Talk:Please Please Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.		This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.	High This article has been rated as High importance on the importance scale.
		Suggested article edit guidelines: New additions to articles should be attributed to reliable and verifiable sources, using inline citations per the Project's style guide. The system is very easy to use so please do try to help by following this guideline. Most articles should be written in British English. Some terms may be different from - or non-existent in - American English, and some spellings may differ. For more information, see American and British English differences. Document exceptions on the talk page of the article and here. It is Project policy that (with possible exceptions depending on context) all article references to the band's name should be in title case ("The Beatles" and not "the Beatles") If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment. This article is also within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful musical resource on recordings from a variety of genres.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!: Open tasks for WikiProject The Beatles. Edit or discuss these tasks. As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy. To Expand: Apple Records See also: Adopt an article To Clean up: Apple Records discography (wikify). The Beatles' 1965 USA Tour. To Merge: To Create: Phil McDonald (engineer). Lennon/McCartney songs: I'll Keep You Satisfied (produced by George Martin), From A Window. George Martin produced Billy J. Kramer song: Magic Carpet (song). Songs covered by The Beatles: Hippy Hippy Shake. The Big Three. Bag o'Nails, where Paul met Linda. Macca single: My Brave Face. Articles on each Beatle tour (Category:The Beatles tours). Full list & instructions. Lists to complete: Wanted Pics/Graphics: Mal Evans, Flying (song), Astrid Kirchherr, Jimmy Nicol, Cynthia Powell, Alistair Taylor, Ivan Vaughan, Tittenhurst Park, Tony Barrow. We need a better open-licenced photo for the project, to replace the Abbey Road crossing. If you provide a photo, please remove the ReqPhoto tag from the article's talk page and remove the article from this list. Project Discussions: The Beatles history, Individual songs vs longer album articles, Beatle wives, Merge/split proposals Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here. If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

Featured on Template:March 2 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

I changed the paragraph about the Beatles' influence which was horribly written and repetitive, mentioning a bunch of contemporaries and focusing on the Beatles overall musical influence in an article that's supposed to be desbcribing their first album, as well as stating that the beatles harmonizing, bouncy early pop style somehow influenced the development of heavy metal...

Preserving here the theory that the subtext of "Please Please Me" was oral sex, can't be quoted in article because of copyright, but

Last night I said these words to my girl

You know you never even try girl

Come on, come on, come on come on,

Please please me, o yeah, like I please you.

That sly guy, Ortolan88

I think this article is factualy innacurate. Wasn't the single Please please me the Beatles first NO.1 hit in Britain, my dad thinks it was and he's a Beatles fan.User:G-Man

Your Dad's incorrect but he was close. Please Please Me was the Beatles second hit single, but it only reached No 2 in Britain in Jan 63. Their first No 1 was their next single, From Me To You which reached No 1 in April 63. User:Rossrs

If I remember correctly, there were 2 charts in the UK at the time, and PPM topped the less influential of the two? --kingboyk 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of the tracks on the album were not actually composed by the group, but were covers of rock standards of the time and, with the exception of "Twist and Shout", have proved fairly unmemorable and only interesting for the insight they give into the band's own tastes in music at the time.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems remarkably POV. Besides which, proven would fit much better than proved here. - Vague Rant 09:15, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More POV?

It is amazing to listen to this record and then Abbey Road back to back. The former being the Beatles first album and the latter their last in order of recording, the comparison dramatically demonstrates how much the band's sound changed in just eight years. The Beatles were hard workers, especially when recording this album.

Also seems quite POV...

[edit] Twist And Shout

originally performed by The Isley Brothers, recorded on June 2, 1962, released May 7, 1962

That's impossible.

Also, there are inconsistencies with the capitalizing on the first words of bullet points.

Why don´t you fix them? Yeah guys, hit those keys! I just did some BTW. andreasegde

[edit] Please de-merge the songs into their own articles

The Beatles' songs are generally considered notable enough to have their own articles, and there are plenty of incoming links. Indeed, some of the songs deconstructed here already have articles. I'm in the middle of a massive Beatles and Apple categorisation drive, so don't have time to do the honours. Would somebody else? --kingboyk 01:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Op Para

Opening paragraph is really turgid. Could do with shortening, and some reorganisation. Badgerpatrol 01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought the opening section should be more about the album, and it's place in rock history, so I reduced the detail about the singles and added comments from Rolling Stone magazine and All Music Guide. I don't think the opening has to be short, but it should at least be about the album. I hope you think it's better now. John Cardinal 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

John, original message was posted a year ago. Quite a few changes have been made since then.--Patthedog 18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Missed the "06". John Cardinal 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean - time just seems to fly by!--Patthedog 19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Summary"?

The "Summary" section does not seem encyclopedic to me, especially because it says little (if anything) about the album itself or the recording session. I think it should be removed. Comments? John Cardinal 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved to “Love Me Do”? being as this was The Beatles’ first proper recording session. --Patthedog 13:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I did more editing today, trying to add some color (reviews from reputable critics), and the "Summary" section still sticks out. At best it's misplaced, and so perhaps it should be in "Love Me Do", but wait: it's not about that song (it's even titled summary), it has no citations, it's just not good, IMO. I think some of the material in it could go on the Beatles page, but with citations or not at all. I won't change it until someone else pipes in, but I might try to get some other people to do that. John Cardinal 03:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is already two articles giving the history of the band, History of the Beatles and The Beatles. The summary is supurflous, a redirect somewhere in the opening paragraph should be sufficient. LessHeard vanU 15:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point I was trying to make (obviously successfully) was that the Please Please Me LP was a hugely massive turning point for the Beatles. Even then, Parlophone only gave them a single day in the studio. Citations aren’t a problem, and it’s only a few words. Perhaps I should re-phrase it and stick it into the body of the article? --Patthedog 17:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm for that. --Lukobe 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not write something in the body like you suggested. I'm in favor of "less is more" here. For example, their recording career didn't start with Please Please Me, or if it did, then it was the sessions for the "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" singles, not the marathon on 11 Feb 1963. (I discount all the stuff before that as blips on the road to a real recording career.) Also, Pete Best's ouster was 5 months previous, and if you are going to mention that, why not mention the addition of Paul, and then George? (Not seriously suggesting, that... making a point.) I guess while Please Please Me was a big step, there were lots of other big steps before and after and discussion of them belongs in the history articles mentioned above unless they are directly relevant. The whole comment above is IMO, of course. Thanks for discussing this change, by the way. We may disagree, but I appreciate your willingness to discuss it! John Cardinal 01:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's "The", not "the" isn't it?

Every now and then someone goes and changes all references to The Beatles to the Beatles. Are we all agreed it is the former? Or are there mitigating circumstances? --Patthedog 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a controversy over this. An official choice was made at the beginning of February, but after some more discussion, the matter was re-opened. I don't know where it stands now. John Cardinal 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, I shall ask around. --Patthedog 09:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy is now that it is "the". LessHeard vanU 15:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Pain in the arse is this! Someone ought to write a de-capitalisation / capitalisation program.--Patthedog 18:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)