Talk:I Want to Hold Your Hand

Personal Experience - first kid on the block

I received an EP (Twist and Shout)which contained this song in California from my brother before the Beatles came to the US. I wondered about this for years, as my brother's residence in England (he went to London School of Economics for his Masters') was much later. He explained it to me recently:

He was a Peace Corps volunteer in Liberia Africa at the time. He had traveled to Nigeria and another aid volunteer from England told him about this fantastic band called the Beatles and, somehow, this EP was available in Nigeria! I guess he was making up for telling people not to buy Elvis Presley when he worked in a record store in Pomona, CA as a teen - he invariably steered them to the 'race records' in the store which Elvis had probably listened to.

Small layout problem

There is a small layout problem that causes computers with resolutions of 1024 to have vertical scroll bars. I do not know how to fix it, but I'm pointing it out.Dooga 04:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

On the FA. Very small talk page for it though :P. Aditionally, I can't find the broken archive link to the peer review above. - Estel ^(talk) 08:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Song Inspiration Examples

"McCartney and Lennon did not have any particular inspiration for the song, unlike their later hits such as "Yesterday", "Hey Jude" and "Let It Be"."

McCartney has written all of those songs. Perhaps at least one Lennon song should be used as an example?

Why ? Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Melody and Lyrics

This section mentions the "octave jump" that both singers sing; only Paul (apparently the backing vocal) jumps up an octave - John (singing the lead line) jumps up a fifth, not an octave. You can hear this in the audio sample.

This article is the biggest crock of shit we have ever read. You bloody AMERICANS... It's really disgusting.

Hey, that's a bit rough don't you think Mate?

I would like to point out that the statement that a solo connects the two bridges in this song is incorrect. There is no solo in this song. It's all verses and bridges. Have a listen before you write about details!

Where is the citation for this section? It makes a lot of assumptions that look like original research. (Example: The song is about a man expressing his feelings for his lover, and at first, the singing is done in a seemingly shy and bashful manner, with the singer pausing every few words: "Oh yeah, I (pause) tell you something (pause) I think you'll understand". However, when the chorus is reached and the singers make the octave-long jump, there is no hiding their feelings, with an uninterrupted "I want to hold your hand". The lyrics are straightforward and simple compared with later works of the Beatles.) This FA is missing a lot of inline citations! How was this missed in the peer review and FAC process? -- Malber (talk · contribs)

I have interviews with people close to the Beatles saying this was almost a 100 % McCartney song with Lennon adding a Word or two. I have good sources too. But since I cannot uppload here I dont know what to do. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing peer review

It is said that this article has received one. It would be good to be given a link to it.

The archive is at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Archive_1#I_Want_To_Hold_Your_Hand but I don't know how to link this into the template.--Adam ^(talk) 14:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 17:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Stereo

'The song was also the first Beatles song to be recorded in true stereo'. This requires some explanation, and if there is none, removal. It was recorded in 4 tracks. The release was mono. Where did stereo come in?

Perhaps you mean that the final mix made at the time was stereo - but that would be odd, given that the releases were mono. Also, I heard in an interview with Paul McCartney that most Beatles tracks were mixed by them in mono, and the stereo mixes were cooked up later by engineers. This appears to have been the case at least up to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - see that album's Wikipedia entry.

Without explanation, the claim that it was 'recorded in true stereo' is meaningless. If it was the first track to be recorded on 4 track rather than 2 track, you could just as well say it was the 1st one not to be recorded in stereo. --Tower 14:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding recordings, the article states this was the only song recorded by the group outside of London. Unless I am mistaken, the first recording of "Can't Buy Me Love" (although unreleased at the time) was recorded in Paris; which had a backing vocal track which was later dumped. It may also be noteworthy for this article that Capitol Records was originally resistant to releasing ANY Beatle records in the United States, which is why Vee Jay records released their first LP. -- ZincOrbie 17:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

German version

The article - quite rightly - covers the German version in quite a lot of detail, but it neglects to say what chart position that version reached (in Germany or any other country). It would be great if somebody could add that information. --kingboyk 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No Specific inspiration?

Is there really evidence that "McCartney and Lennon did not have a specific inspiration for the song"? The fact that they were asked to write something for the American market does not preclude them writing it with a particular event/girl in mind. --Tower 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with that, but I think that it is saying, the event/girl was not the main motivation.

Hammond Organ on the Studio Version?

I have proposed for over 30 years that there is a Hammond organ on the backing track of I Want to Hold Your Hand. I have always maintained that the sound that is attributed to Lennon's Rickenbacker backing track (which is under Harrison's two guitars - one doing chords and one overdubbing little riffs) is his guitar integrated with a Hammond organ. The deep leslie and tremolo effect that the Hammond uses was masterfully compressed and integrated with Lennon's guitar to create that richly textured, wall of sound that has since, never been reproduced or successfully mimicked even with today's sophisticated digital loop amps. To make a long story short, when ever the Beatles played that tune live, Lennon not only was totally unable to ever re-create that sound, he also played several chord inversions that are totally absent from his recorded version. On top of that, on the recording, he only plays fifth intervals (with some added 9th tones), in other words, each chord is only comprised of the bottom root note and the next string up, the fifth (with occasional 6th). So most chords consist of the 6th and 5th strings and on a few, the 5th and 4th strings. The organ, either played by Martin or one of the guys on an overdub, also only uses the two note intervals to cleverly mimic the guitar, yet create that lush driving texture that makes the song. It was so attractive that the Kinks, Who, Animals and just about every guitar player in the early 60's tried to mimic that at one time or another. None could do it because, its a Hammond on top of the guitar! I wrote an article for the British Beatles website 'What Goes On' and have engaged many Beatlephiles on the subject including a few Beatle book authors.

Very few people seem able to "hear" that organ meshing with the guitar, never mind obvious red flags where Lennon's alleged guitar hits low octave D notes (before the B7 after "I think you'll understand..") and bent, or oscillating open low E string tones (6th string) which is impossible in the manner heard on the record. The low D note (not Paul's bass) is impossible unless Lennon played a 7 string guitar:-)

Listen closely to the isolated backing track of the German stereo version of IWTHYH (Komm gib mir deine Hand) where the Beatles sang in German but used the same pre-recorded backing track that is from the British version. It is available and easy to isolate the left channel if one has the the first of two Capitol CD sets of Beatles that includes Something New (album) and of course Komm gib mir deine Hand . If you listen, you will at minimum, hear where John's guitar, doing backing chords, creates some of the strangest sounds, grunts, nuances and general anomalies ever heard. Why? Because its the Hammond Organ superimposed on top! The so called scholars say, "no its just overdriven amps", "old strings", "harmonic distortions" or his speakers busted or any excuse including aliens:-) The song starts out with Lennon's two intro backing chords (C to D) but at 8 seconds into it, the organ makes its stealth entrance. Its no coincidence that the usage of the Hammond was probably strongly influenced by their utilization of the organ just a few days earlier for the overdubs of I Wann be Your Man except that this time, they more stealthily, compressed and mixed in the organ to mask it. I invite anyone with an open mind, and discerning ear for subtle variances or anomalous sounds, to listen closely and respond with their thoughts. Ctenid JA March 6, 2007

I see that you have made a recent edit to your above comment, despite its date. Personally, I can’t hear an organ, and there is no mention of one that I can find. That doesn’t mean you’re not right about it, but it does mean that it’s just your opinion. That being the case, do you think you are justified in adding quite a lot of detail about something that can’t be referenced to the credits? --Patthedog (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pathdog: let me make one point. If Wikipedia is so concerned with their reputation (never mind the fact that I contributed to the book Cream by Chris Welch and have seen my articles on Eric Clapton sighted on numerous articles) then they are going to be embarrassed eventually when it is finally verified that there IS a Hammond Organ in that recording. The line up you HAVE right now showing a simple, erroneous line up of two guitars, drums, bass and vocals is laughable. This has to be corrected of eventually it is Wikipedia that will lose their coveted credibility. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdaystrum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we can’t keep going over this, you’re saying the same thing. But, I agree that there is a lot of unsourced stuff in the article that needs attention. Hopefully, that will be addressed. Cheers --Patthedog (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Last comment to Pathdog - thank you: Let me make a last profound comment. If you acknowledge that "there is a lot of unsourced stuff in the article" then why has my Hammond organ been removed when that has just as much so called sourcing as any other "alleged" assumption of what instruments are being played and by who. I assert right now that unless photographic or video evidence of a particular session is offered or eyewitness accounts by either McCartney, Ringo, George Martin or Geoff Emerick, then NONE of the alleged instruments and players are necessarily accurate by any stretch, or can be proven with irrefutable evidence. That said, the current "hand claps" that are in the line up are assigned to all four Bealtes without a shred of evidence to prove that, ALL four Bealtes participated in the hand claps. That is hogwash and why is that allowed? Let me say in summation, that your so called "sources" are nothing more than various authors or websites offering their own SUBJECTIVE opinions on who sang, played and what instruments were used without a shred of validating evidence. Therefore, non of those sources can be authenticated unless you have George Martin, Geoff Emerick or the two remaining Bealtes verify them. Martin verified my Hammond organ in that press conference which is a hell of a lot more validation than any of those numerous hack articles on Bealtes recordings. Lastly, most books or articles concerning Bealtes songs whether books or websites like Allan Pollack's, they are all riddled with errors such as claiming the incorrect singer is the lead vocal or consistently demonstrating the lack of a discerning ear. Numerous published books on Beatles recordings are saturated with totally erroneous vocals credited to the wrong Beatle plus an egregious lack of accuracy with the instruments used. Please read "Beatles Recordings" by Curvbender Press and you will get an idea of how complex many Beatles recordings were. I will come back to this when I have contacted either Geoff Emerick or Martin which I am not trying to do through a contact with the New York Times. Get ready. When that happens, you have your definitive proof of the Hammond although it will take time. In the meantime, why is there a double standard by allowing the sources I have just pointed out as being completely invalid since they are all based on opinions and no authentication by the principles involved with the actual recording sessions. As of now, the I Want to Hold Your Hand article is extremely flawed and unless authenticated, should be removed or simply list the most benign, known facts based on the principles involved. Have a good new year. Thank you

Update: in 2009, via Mr. Sharp, an engineer/consultant who worked with George and Giles Martin on the remastering project, kindly passed on an email directly to George Martin regarding my assertion of a Hammond RT-3 organ superimposed on Lennon's Rickenbacker for the backing tracks, of course, further mixing down the basic rhythm track of the drums, bass, John's guitar and Hammond to imbed the organ (George's guitars are on a separate track on the multitrack master). Martin responded as follows [""....I don't think there were keyboards on that song but than again it was so long ago i can't be sure...I CAN'T say that there ISN'T a keyboard on that tune"] meaning he simply can't remember any longer although he did remember when asked by a Washing D.C. radio personality during a MID 90s book tour and responded in the affirmative. Additionally my research led me to contact an employee within EMI who does not want his name revealed, he emailed me this following, very revealing message also back in 2009. "there are things about the recording of I Want to Hold Your Hand I am not at liberty to discuss, however, I can tell you this, beyond the documented 17 takes, people have no idea how complex this recording was and what went into it". That raised a red flag, why the secrecy? What are they hiding and why? Its just a recording. Also, since the above article, I have accessed samples of four isolated tracks sent to me that are from the multi track master. These tracks, notably track 1, more clearly reveal John's alleged guitar work without the interference of Georges lead guitar from track 2. Track 1 features bass, drums and John's guitar with the companion keyboards, namely , the Hammond RT-3. Here are the intervals that most strikingly reveal the presence of a second instrument, heavily compressed and creating an out of phase, displacement at various points such as: At 0:8 seconds, just as the vocals begin "oh yeah i"ll", the Hammond organ makes its stealthy entrance immediately thickening up John's guitar which in the preceding moments, while John was playing the introduction C7-D7 bar chords (7th tone on 4th string) was significantly less saturated, plainer and not infused with the additional instrument. 0:13-0:14 where you can a hear a strikingly conspicuous attack of low organ keys fused with Johns' guitar on the B7 chord, NOT an artifact, not a bleed through, not another guitar paralleling his and not special effects and Paul playing double stops on his Hofner bass. George's lead guitar is on another track, which is track 1 on my version and he just plays discrete chord chops, a few riffs and arpeggios etc..using a very trebly tone on his Gretsch Country Gentlemen. George overdubbed his guitar again for an additional chromatic line that parallels the bass on track 3 of the isolations. Now during the refrain of the title, where the chord sequence is C to D to G to Em etc., on the isolated track I have (track 1) that is just of the rhythm section, bass, drums, John's guitar and the additional keys, you can hear John clearly hitting plain vanilla chords while the organ is hitting those deep tones at the same time, noticeable at 0:22-23 etc.,very cleverly interlaced by Martin. The other examples of the stealth organ (meaning Martin's attempt to blend the low register organ keys into Lennon's chords so tightly that it would not be overtly obvious) are again during the B7 chords at 1:17, and most conspicuous of all at 1:59-2:00. Again, as stated previously, Martin had all the right motives for employing the organ in such a manner as to thicken Lennon's guitar and yet, not reveal it as overtly as he did during the I Wanna Be Your Man edits where the glissandos give away the organ. The entire purpose of adding the Hammond to Lennon's guitar on IWTHYH was to embellish his guitar track, add power and energy with out tipping off it was an organ and Martin, who was a master at dubbing on instruments to strengthen a guitar, keyboard or even vocals, was ready to do whatever was necessary to break open the American market with IWTHYH and since this was his first chance to utilize EMI's Telefunken four track console, he took full advantage. The fact that even Wikepedia now, for the first time since I have battered the internet with my theory, includes a line within their official I Want to Hold Your Hand article, "Also, the Beatles were experimenting with organ-sounding guitars, which was achieved by extreme compression on John Lennon's rhythm guitar." indicates how this is slowly penetrating the Beatlephile world but again the sound attributed to John's guitar was NOT compression, nor a bleed through, nor an artifact, or Paul's occasional double stops (which are confined to the bridge), nor some anomalous studio ambient effect, in this case its Occam's Razor that comes in to play, our ears don't lie, if they are acute, and the reason Lennon's guitar has that great effect, producing that literal deep wall of sound that makes IWTHYH the powerful recording it is, is simple, the addition of a heavily compressed, cleverly overlaid Hammond RT-3 organ to embellish and lend tremendous power to Lennon's original rhythm track. It wasn't by accident that John could never re-create that sound live no matter how many venues they performed IWTHYH in while he used his original Rickenbacker Capri 325 with the Vox AC-15 twin combo nor with his second Rickenbacker Capri. That said, it is the best and most logical explanation for the sound that drives the recording and since Norman Smith, the original engineer on that recording is dead, Emerick and Martin have formed mental cobwebs after the last 50 years, it really only leaves Sir Paul and Ringo and until somebody asks Sir Paul directly, assuming even he can remember the details of a 50 year old recording, this fact will never be 100% verified or at least not until, an audio scientist uses state of the art, wave analysis and masking technology used by law enforcement and our military and I doubt that is going to be any time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.199.131 (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There was an interview with Peter Asher. Peter Said they were in the basement working on the song one hour. Then Paul yelled to Peter to come down and listen to the song they had written. Paul played the Piano and John the organ. That was the first time anyone had heard the song and that was Peter Asher. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably why you wont get to know more about the recordings is related to how bossy Paul was under the recordings. The little that has come out has Paul 100 % in controll of the recordings. Instructing the others what to do. Even a suggestion from Lennon ” Maybe we can do it slower” gets the response from McCartney ” NO Schh ( be quiet). Then McCartney goes on about how the shall attack the song and screams when they get it wrong. Slow from the beginning next the attack. The the disapointed McCartney come on get it right. Come on lets get it right. One twoo three. But to be fair to McCartney his way of recording it was what made a hit out of the song. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have interviews with people close to the Beatles saying this was almost a 100 % McCartney composition with John adding a Word or two. I have good sources here that I can show. But since there in No upploading function here, I dont know what to do. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

reference for Fieldler, Boston Pops

From "Top Pop Singles 1955-1990" Joel Whitburn, 1991. Confirms release peaked at Number 55, charting for 6 weeks, debuting on the charts on 4 July 1964. I don't know how to do the footnotes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.166.84 (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

removed templates

FYI, someone removed a bunch of templates here : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Want_to_Hold_Your_Hand&diff=next&oldid=108266482 . Someone may want to review and see if it was appropriate. --Spundun 23:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:03 iwantoholdyourhand.jpg

Image:03 iwantoholdyourhand.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 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's Do The Show Right Here?

“So we found this house when we were walking along one day. We [Lennon & McCartney] knew we had to really get this song going, so we got down in the basement of this disused house and there was an old piano”. This quote from The Beatles Utimate Experience website and used in the article seems ridiculous! I can’t find a direct source for it anywhere. It reads like a fairytale. All the evidence points to the song’s composition taking place in Margaret Asher’s music room in Wimpole Street. What do others think? --Patthedog (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Steady… one at a time. Right. McCartney may have said this as a bit of a joke or something - possibly trying to keep his living arrangements during that period a secret? Anyway, I don't think it should be up in lights the way it appears at the moment, especially as the website it is taken from doesn’t make it clear where it was sourced. I think this section should be reworked. Any objections? I’m not going to hold my breath this time either. --Patthedog (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What you have against McCartneys view of the song ? Its from 1964 not 1980 so I think it is really relevant to the song If you want and objektive view. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I send the source ? Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It is from Beatleswiki Regarding I want to hold your hand.

Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

But first used in an Interview Done in 1964 for Melody maker. ( English popular music magazine) Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have lots of other McCartney references regarding this song. If there is a way of upploading here I can send them. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Off Course McCartney did not say exactly where this basement was because he was living there in 1964 and he did not want the Asher family House destroyed. Still a hell of a lot better quote that is from the music paper ” Melody Maker” 1964 issue 1. Than a quote from 1980. McCartneys telling of how the song came about is much much clearer, than Lennons. While McCartney has the big view of how the song was written, Lennon talks about one line. And McCartney talks about the catch line a lot more important than one line that Lennon talks about. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I have interviews with people close to the Beatles saying this was almost a 100 % McCartney song with Lennon adding a Word of two. I have sources for that too. But since there is No upload possibility here I dont know what to do.

Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Rock Band

The original opening paragraph of this article defined The Beatles as a “rock” band. The problem with using single word descriptions is they are bound to be contentious, especially as The Beatles copied so many musical genres - it would be impossible to name them all. Editors on the main Beatles article had this conversation some while ago, and ended up with “Pop / Rock”. I think we should either adopt that description or just avoid any description of their music altogether. Anyway, they certainly weren’t just a rock band.--Patthedog (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just want to add this. The problem here could be the lack of English perspective. The Beatles were English born and bred. McCartney met Lennon at a garden fate at Woolton Parish Church and later joined his skiffle group. All very quintessentially English. When they got their recording contract they then became part of a thriving, albeit dull, British “pop” scene. That was their work environment, and they were happy to be part of it and write their early “pop” songs, even saying “we’re going to be toppermost of the popermost!”. So, If you want simplicity, then that was it. That’s just the way it was then. Rock bands had yet to be invented. They might have been referred to occasionally as a “beat group”, but they were never, ever called a "rock band" and it would be grotesquely wrong to do so now. Awesome! --Patthedog (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree. Oh the American side of the Atlantic they most certainly were called a rock group, or "rock 'n' roll" group at first. They were not called a pop band/group here; that term was reserved for bubblegummy stuff, if it was used by all. And by Sgt. Pepper's or Revolver, calling them a "pop band" would have been silly. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. That’s why I wrote “from an English perspective”. They are an English group and perhaps Americans need to respect that. Rock and Roll I wouldn’t object to. Lennon would have liked it!--Patthedog (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I’m just trying to expand the description to include their earlier pop history, as most of their output was described here as such. So, Pop/ Rock would not be unreasonable?--Patthedog (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think having both pop and rock is fine. Let's just hope we don't have to repeat this conversation later about adding, say, "psychedelic" (a common term when Sgt. Pepper came out), or even "world music" (those sitars!) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That is why I prefer to avoid using any general descriptions of their music in song articles, other than the style of that particular song itself. People have very strong opinions on this. Can you imagine this discussion x 200, or whatever it was!--Patthedog (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I also liked the Parlophone single image. I thought it was quite charming and evocative - especially these days with all yer digital paraphernalia codswallop. You ought to put it back, or I will.--Patthedog (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "macdonald" :
  • {{cite book |first=Ian |last=MacDonald |authorlink=Ian MacDonald |title=Revolution in the Head |year=1998 |pages=87|publisher=Pimlico |location=London |isbn=0-7126-6697-4}}
  • {{cite book |first=Ian |last=MacDonald |authorlink=Ian MacDonald |title=Revolution in the Head |year=1998 |pages=88 |publisher=Pimlico |location=London |isbn=0-7126-6697-4}}
  • {{cite book |first=Ian |last=MacDonald |title=Revolution in the Head |year=1998 |pages=88}}
• "miles" :
  • {{cite book |first=Barry |last=Miles |authorlink=Barry Miles |title=Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now |year=1998 |pages=107 |publisher=Vintage |location=London |isbn=0-7493-8658-4}}
  • {{cite book |first=Barry |last=Miles |authorlink=Barry Miles |title=Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now|year=1998 |pages=108 |publisher=Vintage |location=London |isbn=0-7493-8658-4}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Relying on so called "sources" for accurate info regarding the details of specific Beatles recordings is hypocritical and erroneous. Unless there is a reference to direct eyewitness accounts such as an interview by any of the living or deceased Beatles, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, or Norman Smith, no other so called source has any more validity than any other. They are just OPINIONS. I have tried to add what is a FACT, that there is another instrument integrated with Lennon's Rickenbacker Capri 360 on track 1 of the actual 4 track recording and it is constantly removed by some editor who "thinks" they somehow have all the indisputable, facts of what occurred during that recording or worse, relying on so called source material that is based on BOGUS, poorly researched and misleading text written by various authors who are predominantly offering one thing - there OPINION! Non of these various authors contain a modicum of credibility when it comes to having esoteric information regarding Beatles recordings.

KNow this, Beatles recordings were strictly private affairs, closed to the public or any guests. The occasional photos of the Beatles recording with various friends or celebs like Mick Jagger etc. were staged and were not taken during a real, Beatles recording session. The ONLY human beings allowed to hear or witness a true Beatles recording were Martin, Emerick, Norman Smith or any other EMI Studio engineers, assistants or personnel that were required to be there for equipment maintenance and editing tasks.

Unless an author has directly quoted a statement by any of the Beatles, George Martin, or any of the valid engineers, anything they suggest is pure speculation based on listening to the recordings. My statements regarding the Hammond organ have been diligently researched, and beyond any doubt verified by unimpeachable sources that unfortunately, I am not allowed to mention by name. As I probed further into the mystery of the Hammond, a crusade I have been on for 40 years, an EMI official who's name cannot be mentioned told me off the record that there was indeed an organ but its never allowed to be mentioned or documented. Why? I don't know except to deduce that for some reason, since that was the watershed, song that knocked down the US market like a tsunami, it represented them as the band we saw on Sullivan, two guitars, bass and drums. The song has been indelibly imprinted on the historic stone of Beatlemania and various people do not want to think of the possible inclusion of an organ on a tune like that.

That being said, I do have more than enough circumstantial evidence plus my own research which is by far, more accurate than 95 percent of the exalted books on Beatles recordings. Of the current literature available on Beatles Recordings, there are only 3 which I consider excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdaystrum (talk • contribs) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is considered a credible source on Beatles recordings? The acutal participants or simply an authors opinion?

Stating that the only Beatles recording information that can be accepted, must be based on so called "sources" for accurate info regarding the details of specific Beatles recordings is disingenuous and erroneous. Unless there is a reference to direct eyewitness accounts such as an interview by any of the living or deceased Beatles, George Martin, Geoff Emerick, or Norman Smith, no other so called source has any more validity than any other. They are just OPINIONS. I have tried to add what is a FACT, that there is another instrument integrated with Lennon's Rickenbacker Capri 360 on track 1 of the actual 4 track recording and it is constantly removed by some editor who "thinks" they somehow have all the indisputable, facts of what occurred during that recording or worse, relying on so called source material that is based on BOGUS, poorly researched and misleading text written by various authors who are predominantly offering one thing - their OPINION! Non of these various authors contain a modicum of credibility when it comes to having esoteric information regarding Beatles recordings.

Know this, Beatles recordings were strictly private affairs, closed to the public or any guests. The occasional photos of the Beatles recording with various friends or celebs like Mick Jagger etc. were staged and were not taken during a real, Beatles recording session. The ONLY human beings allowed to hear or witness a true Beatles recording were Martin, Emerick, Norman Smith or any other EMI Studio engineers, assistants or personnel that were required to be there for equipment maintenance and editing tasks. During their last couple years, of course, the exceptions were Yoko and eventually Paul's future wife Linda Eastman otherwise, outsiders were prohibited from attended any Beatles recording session.

Unless an author has directly quoted a statement by any of the Beatles, George Martin, or any of the valid engineers, anything they suggest is pure speculation based on listening to the recordings. My statements regarding the Hammond organ have been diligently researched, and beyond any doubt verified by unimpeachable sources that unfortunately, I am not allowed to mention by name. As I probed further into the mystery of the Hammond, a crusade I have been on for 40 years, an EMI official who's name cannot be mentioned told me off the record that there was indeed an organ but its never allowed to be mentioned or documented. Why? I don't know except to deduce that for some reason, since that was the watershed, song that knocked down the US market like a tsunami, it represented them as the band we saw on Sullivan, two guitars, bass and drums. The song has been indelibly imprinted on the historic stone of Beatlemania and various people do not want to think of the possible inclusion of an organ on a tune like that.

That being said, I do have more than enough circumstantial evidence plus my own research which is by far, more accurate than 95 percent of the exalted books on Beatles recordings. Of the current literature available on Beatles Recordings, there are only 3 which I consider excellent.

I know nothing about the topic and haven't been involved in the editing, but a long paragraph full of statements like "...it is likely that ..." and based on what you hear and "circumstantial evidence" - that doesn't belong in wikipedia, period. That would be madness: every culture article would be filled with assumptions made by fanboys about what they are sure actually happened in songs and movies and TV shows, based on what they said they were told by "unnamed" people in the know. Nothing personal against your research, which may well be true, but it's not for wikipedia.

Is wikipedia supposed to be infactual then? 79.66.20.144 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Create a new Web sit of your own and put the information there, seeking input from others. Create a discussion that way - but not here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I really need to call "foul" here. I've always read this Talk subject with amusement, as the poster steadfastly clings to his(?) belief that there is a Hammond organ on the track, his only point of evidence being that "he just knows and we'll all be sorry when it comes out." Now I see a weasely addition to the article (not sure when it got there) that the Beatles were deliberately giving the guitars an "organ sound." This sure smacks of "getting that info in without really putting it in." I see it's referenced, but is the reference itself just speculation (by perhaps the same person? I note none of his posts are signed) or factual? The implication is that the Beatles and/or George Martin PURPOSELY and KNOWINGLY tried to make the guitar sound like an organ. Note that this is very different from noting that the guitar sounds like an organ (i.e., the listener's POV opinion). A Google search reveals little other than the same poster trying out the same argument on the Rickenbacker website (where he says "I am new to this site after being bludgeoned on another site [gee, wonder which one] that didn't have an open mind to new and out of the box suggestions), meeting with a slew of responses that likewise question the idea and assert there is no organ (and to make it clear, no authoritative Beatles reference book mentions one). So the only reference to the IWTHYH/Organ theory is this own poster's POV assertions, and a book that comes short of claiming any such thing and is likely drawing a conclusion based on nothing more than their opinion and unsupported by any evidence. For all I know the poster and the author are one in the same, but who knows. At any rate, can anyone speak to the validity of the reference and the context from which it was taken? Was it based on factual research, or is it just someone's opinion (which, if it is, shouldn't be included in an encyclopedic article). It just really seems like a desperate attempt to squeeze that theory in somewhere. If no one can support this or flesh it out I'll take it back out.70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Tim

Aha! I did find the book and sure enough it does say that Martin (with Lennon's approval) did work with his guitar sound, ending up with an organ-like sound, which they are quoted as acknowledging (though technically the book clearly states these comments were made during the recording of "Don't Bother Me", though the same effect was employed for IWTHYH). It's curious to note though that the book dismisses the notion of an actual organ on the track (going so far as to make references to "listeners who swear they hear an organ." Still seems like a strange thing to point out in the article in lieu of any other technical details (the majority of this section has to do with the recording of the German version and not the original!), but it seems like the case is closed on this subject. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Tim

I am the one who has been proposing the use of a Hammond RT-3 organ, superimposed (to mmic a guitar) onto John’s guitar track for over 30 years and only now, is it starting to penetrate with the availability of discrete isolated tracks leaking from the multi track master. in 2009, via Mr. Sharp, an engineer/consultant who worked with George and Giles Martin on the remastering project, kindly passed on an email directly to George Martin regarding my assertion of a Hammond RT-3 organ superimposed on Lennon's Rickenbacker for the backing tracks, of course, further mixing down the basic rhythm track of the drums, bass, John's guitar and Hammond to imbed the organ (George's guitars are on a separate track on the multitrack master). Martin responded as follows [""....I don't think there were keyboards on that song but than again it was so long ago i can't be sure...I CAN'T say that there ISN'T a keyboard on that tune"] meaning he simply can't remember any longer although he did remember when asked by a Washing D.C. radio personality during a MID 90s book tour and responded in the affirmative. Additionally my research led me to contact an employee within EMI who does not want his name revealed, he emailed me this following, very revealing message also back in 2009. "there are things about the recording of I Want to Hold Your Hand I am not at liberty to discuss, however, I can tell you this, beyond the documented 17 takes, people have no idea how complex this recording was and what went into it". That raised a red flag, why the secrecy? What are they hiding and why? Its just a recording. Also, since the above article, I have accessed samples of four isolated tracks sent to me that are from the multi track master. These tracks, notably track 1, more clearly reveal John's alleged guitar work without the interference of Georges lead guitar from track 2. Track 1 features bass, drums and John's guitar with the companion keyboards, namely , the Hammond RT-3. Here are the intervals that most strikingly reveal the presence of a second instrument, heavily compressed and creating an out of phase, displacement at various points such as: At 0:8 seconds, just as the vocals begin "oh yeah i"ll", the Hammond organ makes its stealthy entrance immediately thickening up John's guitar which in the preceding moments, while John was playing the introduction C7-D7 bar chords (7th tone on 4th string) was significantly less saturated, plainer and not infused with the additional instrument. 0:13-0:14 where you can a hear a strikingly conspicuous attack of low organ keys fused with Johns' guitar on the B7 chord, NOT an artifact, not a bleed through, not another guitar paralleling his and not special effects and Paul playing double stops on his Hofner bass. George's lead guitar is on another track, which is track three on my version and he just plays discrete chord chops, a few riffs and arpeggios etc..using a very trebly tone on his Gretsch Country Gentlemen. George overdubbed his guitar again for an additional chromatic line that parallels the bass on track 3 of the isolations. Now during the refrain of the title, where the chord sequence is C to D to G to Em etc., on the isolated track I have (track 1) that is just of the rhythm section, bass, drums, John's guitar and the additional keys, you can hear John clearly hitting plain vanilla chords while the organ is hitting those deep tones at the same time, noticeable at 0:22-23 etc.,very cleverly interlaced by Martin. The other examples of the stealth organ (meaning Martin's attempt to blend the low register organ keys into Lennon's chords so tightly that it would not be overtly obvious) are again during the B7 chords at 1:17, and most conspicuous of all at 1:59-2:00. Again, as stated previously, Martin had all the right motives for employing the organ in such a manner as to thicken Lennon's guitar and yet, not reveal it as overtly as he did during the I Wanna Be Your Man edits where the glissandos give away the organ. The entire purpose of adding the Hammond to Lennon's guitar on IWTHYH was to embellish his guitar track, add power and energy with out tipping off it was an organ and Martin, who was a master at dubbing on instruments to strengthen a guitar, keyboard or even vocals, was ready to do whatever was necessary to break open the American market with IWTHYH and since this was his first chance to utilize EMI's Telefunken four track console, he took full advantage. The fact that even Wikepedia now, for the first time since I have battered the internet with my theory, includes a line within their official I Want to Hold Your Hand article, "Also, the Beatles were experimenting with organ-sounding guitars, which was achieved by extreme compression on John Lennon's rhythm guitar." indicates how this is slowly penetrating the Beatlephile world but again the sound attributed to John's guitar was NOT compression, nor a bleed through, nor an artifact, or Paul's occasional double stops (which are confined to the bridge), nor some anomalous studio ambient effect, in this case its Occam's Razor that comes in to play, our ears don't lie, if they are acute, and the reason Lennon's guitar has that great effect, producing that literal deep wall of sound that makes IWTHYH the powerful recording it is, is simple, the addition of a heavily compressed, cleverly overlaid Hammond RT-3 organ to embellish and lend tremendous power to Lennon's original rhythm track. It wasn't by accident that John could never re-create that sound live no matter how many venues they performed IWTHYH in while he used his original Rickenbacker Capri 325 with the Vox AC-15 twin combo nor with his second Rickenbacker Capri. That said, it is the best and most logical explanation for the sound that drives the recording and since Norman Smith, the original engineer on that recording is dead, Emerick and Martin have formed mental cobwebs after the last 50 years, it really only leaves Sir Paul and Ringo and until somebody asks Sir Paul directly, assuming even he can remember the details of a 50 year old recording, this fact will never be 100% verified or at least not until, an audio scientist uses state of the art, wave analysis and masking technology used by law enforcement and our military and I doubt that is going to be any time soon.

I want to ad, regarding the stealth Hammond RT-3 organ on I Wanna Hold Your Hand, where nay sayers point to the existing, very brief outtakes of the recording, you will note that if you listen closely to John's Guitar in its "pre-superimosed state" play around with the intro bar chords C7 to D7 (where he primarily hits the bottom two strings, the root and fifth with a few upper register notes included) its significantly less saturated, almost anemic and far closer to how his guitar sounds when doing Chuck Berry style chords, root, fifth and hammer on 6th tone, during Roll Over Beethoven, or his very well played backing guitar track on George's Don't Bother Me, all done in that same period between With the Beatles and eventually the October 17 recordings of I Want to Hold Your Hand, This Boy and according to self proclaimed Beatles guru Mark Lewisohn, an aborted attempt to re-record You Really Got a Hold on Me plus a few Christmas messages.  As stated, the IWTHYH sessions were only a few days (or weeks) after Martin superimposed a much clumsier, less stealthy or compressed Hammond onto the rhythm track of I Wanna Be Your Man so obviously, the germ was in his head to employ the same effect but with far more stealth & heavier bottom end, compression and power in order to mask that is an organ plus, this time, he had his first use of EMI's Telefunken Four track machine. While analyzing the isolated tracks, besides the previously mentioned verses, you can also clearly hear the ORGAN (using extremely heavy compression for the very purpose of blending in with John's guitar) holding the the low intervals of the middle eight chords as well where on the isolated track I have, you can clearly hear John softly strumming simple open chords of Dm to G to C to Am etc.. During the two bridge segments, on track 1, there are clearly two instruments handling the cords and George's guitar is on track 2 (actually is track 2 not track 3 where George had an additional overdub paralleling Paul's chromatic line). Again, there are those who either refuse to acknowledge this due to some bizarre form of denial (but then they'll believe Glenn Beck:-), and there are those that simply don't have the ear to process it. This will eventually punch through and finally, all the notes on IWTHYH will have to be edited to show the following, finally correct line up as follows: I Want to Hold Your Hand (recorded October 17 at Abbey Road studios, takes 1-17 using Telefunken four track console) George Harrison - Lead guitars, Gretsch Country Gentleman, main guitar track 2, chromatic line dub, track 3 John Lennon - backing guitar, Rickenbacker Capri 325* (see note) on track 1; lead vocals track 4, additional vocals on "hand" track 3, additional single vocal for low harmony line during bridge track 3 Paul McCartney - Hofner Bass - main bass on track 1, additional dubbed bass chromatic line track 3; lead vocals track 4, additional vocals for "hand" track 3 Ringo Starr - drums, track 1

• George Martin - Hammond RT-3 organ, track 2, later reduced down with original track 1 to create new track 1, superimposed onto John's guitar & embedded

Hand Claps - various Beatles. track 3 (if this is deleted again, I will file a formal complaint to the FCC and ACLU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.199.131 (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided to refute the organ claim. You have provided ZERO to back it up. Case closed. And sign your posts. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Tim

List of cover versions

We have 15 cover versions listed now, which is too many -it's turning into a trivia junkfest. They should be removed IMHO and replaced with a sentence talking about many version having been made with a couple mentioned (e.g., the Pops). Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the current list is too long, but it's close. If we remove entries, we need criteria to decide which covers qualify and which don't. If the resulting list is too long to include in the article, then we should discuss whether to create a "list" article linked from here, a category, or use another approach. So, the starting point for me is, what criteria should we use for mentioning a cover version? I don't think WP:WikiProject Music (or a subproject) defines that criteria precisely, so it may have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The criteria I typically use is:

• Notable artist
• Must be released (i.e., no live covers that weren't recorded and officially released, no bootleg releases of live covers)

When a song has been covered many times, I typically only include songs that were more notable, i.e., released as a single, released by a very popular artist, etc.

What criteria should be use for IWTHYH? Once we decide the criteria, that will determine how many songs should be included, and we can decide whether to have a list, prose, a sub-article, a category, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's a "notable artist" is the problem. All of the covers on the list are on albums, except for the intriguing one about the Bollywood copy (which is so interesting it should stay, I think), so that won't help.

What's the point of listing covers, anyway, unless there's aparticularly famous one? How does it help the readers? I can't really think of a good reason for a list, once we have established that the song has been recorded many times by many artists.

How about this - only list covers that have supporting external links, such as alink to the record for sale or a historical listing of a sales chart, so other editors can check that the record actually exists. No link, no listing. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A notable artist is any artist that qualifies for a WP article, so it does help: it means me can immediately remove any cover by an artist without a WP article.

The point of listing covers is that the article is about the song, and the song may have more than one notable version. A reader who is hears an artist perform a cover may want to know the history. Also, the fact that there are many covers indicates a song's popularity, what genres it has been formed in, etc.

By "external links", I assume you mean verifiable sources, and requiring a source won't restrict the list more than the notable artists restriction: it's easy to find sources for most songs released by a legitimate label.

Regarding the "bollywood" entry, I don't agree that it's interesting and that's why we need criteria that we can apply to all entries. Otherwise, we'll have edit wars where one editor thinks a cover is interesting but another editor doesn't. There will be differences of opinion of the criteria, and whether a specific cover meets the criteria, but without criteria the problem is unsolvable. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There will be a lot of people out there who actually aren’t that interested in The Beatles but are familiar with some of their songs through cover versions, ie Cocker’s “With A Little HFMF”. So cover versions are relevant. Editors will have differing opinions regarding “notable”, so I think the suggestion that notable must equate to a WP article is one way through that. There could be a problem there though, as I’m not sure whether Frank Sinatra has one? --Patthedog (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think the list of covers is pointless, but I appear to be in the minority. However, I hope you don't take this point of view - list every cover by a person with a WP article - to Yesterday (song) or that article will overwhelm the entire Internet! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is the only place where you could find that sort of information, then that’s not a such a bad thing. It might have to link to a separate page in some cases or something if the info is too bulky.--Patthedog (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Yesterday (song) article shows how to handle cover versions for songs that have been covered a lot, if I may quote it:

"Yesterday" has been recognised as the most recorded song in the history of popular music; its entry in the Guinness Book of Records suggests over 1600 different cover versions to date,[25] by an eclectic mix of artists including The Mamas and the Papas and Barry McGuire, The Seekers, Joan Baez, Donny Hathaway, Michael Bolton, Bob Dylan, Liberace, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Ray Charles, Marvin Gaye, Daffy Duck, Jan & Dean, Wet Wet Wet, Plácido Domingo, The Head Shop, Billy Dean, En Vogue, Muslim Magomayev and Boyz II Men. In 1976, David Essex did a cover version of the song for the ephemeral musical documentary All This and World War II. After Muzak switched in the 1990s to programs based on commercial recordings, Muzak's inventory grew to include about 500 "Yesterday" covers.[26] At the 2006 Grammy Awards, McCartney performed the song live as a mash-up with Linkin Park and Jay-Z's Numb/Encore. It is Vladimir Putin's favourite Beatles song.[27]

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The song was not made for the US market

George Martin, the record producer, who also dealt with the business side, states on Anthology that the song was not made for the US market. Do a Y O U tube and the most hit version of the song has Martin's bit on the front. It is most clear.

Do revert the edit to state it was made for the US market when clear evidence states otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.20.144 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I may have watched a different interview than you, but what I heard George Martin saying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim6s8Ea_bE&playnext=1&list=PL8DCDE145AE3B1B0F&feature=results_video is that the song wasn't "designed specifically for the American market". What "not designed for" means is that Lennon and McCartney didn't change one word, note, or chord of the song that they would have written otherwise, regardless of target market, to make it sell more in America. He's NOT saying they didn't write the song with the specific intent to break into American markets the way they'd dominated the UK's. If Martin says "was NOT designed for" and another source says "WAS made for", Martin's words don't impeach the other source's words. There's no contradiction. 69.86.131.76 (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

something for aftermath

it's roger mcquinn's favorite beatles' song

http://www.rocktimes.de/gesamt/m/roger_mcguinn/interview09.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.162 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's Roger McQuinn? Hyacinth (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the real name of Roger McTheEskimo. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Roger McGuinn. Hyacinth (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cover Version

I know there's a problem about which cover versions can be put on the article, but there is a cover version by the swedish punk rock band "I Against I" that we should include. This artist is clearly not notable, but seeing as there are no punk versions posted, it seems to me that it is suitable. What do you guys think? You can see it at this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZdEkRnb9o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.9.145 (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Best selling Beatles single?

I don't doubt that it is, and the source says so, but the article linked to lists three Beatles songs, none of which are this one... - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 15:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

US vs UK

Isn't it a bit strange to at first tell its US success, then just telling "Oh yes, it was a UK #1 as well"? For instance: it took "She loves from you" from the topo slot, and was replaced by that same song. Beatlemania was a UK inventiion! 83.87.140.201 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that it ought to be told from a British perspective. Perhaps something like:

With advance orders exceeding one million copies in the UK "I Want to Hold Your Hand" went straight to the top of the British record charts on its day of release, staying there for (however long it was). It was also the group’s first American number-one, entering the Billboard Hot 100 chart on 18 January 1964 at number 45 and starting the British Invasion of the American music industry. By 1 February it held the number one spot — for seven weeks — and remained in the charts for a total of 15 weeks.--Patthedog (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good, Pat. Radiopathy •talk• 00:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Radiopathy. But even with advance orders of over a million, IWTHYH still couldn’t knock SLY off the top spot immediately I've since realised, only because they were competing with themselves (so, not straight in at number one, which is a shame. Nov 29 release / Dec 5 number one - those dates differ from the article though I see - but isn‘t referenced there - my info is taken from the Guinness book of hit singles) so that needs a bit more work. Wow, the Beatles singles record sales were crazy back then! Five weeks at number one and 21 weeks in the chart for IWTHYH; however, that’s top 50 as opposed to 100 in the states. If others want to have a crack? --Patthedog (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alvin and the Chipmunks

As further evidence that wikipedia disagreements always deal with important matters, there is a disagreement whether the recording by the cartoon group Alvin and the Chipmuunks should be included in the list of cover versions of this song.

I say yes despite the weirdness of the recording group, and that its existence is a demonstration of the spread of the song through popular culture - more so than a cover version by a traditional band, in fact. Another editor disagrees, and describes its inclusion as "vandalism". It's a 1-to-1 tie; what say others? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I say no. The IP who added Alvin to this and many other music article was rightly reverted and blocked: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Please stop. Radiopathy •talk• 02:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that I'm probably going to regret getting involved in this, but I too say no. Patthedog (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Could either of you (or anybody else who feels the same) explain why you're opposed? I'm afraid it's based on some variation of "they're too stupid an act to acknowledge," which would be a poor reason - but perhaps I'm missing something. The actions of other IPs in other articles isn't relevant.

In terms of information that is provided to readers, how is listing the Chipmunks' cover version different than, say, listing the Boston Pops' version, which was a higher-toned novelty act?

After all, why do we list cover versions at all? Not for trivia, but to give readers a sense of a song's impact in popular culture. Including the Chipmunks cover in the list does help give readers a sense as to the immediate and widespread impact of the song and how it quickly spread beyond obvious covers, meaning similar versions by similar musical groups. That is why, incidentally, the Boston Pops version is also valuable to note.

I'd be interested to hear (well - read) some discussion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have to ask then, with respect, you are missing the fundamental point of an encyclopaedia, which, if it wants to be taken seriously, needs to be scrupulous regarding what it considers relevant and notable information. Just my opinion. Btw, I dislike lists of covers anyway, because they always lead to this. Patthedog (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If I have to ask, with respect, then it shows that I understand *exactly* what wikipedia is. The fundamental point isn't to be "serious" - it's to be informative. That why I was scrupulous regarding what is relevant and notable in this article, giving my opinion and asked for others' opinions. Your argument sounds awfully like [don't like it] - can you give some legitimate reason? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I’ve already implied that I don’t consider Alvin and the Chipmunks to be a notable addition, which is my reason for saying no to their inclusion on the list. But who then decides who should go on the list? Me or you? Patthedog (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's wikipedia - nobody decides and everybody decides! In something like this, where nobody's too worked up about it, usually it's decided by the last person to get bored and walk away. (I do think that your "serious" argument is flawed, however; a throwback to wikipedia's early years of Britannica-envy.)

Your point about list of cover songs being inherently suspect is a good one. And I going to tweak the entry to support a bit of its notability. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Read this carefully: I have reverted you again; if you persist on edit warring over something that is an already settled issue, you will most likely be blocked. Radiopathy •talk• 17:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

What I think is more important than this particular disagreement (and I don't agree with the above threat of blocking) is the value of lists like “Covers and use in popular culture” and its sister from hell: “Parodies and sampling” as both headings appear to offer far more than they deliver. There ought to be some kind of criteria that their content needs to meet if we are going to have them.Patthedog (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

When multiple editors and admins agree that the content doesn't belong, it's rather peculiar to have one user persist in reintroducing that content. I also don't like such lists, but the fact is, a lot of people used their time and energy on that IPs disruptiveness. Also, it's good to see you around here again, Pat. Radiopathy •talk• 18:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Back to my virtual armchair now though! Patthedog (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

"Multiple editors"? It was just Radiopathy removing this small item without explaining why, until I asked for discussion - now there are two editors. And yes, you should dampen down the blocking threats and huffing about "vandalism" and "edit wars" after two edits (!!) or it will be hard to take you seriously. (Incidentally, I'm also an admin, with 12 years on wikipedia, if that matters to you) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Click on the links to the difs I posted, Mister Admin; it was multiple editors and admins. Radiopathy •talk• 19:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand - I ran into leftover bile from a past edit war. No wonder you were so quick to fly off the handle; I was bewildered. Those links, incidentally, give blocking messages; they don't explain what led to them, without more clicking than seemed worthwhile.

May I suggest that next time when you run across an editor who hasn't been involved in previous discussions, rather than assuming they'll know what the heck you're going on about, you try explaining it briefly - something like "the topic of adding Alvin and the Chipmunk songs to music articles has been much discussed and the consensus is that they don't belong unless there is some particularly compelling reason" would have saved us all quite a bit of time. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears that WP:COVERSONG would apply here. GoingBatty (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Except that it requires a judgement about notability, which was the whole disagreement, so I don't see that it helps much. I think the addition provided a useful, if tiny, context but the other two folks didn't, and it wasn't worth becoming part of Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars to take it any further, or possibly farther. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead singer

It's funny how there's considered to be no real lead singer. For years I accepted the credit of John and Paul sharing lead vocals on this track. However up on a closer examination, I can definitely hear John's voice more, and he seems to say more of the verses (while certainly not less) than Paul does (if Paul says any of the verses by himself). -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 17:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah? right. Apparently I've just checked and it says that Lennon's vocals are more prominent on the recording. I'd have to agree on that. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on I Want to Hold Your Hand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121102141516/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim6s8Ea_bE to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim6s8Ea_bE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 08:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

i have interviews with People close to the Beatles saying this was almost a 100 % McCartney song. I have good sources too. But since there is No upploading function here I dont know what to do. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be changed to a B?

I feel like this article covers enough information and is formal enough to be taken out of the C class.

| b1  = <yes/no>
| b2  = <yes/no>
| b3  = <yes/no>
| b4  = <yes/no>
| b5  = <yes/no>
| b6  = <yes/no>

Much of the information is incorrect in the article. For instance the interview with John Lennon of September 1980 in Playboy has No mention at all of ” I want to hold your hand” a great interview in Melody Maker No 1 1964 Where Paul explained How he wrote the song as a lovesong to Jane Asher is not mentioned. In that interview he explained step by step How he wrote the song. Lennons part was very small. The ” I cant hide” repetition is completely wrong. That was McCartneys idea. So I would absolutely not recomend this article as truth worthless. Peter7777ab (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

How uppload sources ?

I have a few McCartney interview on this song that I would like to add sources to. How do I do that ? Its a but strange having quotes from 1980 and 1994 when there are older ones. I have about 3 or 4 from Paul McCartney. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I actually have a few quotes with people close to the Beatles and with sources, saying this was almost an 100 % McCartney song where Lennon added a Word or two. But as I dont know how to uppload it here, there is No attachment function, I cant uppload it. Peter Larsson 77 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Larsson 77: I'm not sure what you mean by "upload sources". See WP:CITE for information about citing sources. But before you do anything carefully read WP:RS for details about what is considered a reliable source. Just because you have access to something that says something about the song doesn't mean it's reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Sundayclose (talk) 18:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Lennon September 1980 interview incorrect

Lennon never mentioned this song in his 1980 september interview with Playboy. I have this Number. So your reference is incorrect. If you dont believe Me order the Magazine from that month. Peter7777ab (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

McCartney Interview from 1964 regarding I want to hold your hand

There is a much better complete interview to really understand How this song came to life, in it Paul describes step by step instructions to the song ( implying he is the main writer). That interview is in Melody makers No 1 issue of 1964. This issue I have. So you can see it if you want the truth behind the song. Peter7777ab (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Song writing lyrics and Inspiration

The only song writing lyrics that exists of this song are Paul McCartneys handwritten lyrics of the song. Indicating he was the main force Behind the song. Also it was Pauls attempt for a romance song to Jane Asher which he had started writing earlier. Later When the song was almost finished Lennon came by to complete it. https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/i-want-to-hold-your-hand/3918/ Peter7777ab (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Song title and melody

The song title is a variation of Paul McCartneys ” I wanna be your man” and the Melody lends heavily from Paul McCartneys ” hold Me tight” See Revolution in your head for reference. Peter7777ab (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeat of I cant hide McCartneys idea

This information is completely false. In a McCartney interview in 1985 he says that he came up with repeating ” I cant hide ” 3 times. A very sad fact that this has been taken from a rumour regarding a person saying he thought Lennon had thought of a repeating song. That person never said that. It was Made up by someone and has No truth to it. The is No source to it just a rumour and you print it. It is a complete lie. McCartney came up with the ” I cant hide” 3 times repetedly. See Rolling Stone Magazine of 1985. October Issue. Peter7777ab (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Why remove Paul McCartneys explanation to How he wrote the song ?

In the book Paul McCartney the lyrics Paul goes into great detail about How he wrote the song. There are sources everywhere Why deleate the text ? The book exists every Word that I wrote there is in the book. This is a fact. And that Paul goes into detail on How he wrote the song should be of everyones interest. Instead you quote an article that does not exist on How John helped Paul write the song. That No of Playboy Magazine has not got a Word commenting the song. I happen to own that particular Playboy issue. The song is absolutely not mentioned in that issue. 213.89.230.27 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed your addition because it was poorly written. Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Paul wrote I want to hold your hand Alone

Abbey Road studios and Paul McCartney opened up about ” I want to hold your had” a few years ago. ” I want to hold your hand was Paul McCartneys love song to Jane Asher. He had about 95 % of the song completed when John came there. The song was written on piano, an instrument Paul had god knowledge about but John could not play piano at all at that time, so the only thing John did was to give some suggestions. Paul got the song title from his own song ” I wanna be tour man”. And in Pauls song writing lyrics to ” I want to hold your hand” he calls it ” I wanna hold your hand”. The British publishing company did not like that and changed it to ” I want to hold your hand”. The Melody Paul took from his own song ” Hold me tight”. He showed it to the band and George Martin the Next day. The day after they recorded it. During the recording you can here Paul tell everyone What to do, sonething he only did with his own songs. He gets really angry at times. After saying very clearly to the others, drums come in in an attack followed by the guitars among many Other things he tells the others. When they dont do it right Paul gets very annoyed and screams ” come on guys get it right”. But as Paul Said himself ” I wanted to get my song correct”. He only got angry with songs he had written himself. This Paul McCartney composition broke the Beatles in US and started the British invasion. In the book ” The Lyrics” Paul says he was only 21 years old when he wrote ” I want to hold your hand”. He continues ” There was a lot of erotism as a driving force at those years whild writing his songs. I wanna hold your hand, open brackets ( and a lot more) 217.213.122.219 (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And please get someone to help you with your English if you continue editing the English Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)