard's Hot 100, and I've ready plenty of sources highlighting that. But I've never once read that the single "represented the start of an unofficial rivalry between the Beatles and Wilson", as Moskowitz claims. JG66 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, another paragraph that addresses nothing of what I asked. I already know your rationale for removing that sentence.

My question, again, is why you haven't argued the same for any of the other statements I posed. The information regarding all these other artists' record sales or influence has nothing to do with the Beatles' cultural impact. And it's not supposed to. The point of that section is to inform the Beatles' cultural impact, in other words, to provide a historical overview that illustrates - for context - how massive the group was in the 1960s. There is no other article where such in-depth coverage is permitted.

Just compare these two sentences:

The Byrds' record sales failed to match the Beatles'.

The Beach Boys were nearly elevated to the same level of cultural influence as the Beatles.

Virtually identical. And yet you only ever take issue when it concerns the Beach Boys. Lol. What's that word again? Tenden-something, was it? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cultural impact in Britain

In my view, this article focuses unduly on their impact in the United States. Before they were even known in the US, they had a cultural impact in Britain - a four-piece band who both wrote and performed both their own songs, and (in the early days) their versions of (previously almost unheard in Britain) American R&B songs was unprecedented in British pop music, as was their impact on national UK culture in the "Beatlemania" era. It's covered to some extent in the Beatlemania article itself, but this article underplays it - especially in the lead section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Totally agree. I was relieved to see you highlight their impact on British national culture at the time – I've long had the feeling the article was being hijacked to focus not just on the US, but on purely musical points. I've been introducing a wider international coverage for a while (to include Australia, NZ, Japan, Philippines, communist states), along with more on societal/cultural issues. I'm just getting down to expanding text on their UK breakthrough. JG66 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the changes made to the article over the last few months have greatly improved it. I'm not an expert in this area (if any!) so I don't intend contributing myself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Brian Wilson and the Beatles' retirement from touring

The consensus is to keep the text. There is no prejudice against further discussion about rewording the statement as suggested by Anne Delong late in the discussion.

Cunard (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article currently states that in late 1966, the Beatles became the first "entertainment act" in history to give up concert touring in order to focus on studio-recorded efforts. However, it is widely known that Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys made the same career decision more than a year earlier. Should the article thus remove this credit to the Beatles? --ilil (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevant text: [The Beatles'] decision to retire from live performance in 1966 and become a group focused solely on studio recording had no precedent. Hertsgaard writes that "no entertainment act in history" had attempted this, which is why the press assumed the band were due to break up.

References

Survey

• Remove — Brian Wilson was a rock singer and bass guitarist who originally pursued public performances as a member of the Beach Boys. He retired from concert performances in December 1964, and from then, focused on his record producing career. It is difficult to find reliable sources that address this parallel directly, but the biography The Words and Music of Brian Wilson states: "At that time, a year-and-a-half before the Beatles quit touring, it was impossible to imagine that a popular musician would not be a touring concert artist." The Beatles were the first musical group to stop concert touring, but certainly not the first entertainment act in history. --ilil (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The issue is not whether or not it's true - rather, given that Hertsgaard said it, it's a question of whether that book is a reliable source, and whether quoting it gives undue weight to a single interpretation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The text discussing this point appears in a subsection under "Artistic presentation". The only comparable aspect is with the Beach Boys, not Brian Wilson, who was a member of that "entertainment act". The Beach Boys continued to tour regularly as an entertainment act, with Bruce Johnston replacing Wilson on tour. From the many contemporary reports and interviews I've read, the Beach Boys went out of their way to emphasise that Brian Wilson was still very much a member of the band and was writing the band's music while they toured and kept the group in the public eye – not something to be underestimated in an era when fans expected to see their heroes in concert and on TV. Brian Wilson was not the "entertainment act", he was a musician and a member of an entertainment act. The point that Mark Hertsgaard, Richie Unterberger and Steve Turner each make to varying degrees is that no pop act (Elvis Presley being a possible exception, yet they then dismiss him because Presley embarked on a full-time film career) had stopped performing concerts and rebranded themselves as a studio-only band. It's the collective identity, the brand, that's important. The Beach Boys brand continued to be well represented by their concert appearances. The two situations don't compare. JG66 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep JG66 says what I was going to say, but more eloquently. In summary: the Beach Boys (the entertainment act) kept on gigging when Brian (a member of the act, but not the whole of the act) stayed home. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Whether or not Wilson formed part of a greater whole is an irrelevant point. He was still an entertainer in his own right, as a popular singer and musician. Performing for entertainment constitutes an act of entertainment. And so he was an entertainment act. ilil (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep – per JG66 and Redrose64. From what I've read and know about the Beach Boys (of which I'm a major fan), yes, Brian did stop touring with them in 1964 but I don't think that makes him an "entertainment act", since during that time he wrote music for the Beach Boys only (not himself). I mean, he performed "California Girls" with the Beach Boys in 1965 (seen here); point being, he was a part of the Beach Boys as an "entertainment act" together, as he certainly did not perform solo shows at this point in time and wouldn't for many decades. He also didn't have a "solo single" until "Caroline, No", which really doesn't count since it was the closing track of Pet Sounds. So he really wasn't an "entertainment act" himself for quite some time, long after the Beach Boys' prime. – zmbro _(talk) 03:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC).
• Keep Agree with everything stated above, The Beach Boys as a whole continually toured after he left to stay home and solely record his music. This should remain as is. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
• Tone down Although it may have been rare for entertainers to give up performing in favour of recording, the Beatles weren't unique in this (for example, see Glenn Gould). The fact that one particular writer thought they were the first ever to do this isn't that important, but the idea that they might break up was. Some slightly less definitive text might be: "The Beatles' highly unusual decision to retire from live performance in 1966 and become a group focused solely on studio recording led to speculation in the press that the band was about to break up."—Anne Delong (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It's three writers, actually, not one (and I have no doubt there are more). I take your point about Gould, and perhaps there might be other non-rock 'n roll artists to consider. I'll check in the Hertsgaard book to see if he stipulates a specific genre of musical entertainment; if he doesn't, I agree – that is good grounds for rewording the statement. JG66 (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Structure

ILIL: can I suggest you go easy on the restructuring, self-revert even. While some of your changes do make sense, others don't. I say that from the point of view of information that's yet to come. For instance, I want to add mention of the Beatles' role in the British general election of 1964, in as far as Harold Wilson attached himself to their popularity, as his opponents tried to. Also, the unprecedented depth of their popularity in the UK as mere entertainers – members of the royal family, particularly the Queen Mother, being vocal in their admiration. The Beatles' November 1963 set at the Royal Command Performance was the British version of The Ed Sullivan Show in terms of transfixing the nation – that needs mentioning too.

But basically, the idea that what was previously "British cultural resurgence" should become a subsection ("British cultural supremacy") under "US breakthrough and British Invasion" is misrepresenting the situation. The Beatles' role in restoring the UK to a place of cultural hegemony around the world is a major part of their cultural impact: it's something that, I think, a reader would expect to see highlighted in the lead and given B-head treatment in the table of contents, certainly not tucked away under "US breakthrough and British Invasion". In short, it's the difference between a US and UK perspective: whether this British band came here and changed us (the US perspective) or whether this British band exploded here and then went there and changed them (the UK perspective). Given that they are English and much is said about the significance of their emergence at home, the perspective should be the latter, meaning that their role in Britain's cultural resurgence should not be set as an offshoot of "US breakthrough". The subject's too big and important, with regard to how it reflects the Beatles' cultural impact.

There's plenty more that I can see needs to be added to the article; a section on the break-up and years until Lennon's death, for a start. I mention this because I've long got the impression we're working in very different ways. I know what's to come, simply from what dozens of sources identify as relevant to the article's title, even if I'm not sure of the best way to structure the various threads within the whole piece. On the other hand, I get the impression you're not sure what's still to come (but may still be overly focused on shooting down aspects of their impact) and are more concerned about squeezing everything into tight sections and subsections. Well, part of the reason for the overlap you've mentioned is because of the structure you're quick to impose – I've been aware of trying to accommodate this but always knowing that the problem regarding overlap and repetition is because of the structure. I just think it might be an idea to let all the info come first – the full picture on UK breakthrough, musical and sociocultural; the Beatles' role as leading UK avant-garde [mainstream] pop artists (cue paragraph on Revolver under "Cultural legitimisation of pop music"); the break-up and 1970s section – and only then put any effort into overall presentation. Because, as I say, I'm now thinking: well, do I add the bits about the 1964 general election under "British cultural supremacy", within "US breakthrough and British Invasion"? (following "The Beatles' international success ensured that pop music provided an unexpected boon to the UK government's balance of payments deficit, a development that led to approval from politicians such as Harold Wilson") – which is just crazy. It's an entirely British aspect of their cultural impact, as is their spearheading of the UK's cultural resurgence around the world. JG66 (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The idea, I felt, was that "Early impact ..." would be limited to developments from 1963 whereas "US breakthrough and British invasion" concerns events from after they were already a worldwide cultural institutions. Every time a massive chunk of information is put into an article it will almost always necessitate some rethinking of the structure. The current format makes sense to me given the idea that "breaking through" and "invading" the US in 1964, culturally speaking, is equivalent to "breaking through" and "invading" all of the world's entertainment culture - as suggested in the first paragraph of "British cultural supremacy". ilil (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, is that the best you can offer?! I just don't think you know this subject at all, yet you impose yourself as if you do.

And per this (and despite your rebranding yourself with a new user name), you're still approach the article as if it's "Cultural impact of the Beatles – a contrarian's view". JG66 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would never claim that I know as much as you do about the Beatles and Britain. I simply see you add stuff about the Beatles' US breakthrough and Britain's worldwide dominance of pop culture, and then I wonder why it's not under the section titled "US breakthrough and British Invasion". ilil (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

And the rather obvious "contrarian's view"? JG66 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You're conflating contrarianism with neutrality. I didn't add that sentence to "shoot down" the band's impact, I added it because it was yet another source discussing the importance of these rivalries in relation to the band's artistry and cultural impact. And because it's a balanced view at that. I've considered whether it's overdue to just spin off that section into Contemporary rivals of the Beatles or something. But maybe such an article would draw "essay-like" complaints (even though we already have Jeff Lynne and the Beatles, Beethoven and Mozart, and God knows how much literature discussing Beatles versus Stones, Beatles versus Dylan ...). ilil (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality's to be admired, but you are definitely not neutral! And when I was asking about your "contrarian's view", it was not about that particular edit where "Covach writes that it is 'tempting' to speculate 'about whether the Beatles led this drive in artistic aspiration in pop music or were rather swept up in a kind of pop-culture Zeitgeist ...'", and you know it. You sound overly defensive about what you call "'essay-like' complaints" – well, several editors have been vocal about this, at a few Beach Boys articles, because your articles do read like essays and they reveal an agenda on your part.

Similarly here, just as at other Beatles articles and at genre articles, I'm still seeing a clear agenda in your efforts to hammer home where possible that point that the Beatles were merely following a musical trend that was already underway in the US. Yes, of course there were guitar bands, rock 'n' roll rhythms, similar melodic traits in music before the Beatles' arrival. As long as the article doesn't say otherwise, we're fine. What is relevant to the band's cultural impact is that, to everyone watching and listening at the time, it would seem, those American acts were bland and lifeless, certainly with regard to personality and presence. So why mention that "[Lennon–McCartney's] songwriting was initially modeled after American pop of the 1950s and early 1960s. According to academic John Covach, the pair usually followed its 'standard organizational practices closely and at other times innovat[ed] within its constraints.'"? The point's been made when discussing the Liverpool scene that the Beatles, along with other Mersey acts, drew heavily from American music. And why add that "One of the hallmarks of the Beatles' experimental period is their use of the flattened subtonic chord (♭VII)", when the pertinent thing is their use of a wide array of chords? The answer is – because it's how you introduced the point originally – it's a cue for another ahhh-so-Beatles-compositional-devices-were-commonplace-in-US-music moment. ("Whether the band popularised this chord in popular music has been the subject of debate among scholars. Research conducted by D. Pinter of the online publication Soundscapes concluded that the technique gained popularity in the late 1950s.") It's all just redundant, and I don't believe any neutral editor – any editor on the whole of Wikipedia other than you, in fact – would be consistently looking to include details like this. JG66 (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I added a detail about how the Beatles innovated within the constraints of American pop traditions because that's what I found when I CTRL+F'd the string "innovat" in a Womack book. I don't understand what you wished I wrote instead — just "According to academic John Covach, the pair usually followed its 'standard organizational practices closely and at other times innovat[ed] within its constraints."? What is the it in question?

I added a detail about flattened subtonics and discourse surrounding the subject because that's what I found when I Googled the Beatles' influence on chord progressions. Yes, the band also used a wider range of chords, applied modal mixture, key modulations etc. I don't have the sources that talk about those things in the context of impact or innovation. If you do, that's fantastic, why not add them instead of getting in a paranoid fuss over agendas? ilil (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

See, that's just the sort of disingenuous remark that caps my point. Same as when, while trading as Ilovetopaint, you made light of the fact that you misrepresented what a source says and obsessively steered the article towards a history of 1960s pop music. Back then and afterwards, from memory, you were using a high-school textbook entry on the Beach Boys, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's citation of the Beach Boys, a causal remark from McCartney taken out of context, and a dreadfully thought-out, historically inaccurate Slate article (which you also took to Beatlemania and, giving it pride of place as the overriding word on the JFK link, referred to as "an analysis of contemporary press material") – all to try to establish this same old point about the BBs and other pre-Beatles US acts, and shoot down what the large majority of sources say. You know, so don't couch this behaviour as someone else's paranoia. It's so blatant and has been for years – only a deluded fool would see it as anything but, because edit histories support what I'm saying. JG66 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I could probably extrapolate an "agenda" from the one time you wrote that Lennon disliked Pet Sounds on the Pepper article — a claim that appeared nowhere in the book you cited — but I'm not a schizophrenic, so how about a fun Beatles fact? I'm not sure if you knew: the ♭VII resolving to a minor tonic chord is the "Aeolian cadence" that William Mann discusses in his famous 1963 article. By that virtue alone, some might argue that ♭VII marks the quintessential example of the Beatles' innovative use of chord function, maybe beside the III7 underlining the "haaaaaand" in I Want to Hold Your Hand ("Paul hits this chord and I turn to him and say ..."). ilil (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh no, I'd never say you're schizophrenic. I mean, God, you're consistent if nothing else ...

The Lennon thing on Pet Sounds, from MacDonald's Revolution in the Head: "Though Lennon was cool about it – or wished to appear so in hindsight (press interviews from the period show him enthusing about Wilson's talent as a writer-arranger) – his colleagues were deeply impressed." So, did I write something like "Lennon disliked Pet Sounds ..."? That might be pushing things with regard to the source, but a) Lennon did say later on that he didn't like it; and b) it's only MacDonald's view that he "wished to appear so in hindsight", just as "press interviews from the period show him enthusing about Wilson's talent as a writer-arranger" is not totally accurate. It's late 1965 when Lennon enthuses about Brian Wilson; Lennon's comments were then freshened up by Tony Barrow and reprinted in a magazine or two around Christmas 1966, when Barrow was trying to find something to keep the Beatles in the public eye, particularly in the US. JG66 (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

TMYK ilil (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Er, whatevs, Sharon. Point is, if one ignores the middle bit in MacDonald's statement for the two reasons I mentioned (and bearing in mind that of all the hundreds of Beatles writers who pick and choose "fact" via the lens of their personal opinion [if they didn't, then all the many accounts would be entirely consistent] he's probably the most given to letting opinion dictate), we're left with something along the lines of: "Lennon was unimpressed with Pet Sounds but his bandmates were big admirers of the album." Which is to say that the source does support the point. JG66 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Another idea: maybe relocate "sales records" to the bottom of the article in a list format? Or possibly into List of sales records held by the Beatles. ilil (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It's tempting and it does/did make sense with regard to points that come from a 21C perspective. But it wasn't working after the move with regard to establishing the commercial supremacy the band achieved throughout the decade – the April '64 Billboard Hot 100 feat and '65 Shea concert being two of the most obvious examples. I think it's that popularity, reflected in mention of how their albums were consistently the first- or second-highest-sellers in the UK each year, the frequency of their topping US album and single charts, that needs to be established in the reader's mind before discussion of artistic progression and everything else. In a similar way, Scope sets out the width and depth of the Beatles' impact with no regard for chronology.

I could go on forever about a possible structure for this article – I've been trying to weigh up various scenarios with consideration for the subject from top to bottom. There's a lot of unavoidable overlap because one can't consider their UK breakthrough, for instance, as just musical or just sociocultural, nor especially without factoring in their personalities, irreverent attitude, group identity and "long" hair. Yet we don't really address those last aspects at all until after their US breakthrough and the British Invasion; we don't even name all the band members until after they've conquered the world. This type of issue becomes even more apparent later on in the piece (eg, drugs went hand in hand with the band's artistic progression, yet they're poles apart in the article).

Bearing in mind how the Beatles are often said to have inspired and reflected the course of the 1960s, in their music and their image, I've even been thinking about setting much of the article as a chronological discussion. That way, all their artistic achievements, their growth, influence on fellow musicians and scenes, development of the genre, expression of '60s collectiveness, leadership of the counterculture – almost everything – gets presented in the context of the band's sustained impact on almost all aspects of the decade, as it unfurls. Which would still be in keeping with the article title and it's a perspective that's supported by several of the statements made in Scope. This chronological approach has its merits, particularly in that it could solve much of the overlap issue. I talked myself out of it at the time, though.

I think it's worth pursuing the current approach to structure. At least, until something really does present itself as the solution. JG66 (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• I've just moved the section on Sales & attendance records to sit after Scope and before any of the sections where chronology becomes an issue. As with Scope, it lays out a career-wide situation that informs the entire article, and hopefully "works" on that front. That's not to say there's not a better solution somewhere down the line. Perhaps to reinforce the overview aspect, and lessen any feeling that it's a case of too-much-too-soon (which I still think is better than too-much-too-late), mention could be added at the start of the section that, despite the Beatles' almost constant experimentation/development from one release to the next, everything they did musically was a major commercial success. (Even when a single or album was seen to disappoint commercially, it's only in Beatles terms.) That is a point I've read a few commentators make with regard to the band's supremacy at the time.
• Will add a few more details to what is now a section dedicated to Beatlemania. That move should allow for mention of the band's late '63 performances on Sunday Night at the London Palladium and at the Royal Variety Performance. They're both key moments in establishing the Beatles in the UK; the viewing figures for Sunday Night at the London Palladium were seen as just as extraordinary as those for The Ed Sullivan Show were in the US. JG66 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel I'd be against a stricter chronological format since the article's ToC is effective as a "list of cultural facets the Beatles impacted", which is the most encyclopedic approach, especially with the article's length. I can only imagine that if we did a full-on chronological approach that the ToS would be virtually identical to The Beatles, with a list of album titles, and readers will have to read through 20 paragraphs to learn the extent of the band's cultural impact, something they could've gotten in 10 lines. ilil (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Harv errors

JG66 Currently, I've noticed that there are quite a few ref harv errors on the page, maybe 5–10. If you don't have it already, I suggest installing this script that allows you to see them easily. – zmbro _(talk) 00:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi zmbro. Well, while I don't subscribe at all to the idea that ignorance is bliss, I'd rather see the page as the average reader does. From observing discussions at the cite help page, it does seem that an "error" is often the invention of a precious few who regularly ignore requests regarding real-life application and examples of citation methods. While I appreciate those editors' contributions to some extent, I object to the idea that certain approaches and certain style guides (particularly British ones) are ignored in favour of a few, seemingly pet US style guides. For instance, in British English, it is common to abbreviate "edition" to "edn" rather than "ed." (which is for "editor", of course); also, and this really is a convention of British English usage, "eds." should appear without a full stop/period: "eds". Neither of these can be achieved in the template(s), though. And there's been plenty of disagreement at the help page regarding the italicisation of each and every website title. Same with the related issue (because editors try to use the parameter as an alternative method to de-italicise organisations) of whether "publisher=" can be used alone in cite web for examples such as AllMusic, Rock's Backpages and many other names that are not usually presented in italics yet if one includes them in "website=" or "work=" they automatically are – and every instance of failing to comply becomes an "error".

Which is all a long way of saying that I favour writing out any offending refs manually, avoiding the cite templates, if that's what it takes to ensure the information appears as I believe it should – eg, AllMusic in roman script, consistently across main text and in the references – and that any error tags are removed.

At the same time, because I've not seen the 5–10 ref harv errors you mention, maybe it's got nothing at all to do with the issues I'm talking about ... which would be funny! I mean, as in real life, if one dons a pair of X-ray specs, they could end up seeing something pretty disturbing. If the errors bother you, feel free to fix or at least reveal them on the page and we'll go from there. I try as much as possible to think like a reader, and a reader doesn't see these things, but they do see that a name is italicised in one instance but not in the rest of the article, as they do that a contravention of basic Brit English style appears in an abbreviation such as "eds.". It all comes down to one's definition of an error. JG66 (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The errors I'm seeing mainly just say there's no citation pointing to them. So if you click on an "Author Year" ref about 5-10 don't go to any citation. I'm currently away from my desktop so I can't say which ones are showing errors but the script I mentioned does help in showing them. I installed it after multiple FLC reviewers pointed the same things out in the lists I was nominating. I think it really helps, it has assisted me in my recent purge of references on the Beatles main page, so it might be useful in seeing which sources are present and which ones aren't. I'll point out which ones are specifically showing errors later tonight once I'm back on desktop. – zmbro _(talk) 19:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

JG66 Alright so now I can see the errors clearly. It looks like refs 67, 87, 195, 306, 325, 359, 360, 406, 410, 481, 487, 543, 555, 562, 572, 594, and 595 are not pointing to any citations, as well as the Hegarty & Halliwell book. So that's way more than 5–10 which I did not expect :-( I think some of these things are pretty easy fixes, could be the actual books are missing, or coding errors. – zmbro _(talk) 04:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh I get it now. They've mostly come about either through me not formatting the various Mojo Special pieces to one of the three titles dedicated to the Beatles (I was holding off until I knew whether there were multiple articles used from each of the three mags, in which case, all three would merit inclusion in the Sources list), or through that other editor carrying text over from other Wikipedia articles without bothering to ensure the refs connect with an entry in Sources or with the correct edition (eg MacDonald) in the Sources entry. As you say, all pretty easy to fix. Thanks very much for looking into this, Z. JG66 (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Who was that Daily Mail writer?

JG66 resists the question even being asked, so I'll ask it here: who was this Daily Mail writer? Anyone? Even known? Is this just a passing incident that was, in the context of the source, merely decorative? I ask because the phrasing makes it look like passing trivia, and my very first thought was: "well, who then?" - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Why on earth does it matter? It's the publication speaking, and all that the publication stood for at the time. It's quite normal to see "Rolling Stone's album reviewer" in Wikipedia articles, even if the writer is known. "The phrasing makes it look like passing trivia" ... I mean, what rubbish. JG66 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You're being bizarrely aggressive about this, and might want to consider calming down. WP:OWN after all. If this is about "cultural impact", that means the source needs to be shown impactful. What the impact of this thing that looks like passing trivia was is a reasonable question. If you're personally unable to answer it, that's okay and you don't need to strike out when it's asked - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If I'm being bizarrely aggressive, it's got nothing to do with owning this or any other article, and everything to with how bizarrely pedantic you are – here, there and everywhere. The quote is mentioned in the John Harris source (not sure about Badman) in precisely the context that's relevant to this article, at least in terms of the Beatles' cultural impact in the UK. So there's no question about it being so-called passing trivia. JG66 (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I urge you to refrain from personal attacks - WP:NPA is policy, after all. If you don't know the answer, you don't have to lash out in embarrassment. Please consider editing more calmly - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah right. Please consider refraining from being so pedantic and zeroing in on any and all mentions of the Daily Mail on Wikipedia. That's what this is really about; that's why you're here. I do know the answer, certainly the reporter's job title, because this quote has gained such traction in secondary sources. I just don't feel like engaging with you, because I don't believe you're able to view a mere mention of the primary source clearly, and you repeatedly used a tag in this article for what are clearly the wrong reasons. There's no embarrassment whatsoever; I just think you're a bit of a David Gerard, for the reasons explained. JG66 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

tch, personal attacks again - please address the issue, not the editor. You're going well out of your way to try to stop a question about the article content being addressed at all - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh shut up. I have addressed the issue (and the issue that's behind the point even coming up for discussion here). a) "It's the publication speaking ... It's quite normal to see 'Rolling Stone's album reviewer'"; b) "The quote is mentioned in the John Harris source ... in precisely the context that's relevant to this article ... So there's no question about it being so-called passing trivia." JG66 (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You're literally making a pitch here for deliberate ignorance. And by the way, you're an experienced enough editor to know that WP:CIVIL is also a policy, so please at least try to discuss better than you're managing so far today - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye. There's no talking to you. JG66 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

JG66 is in the right here, as the book sources are summarized properly and cited properly. There is no good reason to insist on naming the Daily Mail writer who is not named in the book sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)