Talk:Please Please Me

Beatles "The/the" Issue Mediation Input Request

Please note that request for input by email was made on the talk page, *not* on the page mentioned above. Email must be submitted to be considered as your input to this matter. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 11:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the name of this band in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

50th anniversary of recording

BBC Radio 2 is planning an anniversary day on 11 February 2013. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Recording date?

The side bar at the top says it was recorded in September, November, and February. The text however says it was recorded in one day. Which is it?? The side bar gives no references for those dates--Dbjorck (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

And the article text makes no mention of any earlier recording sessions in Sep or Nov 1962. BBC Radio 2 certainly seemed to think that it was all recorded in a single day (see comment above). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed the infobox to match the article text. References should be provided before changing it back. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

How long did the recording take?

It says in the article: "Therefore, at 10:00 am on Monday, 11 February 1963, the Beatles and George Martin started recording what was essentially their live act in 1963, and finished 585 minutes later (9 hours and 45 minutes)"

Most sources (including the BBC) say 12 hours. This one says 765 minutes after they had started recording, in 3 sessions 10:00AM – 1:00PM, 2:30PM – 5:30PM and 7:30PM – 10:30PM which sounds more reasonable. Did they really do it in 585 minutes including breaks as the sentence in the article says or is that the time minus breaks? Richerman (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is quoting Mark Lewisohn who was given access by Abbey Road Studios in 1987/8 to all of the Beatles original multitracks and mixdown session tapes including documentation, which would have been written up at the time of the sessions, and has to be assumed to be accurate. Timings don’t include breaks; the article does make it clear that it’s referring only to recording times and session times. Patthedog (talk)

No it doesn't say that it all. It says he started recording at 10 AM and finished recording 9 hours and 45 minutes later - which means that the recording would have finished at 7.45 PM. Where does the article make it clear that it's "referring only to recording times and session times"? I'm well aware that Mark Lewisohn's account is the definitive version but I no longer have my copy so couldn't check what it says. The way the article is written at the moment is clearly wrong and doesn't quote Lewisohn correctly. Assuming they have the timings right, the website I quoted above has worded it correctly where it says "765 minutes after they had started recording, the Beatles’ first album was in the can." Richerman (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Lewisohn wrote: “There can scarcely have been 585 more productive minutes in the history of recorded music” so the article was totaling-up only the actual recording time. Three sessions were booked all for the same day, but they could have been spread over any period of time (a week apart, for instance) but it is the session time that is important, and not necessarily what the Beatles had for lunch that day, or how long they took to eat it. The article was only referring to recording time, and that could have been made clearer perhaps. Maybe you might want to include this? Patthedog (talk) 13:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What about this instead?

In order for the album to contain fourteen songs (the norm for British 12" vinyl pop albums at that time was to have seven songs on each side, while American albums usually had only five or six songs per side), ten more tracks were needed to add to the four sides of their first two singles recorded and released previously. Therefore, at 10:00 am on Monday, 11 February 1963, the Beatles and George Martin started recording what was essentially their live act in 1963. In three sessions that day (each lasting approximately three hours) they produced an authentic representation of the band's Cavern Club-era sound, with only a few minor overdubs and edits. Optimistically, only two sessions were originally booked by Martin and the evening session was an afterthought.{{sfn|Lewisohn|1988|pp=24–26}} Mark Lewisohn would later write: "There can scarcely have been 585 more productive minutes in the history of recorded music"{{sfn|Lewisohn|1988|p=24}} <ref name="classic rock"/> Martin overdubbed the piano on "Misery" on Feb. 20 and celeste on "Baby It’s You" five days later.<ref name="classic rock"/> Patthedog (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That wording is ok and includes some changes I made earlier today but the fact that it was all done in less than 13 hours is also important and is one of the most widely quoted facts about the session - particularly as 'Twist and Shout' was recorded at the end of that marathon session. If it had been done in three sessions spread out over a few days it wouldn't have been as remarkable. I'll have another look at it and include the 585 minutes quote. Richerman (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies; I uploaded to the article while you were posting. Let me come back. Patthedog (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's OK, I added a bit too :) Richerman (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

I would like to request the page be moved from Please Please Me to Please Please Me (album) to distinguish it from the song. Both carry enough weight to make distinction necessary. Thank you.--Gg53000 (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gg53000: If your move was implemented, when a user typed in Please Please Me, where would they be taken? GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: They would be taken to Please Please Me (disambugation).--Gg53000 (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gg53000: In the current state, people typing in Please Please Me looking for the album get it on their first guess, whereas those wanting the song take one more click. With your suggestion, no one gets what they want on their first guess, and everyone has to take that one more click. Could you please help me understand how your request would benefit our readers? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Well, I thought that both the album and the song were of equal weight, and so people looking for the song would take one less click. But, the way you've put it, nobody wins, and they don't lose that extra step. So I guess I'll just drop the move. Sorry and thanks.--Gg53000 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Rock and Pop

Though they are sourced, Rock and Pop seem kind of redundant here, as the already listed Rock'N'Roll already covers Rock, and Merseybeat covers both Pop and Rock. I think Rock'N'Roll and Merseybeat alone would cover the album's style perfectly without having to many genres flooding the infobox. Poppermost2014 (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"A stereo mix was made at the same time as the mono mix (though even the stereo album only featured mono mixes of "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You")"

Part of this sentence is confusing:

"A stereo mix was made at the same time as the mono mix (though even the stereo album only featured mono mixes of "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You")"

The part that is confusing is the thing about "though even the stereo album only featured mono mixes...". Unless I'm missing something, "only" implies you would expect more mono mixes on a stereo mix. Can we drop the word "also"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That whole paragraph is confusing and needs to be rewritten. Piriczki (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's take this one step at a time. I would expect that an album of stereo mixes would contain an album of stereo mixes. But the article says that it features only mono mixes of "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You". Why would anyone expect more exceptions? 50.129.35.130 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was confusing, but easier to read now. I don’t know what “delta” mono is, so I’m pleased to see that’s gone. The bit about the stereo mix is still a little muddled though. Obviously, the two mono tracks remain mono on the stereo album, that’s clear enough. However Martin later said: “The reason I used the stereo machine in twin-track form [on the 11 Feb] was simply to make the mono better, to delay the vital decision of submerging the voices into the background. I certainly didn’t separate them for people to hear them separate!” (Mark Lewisohn) That implies that there exists a better mix than the pretty brutal left / right separation that the article describes. Maybe it needs more investigating? Patthedog (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

While Martin certainly isn't endorsing the brutal left/right separation, that is his stereo mix and I don't believe there is another better mix. The better mixes of the early Beatles albums, as Martin later said, were the mono mixes. I think all Martin is saying here is that he recorded all the instruments on one track and the vocals on the other with the eventual, and more important, mono mix in mind. Since there is no left/right separation in the mono mix, the primary concern is the volume level of the instruments versus the vocals—this allowed him to do that at the mixing stage. Having recorded it this way, it didn't leave many options when it came to the left/right separation in stereo mix. Piriczki (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Official Chart Position

The article lead seems to suggest that PPM was a UK number one single when officially it only reached number two in the RR chart, which was the industry measure at that time. Is that misleading readers? Patthedog (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It states clearly that it was #1 on most charts but #2 on RR, its actually stated clearer than on the Beatles own page.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. That's my point.Patthedog (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What's your point - that by being clear we're misleading readers? There were a number of charts at the time, none of which were the 'industry standard'. Richerman (talk) 09:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sarcasm. The lowest form of wit, although I have resorted to it myself occasionally when stuck for something noteworthy to say. Well, I thought I’d summed it up beautifully in my opening statement, but clearly failed. By 1963 in the UK Melody Maker, New Musical Express etc. were compiling their own lists of singles (I believe in the US Billboard was always the accepted chart, so maybe no such confusion there) but these would often differ, and in those circumstances RR was considered the last word. What bothers me, and I accept that there are far more serious matters elsewhere in the world right now to worry about, is that when I read that part of the article it gives the impression that PPM was really probably number one, as most lists had it at number one, when actually the index that most referred to, and subsequently became the official chart, was RR. Also, the Beatles themselves seem to accept the situation as it has never been included in number one compilations. So, if we are going to mention peripheral charts, maybe they ought not to feature but instead read something like this: "The single was released in the UK reaching No. 2 on the Record Retailer chart, which subsequently evolved into the UK Singles Chart. Melody Maker and New Musical Express both however listed it at No. 1" Patthedog (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I really couldn't see how the reply from Pennsy22 proved your point. But anyway, after googling around there seems to be a general consensus that it only reached number two, so changing the text as you suggest, which is almost exactly the same as the text in Please Please Me (song), doesn't seem unreasonable. Richerman (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Having said that I've just been reading Sean Egan's ''The Mammoth book of the Beatles and he says this on the subject:

"Martin was correct about the chart position, though some brandishing their copy of the Guinness book of hit singles will dispute this. They should take note that the whole of Britain, including the Beatles themselves, were under the impression that the record reached the pinnacle, which in fact was a source of no little national pride and justification for media coverage. Guinness... has "Please Please me" peaking at number two because its data for the period is taken from Record Retailer (later named Music Week) whose chart was the only one of four competing charts of the era whose summit it did not scale. At the time Record Retailer 'was by no means considered the definitive chart. If any was, it was that of the New Musical Express, as it was the oldest, although in fairness Record Retailer was the era's only independent audited chart."

So, on balance, I think the original wording is just fine. Richerman (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I could come back with a number of points, but feel inclined to throw-in the towel as I feel like I’m probably flogging a dead horse - if you can flog a dead horse with a towel. I haven’t consensus so will withdraw unless others have an opinion. Patthedog (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The more I look at this the more complicated it gets. Our list List of UK charts and number-one singles (1952–1969)/Record Retailer which I don't really understand has it at no.2 for all charts shown, which seems wrong, and another list List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 1960s doesn't show it as a no.1 but says in the opening blurb "The choice to use Record Retailer as the canonical source for the 1960s has been contentious because NME (which continued compiling charts beyond March 1960) had the biggest circulation of periodicals in the decade and was more widely followed.[1][2] As well as the chart compilers mentioned previously, Melody Maker, Disc and Record Mirror all compiled their own charts during the decade. Due to the lack of any official chart the BBC aggregated results from all these charts to announce its own Pick of the Pops chart.[1] One source explains that the reason for using the Record Retailer chart for the 1960s was that it was "the only chart to have as many as 50 positions for almost the entire decade".[3] The sample size of Record Retailer in the early 1960s was around 30 stores whereas NME and Melody Maker were sampling over 100 stores." How about we add an nb1 note of explanation along those lines? Richerman (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Recording dates

The infobox states that the album was recoded 4 September 1962 to 11 February 1963, this is obviously wrong but the article doesn't do anything to clear this up. It only states that 10 more songs were needed for a complete album if the first two singles and the B sides were added. Pennsy22 (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Harmony

Harmony 2A02:C7F:9481:AB00:4CC3:20E:A878:DEA1 (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a question or suggestion about harmony? GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Work in progress to bring the article to GA status

You are invited to participate in the Beatles WikiProject task force to bring this article to Good Article status. For more details see the discussion page at the project. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Philip Larkin

Larkin was one of the most notable post-war British poets. Why if his reference to the album (even without the explanatory quote), in his 1974 poem "Annus Mirabilis" not deemed appropriate? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Martin. It's a great little poem and I appreciate Philip Larkin's status, but does the whole thing belong though as it forces the article to suddenly switch focus? I don't think it does but if you put it back I'll respect that and if others leave it in then it's passed the test. Thanks Patthedog (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hardly fighting for a place in that sub-section, is it. Might be better if that sub-section was also expanded. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

So I see it was added on 18 May 2022 here So there is no WP:BRD to consider. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone. So what's the consensus? I'm new to these sorts of situations. Ridiculopathy (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus. You and I think the entry has value. Patthedog disagrees. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, the main problem here is the fact that a few editors (including myself) are in the process of getting the article up to standard as discussed here. I'd say the retrospective section is good to go but almost everything else needs rewritten. So really, even if we were to include this very brief mention in a random poem, we don't know what the page will look like a year from now and whether that will include this mention or not. IMO, it doesn't warrant inclusion as "the Beatles' first LP" is really just a passing mention and not an analysis. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody knows what any article will look like a year from now? I'd agree that "In media" might be a bit misleading; maybe it's more "In popular culture". Which of Larkin's poem are not "random", or perhaps they are all random? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If it were part of a wider retrospective analysis of the sixties I would see its worth of course, but it just doesn't seem to fit here at the moment (in my opinion anyway). It's a shame as it's a lovely understated piece which actually makes only a passing reference to the album without naming it. Patthedog (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Typical poetry, you might say. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't suppose it's worth mentioning that the stanza of the poem in which the album is referred is actually repeated again at the end of the poem, bookending it, so not only is the album mentioned once in the poem, it's actually mentioned twice. (What else could mean 'the Beatles first LP' other than 'Please Please Me'?). This was my first time trying to broaden and enrich a Beatles page on Wiki. I think I won't bother next time. Ridiculopathy (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

... "the Beatles first LP" scans slightly better, and rhymes of course. Yes, it might be worth mentioning it's twice. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been told to take it to the talk page, so here I am, taking it to the talk page. I say the following ==In media== section is relevant and appropriate to the 'Please Please Me' page. At least one Wikipedian agrees with me, and at least one does not.

I took the exact same Philip Larkin quote from the 'Cultural influence' section of the 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' Wikipedia page where it has existed undisturbed for god knows how long. If it was not an issue on that page why would it be an issue on the 'Please Please Me' page? Ridiculopathy (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC).

In media

The British poet Philip Larkin's 1967 poem "Annus Mirabilis" begins with a reference to the album:

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) –
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

References

Recent edits

In my view, recent edits by John M Wolfson don't improve the article. Sorry. It needs a lot of copy editing or it could just be to restored to Zmbro 23 Feb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patthedog (talk • contribs)

In what way are they not improvements? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, just lots of small changes that collectively have altered the way it reads. "The Beatles had signed with EMI in May 1962 and had been assigned to the Parlophone label run by Martin" is one. "They released their debut single "Love Me Do" in October, which surprised Martin and reached number 17" is another. Both those examples are in the lead and are just a bit clumsy. They weren't "assigned" to Martin. That makes it appear someone else signed the group. And what surprised Martin? There's loads, but I can't go through all of it which is why I suggested the revert. However, if others can't see it then I'll just take it off my watchlist.Patthedog (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Tkbrett What do you think about this? With its 60th anniversary tomorrow we should resolve this asap. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping zmbro. I can't see myself working up to working on this article any time soon as I have other stuff I'd rather work on.

One comment though regarding something Patthedog said up there, that "[the Beatles] weren't 'assigned' to Martin." In fact, they were. This is something Mark Lewisohn cleared up in Tune In. Previous biographers sometimes stated that the band's first EMI session on June 6, 1962, was an audition, but in actuality the band had already been signed by that point. After lots of pestering from Sid Colman and Kim Bennett, EMI's managing director Len Wood decided to sign the Beatles and picked George Martin to record them. Martin met with Brian Epstein on May 9 to offer the record contract with Parlophone, but it was not actually Martin's decision. He intended to push the band off to Ron Richards as soon as he could. See Tune In, pp. 616–17, 622, 642. Tkbrett (✉) 19:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tkbrett. I didn't know that, and I've been an extremely keen follower of the facts for a very long time but it seems like I need to go back and refresh. That being the case then it needs to be put in into the article with references (unless it already has - I'm getting on a bit now and sometimes miss stuff like this). Apologies to the original poster.Patthedog (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't like my edits, Pat. I was trying to tidy up the lead to polish it per WP:LEADCITE, to maybe get this to eventual good article status. If you think certain sentences are clumsy please feel free to reword them, but I'm happy with the overall paragraph and sentence structure of the new lead and think that a wholesale reversion would be a negative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)