Talk:Get Back

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Get Back is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.


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:
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 WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.

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!:

Contents

[edit] Rewrite

I've made considerable edits and re-written much of the article. I may include some more audio samples to back up my statements if people feel it would be of benefit. simonthebold 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get Back Sessions

I'm currently disambiguating links for "Let It Be", and I am finding truck loads of links for 'Get Back sessions' which point here. I wonder if we could add the phrase "Get Back sessions" to the disambiguation line just to make it crystal clear that the user has come to the wrong place, or move this article to Get Back (song) and have a dab page? --kingboyk 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'm all for re-instating the 'Get Back sessions' page as their is considerable information on this period that could (and should IMHO) be included in addition to a Let It Be (album) page. simonthebold 10:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I just found a bad link for the Get Back sessions to the song (in the article Glyn Johns), so I've created a Get Back sessions redirect. --kingboyk 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Sleeve

The image used to illustrate the picture sleeve was taken in August 1969 at their last ever photo shoot. As this image postdates the single release should it be used? Or should we revert back to the previous Apple 7" vinyl image. Comments please.

simonthebold 10:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Why is this at "Get Back (song)" when there's no ambiguity about the title "Get Back"? It could simply be at "Get Back". The Disco King 21:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "No Pakistanis"

Just from a recording of the bootleg with the "No Pakistanis" verse, it sounds more like a parody of a song that was already written. The version I'm hearing is available here: [1]. During the second verse (the first with music behind it), you can hear Paul creeping in with the actual second verse before switching back to making up the words as he went along (starting with "Mohegan"). That's the way I would interpret it, without a timeline or anything, anyway. It just sounds like a jam. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, where did you get that from? Brilliant. andreasegde 18:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Anomalies and quirks" section

Are we aware that the "Anomalies and quirks" section is pretty much lifted straight off of the What Goes On? page for Get Back? It's not credited in the References and I don't think we have permission for them.... —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Beatles Rooftop Performance"

The phrase "Beatles Rooftop Performance" had an article link. That link went to a "History of the Beatles" page that was a general history of the band, and contained no specific info about the Concert on the Roof. While I think a Wikipedia article on the rooftop concert would be a good idea, I removed that link, since there doesn't appear to be any such article at this time. Vidor 11:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles with Billy Preston

The article states that "Get Back" was the only Beatles' single to ever credit another artist which is a statement I've heard before elsewhere. But I was wondering, what about the work they did early on with Tony Sheridan? Those credit another artist. Or are they just considered "Tony Sheridan singles" and therefore not Beatles' singles or is it because the band was billed as "The Beat Brothers" (although I think some of that stuff was re-released as being by The Beatles after they became big)?--Lairor 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's actually both. They were Tony Sheridan releases, credited to "Tony Sheridan with The Beat Brothers". They were not Beatles releases and were never released as such (at least not officially, as far as I know), even if they were later relabeled to be "with The Beatles". Get Back was specifically a Beatles releases, specifically credited as "with Billy Preston", and the only Beatles release to do so. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 09:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] links to copyvio

I have again removed external links from this article to material in violation of copyright, per #5 under the "Links to be used occasionally" section at Wikipedia:External links. Performances and transcriptions of lyrics are protected by copyright. Unless the owner of the copyright has placed the material on the web themselves, or approved its publication on some unofficial website, it should not be linked from Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In general terms I wholeheartedly agree with you. However another editor has expressed concern that in the process you're wiping out a reference to the controversial "no Pakistani" lyrics. May I ask also why you've only targetted Beatles articles? There are far worse offenders out there, including I would imagine some articles which quote lyrics verbatim. --kingboyk 09:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Kingboy. If you review my edit history, you can confirm that I've reverted a number of different kinds of copyvio links from many different kinds of articles, including articles which have had complete lyrics inlined. If this article is discussing controversial lyrics, I don't think it's a problem for the article to quote a couplet or verse from the song directly, inline, if it's anaylzing the content of that couplet. That falls under fair use. If the lyrics are truly controverisal, I don't think it would be hard to find other text (eg, reviews, critical or musicological anaylsis) that also contains the lyrics in question, at least partially. -- Mikeblas 18:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Checking the article, I find that footnote [1] references the lyrics at another site, but in the context of discussing the controversial phrases in the song. That's also a link to copyvio, and should probably go, as there's no context at the site for replicating the lyrics that would let fair use attach. The reference seems rather weak, anyway, since there's literally no context--there's nothing but lyrics on the page--and that means it has no way of proving itself credible. -- Mikeblas 18:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Mike. I think you are taking rather a hard line fundamentalist view of the guidelines (not rules) with the net effect of diminishing the article. The links to the No Pakistanis and Commonwealth Song transcriptions add some important background to the article and help the readers make up their own minds to the arguments presented. Likewise the link to the search engine instead of direct to the lyrics gives the reader a chance to easily find the lyrics without so-called copyright violation. This type of petty legalistic nit-picking is I feel more of a comment on the attitudes of some editors than a serious affront to empoverished songwriters intellectual property. I agree wikipedia should not carry the full lyrics as this leaves the project vulnerable; however it is the defacto position that the lyrics are published and available in the public domain. It should not be the job of wikipedia editors to set some supergold standard. simonthebold 11:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
With that said, I have to agree. It's not our responsibility to worry about whether other websites are violating copyright. If it's useful to the article, or of interest to the reader, we should link to it. We worry about our own content and the other webmasters will worry about theirs. It's not as if any copyright lawyer or similar is going to come complain to Wikipedia about the content of someone else's website. A link to another website does not induce copyright infringement. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it might. It's easy to see how Wikipedia's popularity, high search-engine rankings, and replication make it a great tool for driving traffic to a site. Editors often post press-release-like articles here to try to draw attention to their sites or products, leveraging WP's status. As such, I don't think it would be too hard to make a case for contributory infringement or vicarious infringement. (Man, these responses are all a jumble. Isn't there a better way to handle conversations about articles?) -- Mikeblas 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"Available in the public domain" makes no sense. Lyrics to songs by The Beatles and video and audio footage of their performances are not in the public domain; they're owned by someone and protected by copyright. Sure, it's a fact that people ignore the rights of intellectual property holders and copy things anyway. But that doesn't make it legal to carry out such an action.
Someone interested in finding the material can, if they'd like, use the search engine of their choice. Placing an external link in an article targeted at a search engine result page doesn't make much sense, since the page is highly dynamic and doesn't do anything to meet the guidelines we have for placing external links.
As I suggested above, there are ways to write the article that don't violate anyone's rights. Why not pursue them? -- Mikeblas 23:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, say we have an article about a particular full-length Hollywood movie. The article offers a critical review of the movie, as well as a literary analysis of the characters and their actions in the plotline. Should we provide a link to a site that hosts a downloadable copy of the movie so the "readers make up their own minds to the arguments presented"? Certianly, you agree that's an absurd idea. If someone wants to make up their own mind about the movie, or the lyrics in the Beatles songs, they should obtain a licensed copy of the material by a legal means. -- Mikeblas 23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a huge difference between posting a link to a full-length video of a movie and a link to the lyrics of a song. The full-length video of a movie represents the complete work that is covered by copyright in multiple different ways. The lyrics of a song only represent the linguistic portion of a song, which by nature is free (libre, but not necessarily gratis) to be covered by other artists. There's an even bigger difference between a link to the lyrics of the final, copyrighted and released song and the lyrics to a spur-of-the-moment jam made up on the spot and not officially copyrighted or released. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no difference germaine to this discussion; they're both covered by copyright. More importantly, being at liberty to cover the song (which doesn't include redistributing a copy of the covered song, by any means!) isn't the same as being at liberty to reproduce and redistribute the lyrics. Anyway, I think we're drifing astray of the topic. If you still disagree with the removal of the links to the lyrics sites, you should probably request a third party review of the issue. -- Mikeblas 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Beatles Get Back.jpg

Image:Beatles Get Back.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Added/updated FU rationale. — John Cardinal 03:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lennon's speculation that it was about Ono

Shouldn't there be something in the article about how John Lennon thought that "get back to where you once belonged" was directed at Yoko? There's information in the interview in All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono by John Lennon, David Sheff, Yōko Ono (ISBN 0312254644), around page 202. --Evil1987 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate Macmillan

Who was Candidate Macmillan in the earlier version of the Pakistanis verse? Harold Macmillan - he wrote the winds of change speech? his son Maurice Macmillan? any thoughts?

Why was it changed to candidate for Labour?simonthebold 13:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John on lead guitar?

On Beatles anthology episode 8, in the studio, it appears that George is playing the solo. The Person Who Is Strange 16:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Getback roof.jpg

Image:Getback roof.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I need some wheels (Help me!)

Just to say, when the song is played backwards, it appears that the "Get Back, Get Back, Get Back to where you once belonged" backwards is "Oh, I need some wheels. Help me! Help me! Help me!". This is funny, I think something of this should be added.--200.41.3.107 (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

it can be added if a reliable source can be found for it. --Rodhullandemu 21:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)