Talk:Strawberry Fields Forever

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.

This article
has not been
rated 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] Trivia and Pop Culture

I think both these sections should be removed. They add nothing and are full of uncited items that have little notability. What do others think?

70.54.124.95 17:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't signed in when I posted the previous comment.

Vytal 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Most of these "trivia and pop culture" sections translate to "random crap that somebody thought was cool" and this article is no different. Almost all of the "covers and derivations" should be trashed as well (except for the Love version and one or two others). Raymond Arritt 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree - In general, I am not a fan of trivia sections although I think some trivia items can be integrated in the article body. The trivia items in this article are not worth moving. I think Cultural reference sections can be used to document how a song affected other artists and also reflects the popularity and staying power of the song, both of which are notable. In this specific case, however, I think the Pop culture section is weak. John Cardinal 19:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Videos

How come the videos for Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields aren't as readily available as the records? Lee M 02:46, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Single with Penny Lane

  • "Unfortunately for the Beatles, it was released as a "double A sided" single together with "Penny Lane", which meant that both the sales and airplay statistics were split between the two songs, instead of being recorded collectively."

Does anyone have a cite for this? The UK charts are based on sales, not airplay, and as far as I know always have been. I'd have also thought that sales were based on the number of discs sold, and not pro rated between the two sides, and that e therefore there would be only one entry in the charts for the single Varitek 08:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I also was confused about this. Unfortunatly - why, exactly? It only got to number 2 because Humperdink sold more.

[edit] Removed

  • "Nonetheless, the double A-sided single is widely-regarded as the greatest single in the history of popular music."

I removed that sentence. I wouldn't be surprised if it were so, but claims of such loftiness require references. --bodnotbod 05:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

I removed this paragraph, which, even if probably true, is pure speculation and opinion:

It is likely that the inclusion of "Penny Lane" on the single upset John Lennon. He saw "Strawberry Fields Forever" as the most innovative pop single ever at the time of its release.

wikipediatrix 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] number 1 @ US?

says in the text that the separate strawberry fields single in the US reached number 8, but in the 'box' it says #1? Bungalowbill 13:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Regain popularity?

"Epstein urged Martin to issue the songs on a double A-sided single in order to regain popularity"

What is this supposed to mean?

[edit] Paul isn't dead!

At the very end of the song (You need to almost blast the volume) John says "I Buried Paul" Which was one of the main reasons people thought Paul was dead. That, and this. The whole thing was caused on April 1st by a DJ.[1]

Some key points (feel free to corect names):

  1. Geroge is at the front dressed like a preist.
  2. Ringo is next dressed up. He was suposedly the under-taker.
  3. Paul isn't wearing shoes (People are never burried with shoes on) and is smoking. Paul never smoked, but a dieing man's last request is often "one last cigarete"
  4. John is last wearing work cloths. As mentionecd above, he suposedly burried Paul.
  5. The beatle's (car) licence plate reads 28 IF. Paul would have been 28 IF he lived till his next birthday.--Labine50 03:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one mistake, John is the priest and George is the gravedigger in the back. Also, the license plate reads LMW 281F, which is interpreted as meaning "28 IF" as stated above. LMW is also sometimes said to stand for "Linda McCartney Weeps (or Widow)." John R Murray 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Changed Sentence

I changed the word undoubtedly to most likely when someone put that the song was "undoubtedly" influenced by acid. The word undoubtedly is very strong, and without a reference this word should not be used. andrewlargemanjones

[edit] Title

The only Beatles album I have is the 1967-1970 compilation, but the title of the song is listed there as "Strawberry Fields"... Should that be noted? Is it already noted? (Sorry I haven't looked through the article) --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should be a new rule on pictures.

I honestly think that if there is a good picture that agrees with the article, you shouldn't replace it. Before the cover you see on the page, there was a higher quality scan. The current one (no offense to the user who scanned it) looks batterd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.120.221 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

We don't need any new rules. I thought the original picture looked too pristine; it didn't look like a single cover because you couldn't see any ridges caused by the disc inside the sleeve. Also, it was 42KB (vs. 22KB for the replacement) and the picture is used on other pages with multiple images on them. Anyway, I restored the last version. John Cardinal 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thinning?

The complete removal of the Covers and Pop culture sections does not help the article IMO. Yes, those sections needed to be trimmed, but no covers, and no cultural references, removes credible evidence of the popularity of the song among musicians and other artists, which is a one way to reflect the importance of the song. John Cardinal 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While I have no opinion one way or the other concerning the covers, the cultural references listed did not particularly add to the article. One could obtain better information by simply clicking "What links here". The popularity of the song is better reflected by statistics and good references than an exhaustive list of cultural references. -Verdatum (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The "What links here" page is a poor substitute: hundreds of pages listed in random order with no editorial content to prioritize the list or put the (WikiPedia-specific) references in context. I disagree that the "popularity of the song is better reflected by statistics and good references" and I never suggested including "an exhaustive list of cultural references." Cultural references are not about simple popularity, they indicate popularity among other artists. They indicate that other artists were influenced by the song, and specifically, what artists and in which works. Diversity in the list (various artists, various media) and references across a long span of time are much more effective means of conveying the importance of a creative work than dry statistics.
Regarding good references, I fail to see how that pertains to this issue at all. I am in favor of good references and have worked to add them to Beatles articles on WP, but references provide evidence that is used in the article. With no list of cultural references, there is nothing to which to attach references.
John Cardinal (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOVE Version

It says in the LOVE version that "Baby Your A Rich Man" is in it. Where is it? Can anyone confirm it? I always hear it in "All You Need Is Love," but not "Strawberry Fields." 01kkk 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What key did it end up in?

I've seen sheet music transcriptions that show the song to be in the key of A. But if (as the article states) Take 7 was already in A, and George Martin had to speed it up, while slowing down Take 26 (in C) to get the two to match, then the key the finished product finally wound up in would have to be at least slightly higher than A=440hz, right? ("A and a half major"?!?) Can anyone figure this out?
--63.25.23.150 (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)