Talk:Hey Jude/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inspiration & Composition Ambiguity

"Still others, including Lennon, have speculated that McCartney's failing long-term relationship with Jane Asher when he wrote "Hey Jude" was an unconscious "message to himself".[7] In fact, when Lennon mentioned that he thought the song was about him, McCartney denied it, and told Lennon he had written the song about himself.[8]"

At this point in the section there are two male Lennons who have been introduced. I assume that in this context "Lennon" refers to John Lennon, but I'm too lazy to check the references myself, so I'm not going to make the change myself. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.170.168 (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

hey whats up? -Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.126.4 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Writer

I added a "Citation needed" to the first sentence that states Paul McCartney wrote the song. I'm aware that either Lennon or McCartney did write the song, but since we don't know which one (unless someone will find the citation) I'm just adding that. IMHO, it's always better to have more source citations than less. It's unfair to Lennon otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darmokandgalad (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced later in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Some ideas

Great article. I've got a few comments and ideas for consideration and possible addition.

1. Regarding the Harrison guitar issue, where McCartney quashed his riffs, it seems the incident caused some long-term resentment, because in the Let It Be film where the two of them are arguing, Paul refers to it with a comment something like, "It's like the question of whether we should have guitar in Hey Jude - I honestly don't think we should". This, and the fact that "Revolution" was ousted as an A-side suggests the release was significant in the start of the group falling out musically.

2. The mention of the single being their first not to have a picture sleeve only applies to the US. This should be made clear as most prior UK singles (not all) came in Parlophone paper bags.

3. I think (someone might check) there are two distinct versions of the "Hey Jude" video, as they wear different clothes. If so, this is more than just several takes - it's a new wardrobe too! (On the other hand, it might be that the costume change was specifically for the filming of "Revolution".)

4. I have definitely read somewhere that the "Fucking hell" comment was from someone else, other than Lennon. It was an Apple artist, but I don't recall who - might have been Jackie Lomax. Can anyone confirm the truth?

5. I have also read that EMI had to develop some technological fix to be able to get so much play-time onto a 7-inch 45. See Walter Everett, "The Beatles As Musicians", p195.

6. Lastly, Everett again refers to John Ireland's much earlier composition "Te Deum" which shows remarkable similarity in its melody. It would be conjecture to suggest McCartney used it as a model, although it would bear comparison to his compositional method for "Golden Slumbers", but might be worth drawing attention to anyway. 217.43.81.99 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilson Pickett version

Is there some reason this article contains no mention of Wilson Pickett's 1969 version of "Hey Jude"? It was a top 25 hit in the US, it has received a lot of critical acclaim, and it established Duane Allman as a leading session guitarist. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good to know about Allman but this article is about the song itself. Lots of people cover a lot of songs. There's not always room or reason to include mention of each and every last one.

Use of the term "Refrain"

The last 4 minutes of the song are referred to inconsistently in this article as "coda," "outro," and "refrain." Both for the sake of consistency and to avoid confusion, I recommend against using the term "refrain" to refer to this section (at least initially). "Refrain" is often used synonymously with "chorus" (they are not the same, but I am not arguing definitions here, just clarity). As this article does not describe the song as having a chorus, if we use the word "refrain," we should specify what we mean.

The problem sentence is near the top of the "Musical Structure" section: "The main chord progression is "flipped on its head" for the refrain, as the C chord is replaced by E-flat." This sentence is composed awkwardly, and since I don't own the Hertsgaard book, I can't check the reference to see how it fit into context. I think, though, this sentence is referring to the outro/coda, and as such is misplaced in the section. It should come in the second paragraph.

My recommendation is to move the first sentence of the next paragraph (or something similar to it) to the top of the Musical Structure section, to give a broader overview of the song before diving into a deeper analysis of the bridge. It also makes clear that, in this particular case, the "refrain" is the outro.

24.5.162.57 (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed the outro/coda that's being referred to where "the C chord is replaced by E-flat". The chord of E-flat doesn't occur anywhere prior to the outro, where it then does appear after every F chord, i.e., on the first "Na-na-na na" of every repeat. (As if I needed to tell anyone that...).
I agree that "refrain" has the problem of ambiguity you've identified. We should consistently use either "coda" or "outro" throughout. (On a side note, the word "refrain" of course also appears—demonstrating, incidentally, yet another meaning of the word—in the lyric: "And any time you feel the pain, Hey Jude, refrain"; IMO this argues slightly for avoiding casually using the word in the article even if it were just as unambiguous a term as "coda" and "outro", to avoid an unnecessary distraction. But that's by the by.)
To choose the better word, I checked the article's existing use of "coda" and "outro", and the clear winner is "coda", because:
  • The Lead section sets the tone by saying, "After the fourth verse, the song shifts to a fade-out coda that lasts for more than four minutes."
  • One of the quotes refers to it as "coda", so we wouldn't be able to change the word there.
  • No quote uses "outro" to refer to the coda.
  • No quote uses "refrain" to refer to the coda.
I have therefore made it consistent, with "coda" now appearing throughout the article. PL290 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Playback or not?

After having watched the video many times, I'm still convinced they were not playing totally live, as there are no mics on Ringo's kit, and McCartney's vocal is sometimes double-tracked and then not. Ringo is seen playing a ride cymbal on the second verse when it's obviously a hi-hat, and there is an acoutic guitar in the background.

I just want to know how they did it? No headphones, no click track. Was it on a 4-3-2-1 monitor TV?--andreasegde (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the letter that I received from Sinden (which I suppose cannot be used as it would fall under Original Research), he states that the Beatles were singing live, with the foldback speakers on very loud - many, MANY times (they filmed 12 takes of a 9-minute version). During one tea-break, John Lennon was asked by one of the chorus if there was something new coming out: "We were all pretty bored of Hey Jude by then! He started to play a song, solo on his acoustic guitar, which we later realised was 'Back in the USSR'. Cliff Richard also appeared and filmed a link saying: 'Welcome back to Part 3 and as I promised, here, live in the studio with their latest single, the Beatles'". Crowley666 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff, Crowley666 - the truth behind the 'Live' fiction. Did Frost have to do his introduction that many times?--andreasegde (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right. According to Mark Lewisohn, the Musicians' Union had a ban on artists miming for cameras. What the Beatles did for "Hey Jude" was mime to a pre-recorded backing track, but with the vocals sung live, thus giving the illusion that the whole thing was live. (I think "All You Need Is Love" was done the same way). In the case of "Hey Jude", McCartney already had a vocal recorded, and he just sang along to it in front of the cameras, hence the "double tracking" apparent. 217.43.81.99 (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No 'All You Need' was not the same way. Read your Lewisohn again. It was all prerecorded. They decided they couldn't take a chance. The union rules didn't apply - either that or they damned well weren't going to take a chance. You presumably saw the tape recorder in the foreground towards the end? The whole thing was prerecorded. There's no way you can get that sound in a live context with no bleed from the others. Any other session musicians here? Didn't think so.
You can hear during the coda in the video the original coda from the recording being played behind the performance. ("I know you can make it, Jude/You just not gonna break it." and all that.) I don't know whether that supports the idea of them playing over just the vocal, or over the full recording. Either way, though, there is very much that is live, including everyone's vocals. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Weight" by The Band

It may be interesting to note that during the promo video, Paul sings a line from The Band's "The Weight", which had come out in June of 1968 (three months before the promo was shot). At the 5:24 mark in this video, he sings, "Take a load off, Fannie", and then, at the 5:30 mark, he sings "Take the load off, Fannie, and put the load back on, baby". —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Re: editing comments about lead. The version WesleyDodds keeps restoring has passive voice ("was written"), starts with when the song was recorded (not particularly important compared to when it was released), describes the structure of the song in inappropriate detail for the lead, and for the information shared with the newer version, takes more words to say less. I've reverted it. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's some awkwardness in both versions (see also #Lennon/McCartney credit above) - I've made a suggested edit in the hope of meeting all needs. PL290 (talk)
For most songs I'd agree that such song structure detail would be inappropriate to dwell on in the Lead. In this case though, the song's great length (to which that structure is relevant) is an unusual feature and I'd say notable in the Lead. PL290 (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the second rewrite is worse. It's has a run-on sentence, retains the passive, weak phrase that it "was written to comfort", and also has the drawn-out structure description. Regarding the structure, the only notable thing is the build-up and the extended coda. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Passive voice is not always preferrable, but since it's the lead, you'll often have to refer to the subject in the passive, since you need to clearly indicate that it is the subject of the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The other thing I'd say in support of passive voice here is that "Originally titled 'Hey Jules'" is an elegant sentence-starter to avoid a plodding narrative, and it leads naturally to the song (rather than McCartney) because it (rather than McCartney!) was originally titled thus; hence I think the use of passive voice is appropriate. We already know who wrote it from the preceding sentence. PL290 (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Passive voice is OK when necessary, but it's not necessary in a sentence that should focus on who wrote the song for whom. The short-lived title should be mentioned, but you don't build the sentence around it.
Overall, two of you think the current lead is OK. I think it's crap, but I don't care to keep fighting this battle when neither of you will even consider my comments. Ta-Ta. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney credit

I assume the Lennon/McCartney credit has been placed where it has in the second sentence to qualify "written by Paul". But the intended emphasis of that sentence, that the song was "written by Paul to comfort Julian", is somewhat lost as a result. Is the Lennon/McCartney credit in fact vital in the intro, and if so, is there another acceptable location? PL290 (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Songwriting credits generally belong in the lead. The specifics about the background of the writing process are less important. The songwriting credit needs to stay, although some rewording might be appropriate. Ward3001 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

An edit war is developing over the credit of this song. Legally it is Lennon/McCartney, although it is common knowledge that it is primarily a McCartney composition. The infobox should be for legal songwriting credit which means Lennon/McCartney. The Sony/ATV Music web site clearly shows the credit to be Lennon/McCartney at [1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JD554 was politely reminded on his talk page when he got to 3RR yesterday, but deleted the message with "no interest" for an edit summary. If he starts up again, report it. Radiopathy •talk• 01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul wrote it alone, despite what the publishing credits say. Many later Beatles songs credited to Lennon and McCartney together were in written by the musicians separately with no involvement. A chief example is "Give Peace a Chance". We don't go by "official" credits on Wikipedia; we say who actually wrote it. See the story/screenplay credits field in any film article on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
"Give Peace a Chance", is an enlightening example. The formal credit has been changed, and as far as I am aware, that's the only case where it was. Why haven't the others been changed? Who knows, but it suggests that there is a lack of evidence to support that only one of the two writers wrote the song. Anecdotal evidence is fine for the article prose where we can cover what the L and M said in interviews, but casual comments in an interview are not sufficient to override the formal evidence, and the infobox should show the formal credit. — John Cardinal (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The Beatles Anthology book confirms Paul had finished the song before showing it to John. The song credits are reflective of absolutely nothing, because Paul has tried to have songwriting credits for some of his Beatles songs changed in the past; he just didn't succeed. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The infobox for song articles should follow the same standards as every song article with an infobox. "Hey Jude" is no exception. While the body of the article can explain who wrote the song, legal credit notwithstanding, the infobox for song articles MUST give the legal credit listed by the song publishing company which owns the song. Sony/ATV Music Publishing owns "Hey Jude" and they credit the song to Lennon/McCartney. Going back to "Give Peace A Chance" mentioned above, Sony/ATV Music Publishing does list that song as composed by Lennon only now. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the infobox should minimally include the Lennon/McCartney link which, if clicked through, explains the situation in general. In this particular case, where there is a strong argument for sole actual writing, I would not revert such a comment, but my preference would be to leave the discussion of the "actual writer" to the text. How would we determine when to do this: the L/M article, in fact, notes that even Hey Jude has some help from Lennon. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Who actually wrote the song is the important and pertinent piece of information. Steelbeard1 seems to be making up his own guidelines by saying that the infobox must give the legal credit - I wait to be shown a link to that guideline, but I won't be holding my breath. Also, how is it the "legal credit"? Is there a possibility of legal action if someone says it wasn't written by Lennon/McCartney? I don't think so, so that is an irrelevance. The infobox should accurately summarise the article, to say that it was written by Lennon/McCartney is simply inaccurate. --JD554 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
There is one legal credit I do not agree with, but it is the legal credit nonetheless which is for "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" whose legal credit is Frankie Lymon and Morris Levy even though it is proven that Levy did not co-write the song. Read that song's article for the sordid details. EMI Music Publishing owns the song now which still lists the songwriting credits as Lymon and Levy. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
That article has no infobox so has no relevance to this discussion. Please can you explain why you keep saying "legal credit". What has that got to do with it? --JD554 (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Six-word answer, who the royalty checks go to (or their estates if deceased). Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "because Paul has tried to have songwriting credits for some of his Beatles songs changed in the past; he just didn't succeed." Such cases fail because there is a lack of evidence. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you back up your assertion? I was under the impression it was because Yoko didn't want John's name removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Either way its still Lennon/McCartney. I reworded the lead to explain it better. Deserted Cities (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This places too much emphasis on the topic in the lead section when the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership. What the lead currently says is concise enough for the purposes of this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with WesleyDodds on this part. We don't need that explanation ("like all songs written by the two during their time with the band") in the lead. I don't think we need it in the article, but I wouldn't argue with its addition somewhere later in the article. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Why is this even a serious issue? The song was credited to Lennon/McCartney... and that's it. It was never credited solely to McCartney, and to try and create revisionist credits is wrong. The information in the infobox is correct (and shouldn't need 3 references to back it up). It would be false to credit McCartney alone for this song, because it just didn't happen to be credited that way. The prose is where the distiction on who wrote what belongs, and it really should be referenced as well... Doc9871 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox doesn't ask for who was officially credited with writing the song it simply says "Writer(s)". It's important because an encyclopaedia should be as accurate as possible given the available evidence. --JD554 (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox doesn't need to "ask" for who was officially credited; it lists them based on the "available evidence", which is the legal songwriting credit. I think you are missing the point entirely - you cannot change the history of who the song was credited to. Period. The Beatles credited it to Lennon/McCartney, whether McCartney wrote 99.999% of it or not. That is the available evidence, and that is what is accurate. Just don't worry about the infobox, and find a good, creditable source stating that McCartney "wrote all of it", for the prose of the article... Doc9871 (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you be any more condescending? Anyway, as I said the infobox asks for the writer not who the song is credited to. --JD554 (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The song is credited to the writer(s), which is Lennon/McCartney. They are one in the same, as no other writer is credited for this song... Doc9871 (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the record label or the CD booklet. The names in parentheses after the song title should be the names listed in the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? WesleyDodds (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Infobox_proposal where I've proposed a solution. PL290 (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Can you back up your assertion? I was under the impression it was because Yoko didn't want John's name removed." Can you back up yours? There is evidence that the credit has not been changed. See BMI. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some research. I expect you to do the same. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Use in concerts

Paul McCartney uses Hey Jude as a finale to concerts quite a lot, most notably as the grand finale to Live 8 - but it's the usual close for any Paul concert in the last couple of decades or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edits from 27 November

I reverted a series of edits that changed the article for the worse.

  • By concensus, "The Beatles", with "The" capitalized, is how we refer to the band. I don't agree with it, but project members decided to do it that way and so for consistency this article should, too.
  • The em-dash in the Julian Lennon quote was not "bit-more" hyphenated, it was two separate thoughts in the same sentence and was copied directly from the source. So, "Paul and I used to hang out quote a bit" (pause) "more than dad and I did." I think the original soruce was punctuated improperly, but we can't change the punctuation in a way that alters the meaning, and removing the em-dash changed the meaning.
  • The changes in the "Musical structure" section modified cited content such that the content no longer agreed with the source. No new source was provided.

— John Cardinal (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Citation style

WesleyDodds has reverted my citation edits because he believes consensus is required for the changes I made. I disagree; the referencing guidelines specifically say that one shouldn't change the citation style if they are consistent, and they aren't. As they are now (after his revert), they are a mix of short and long footnotes. There are other issues, too. Date formats do not follow the current recommendation, multiple citations are styled incorrectly, etc.

WesleyDodds reverted two of my edits with one action, and the first of my edits did not change the referencing style but only addressed some formatting errors in the citations. For example, |publisher= is used when |work= is correct. That part of the revert makes the article worse for no reason and that part of his revert should be reversed unrelated to the reference style discussion.

My other edit converted the article to short footnotes for all citations. The wikicode uses {{Sfn}}, a template that significantly reduces the clutter from source citations in the article text. (See my unfinished essay that compares citation styles if you are interested in why that is true.) FYI: During the recent successful featured article review for The Beatles, the FA reviewers suggested using {{Sfn}} to address the same issue in "Hey Jude", and the group of editors pushing that article to FA status agreed that using {{Sfn}} would improve the article.

I propose that we change the reference style in this article from its current state to the more consistent style I implemented two weeks ago. When/if you reply, please indicate whether you Support or Oppose this change. Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support Patthedog (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, but with concerns - I'd like to support it, and I agree with Patthedog (talk)'s comment on JC's talk page. However, Wesley does have a point concerning WP:CITE, i.e., "How to present citations: Each article should use the same method throughout. If an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus before changing it." If Wesley were to make a big deal about it, consensus would have to be reached, with all that fun formal mumbo-jumbo, in order to change it. I personally have no problem changing it to John Cardinal (talk)'s proposal, however... Doc9871 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
First, this post is seeking consensus, so I don't understand the immediate concern. In the great majority of cases, achieving consensus does not have to involve a lot of formal mumbo-jumbo. Someone makes a proposal on the talk page—as I have now done—and interested editors respond to that proposal. So far, we have three editors (you, me, Patthedog) in favor of using short footnotes and no one opposed.
Second, as you quoted, the guideline says that Each article should use the same method throughout. This article does not, and in my opinion that condition reduces or eliminates the need for consensus, though I sought consensus after WesleyDodds objected. As explained above, the current article does not use the same method throughout, it uses a mix of short and long footnotes. My edit made all the citations use a consistent style (short footnotes). — John Cardinal (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean concern concern, like it be would something that would actually upset me ;> My "thought" was based on the very last part of the quote, that if one were to make a big deal about it (and it surely seems now that no one is), then formal consensus on a broader scale would have to be reached. There are so far two supporting (you haven't supported as per nom yet ;>) and zero opposing. I think this whole thing was merely a "love tap" from your pal Wesley, designed to get you all "atwitter"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per guidelines This isn't a consensus matter; see the guideline at WP:CITEHOW. While John Cardinal was obviously working in good faith, as Doc9871 explained, per guidelines you are not supposed to change citation styles after one has been established in an article. It's not the style I prefer, but it's been long established, through the original FA nom and through the Featured Article Review (during which time all the inline refs were consistent). You certainly need to make an article's citation style internally consistent (thus if certain citations don't match the dominant style, you format them correctly), but you aren't supposed to wholesale change it into Harvard style, like John Cardinal did. Aand by the way, we're not talking about "a mix of short and long footnotes"; those are perfectly acceptable, and in some cases necessary. We're talking about citation styles, ie. Harvard, Chicago, etc. The key text at WP:CITEHOW is "Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected". There has been an established style for years, and it's the one that should be respected. Also, separate articles don't have to utilize the same citation style, thus what citation style The Beatles uses is irrelevant here.
Aside from the guideline, let me also point out templates are ungainly for many editors to use (which is why citation templates aren't mandatory, in case you're curious). It may reduce "clutter" , but it's harder and less intuitive to use. Compare utilizing .{{sfn|Wenner|2000|p=110}} as John Cardinal did to simply typing "Wenner (2000), p. 110" to cite a page as the established style uses. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
WesleyDodds is asserting that citations can't change after the initial style is set even though the guideline explicitly says the citation style can be changed by consensus, and even though everything in WP can be changed by consensus save for legal and policy matters that are determined by the WP foundation. It seems clear to me that he wants the article to stay as-is, doesn't like the possibility that consensus will lead to a change, and so he has decided the "key part" is one that supports his wishes. As just one example of a change to citation style, The Beatles achieved FA status far more recently than "Hey Jude" and it's citation style was changed as part of that process. As noted above, the mix of short and long footnotes in that article was deemed inconsistent.
His comparison example is incomplete, and slanted to favor his POV. He compared "{{sfn|Wenner|2000|p=110}}" to "Wenner (2000), p. 110", but those two things are not equivalent. First, to make plain text a reference, one has to add REF tags, so the plain text must change to "<ref>Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>". ({{sfn}} constructs the REF tag automatically.) Second, if that page in Wenner is used more than once, an editor must assign a unique name to the REF tag, "<ref name="wenner110">Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>". REF names are not an exception; 70 of the 78 REF tags in the article have a NAME= parameter, and while some are unnecessary, there are 42 references that require one.
A more balanced comparison is:
{{sfn|Wenner|2000|p=110}}
<ref name="wenner110">Wenner (2000), p. 110</ref>
In addition to using less text to add a citation, the {{sfn}} method has two other advantages over the plain text version. First, editors don't have to worry about whether or not the same page in Wenner is cited more than once, and if so, they do not have to find the other reference to determine if it has a REF name, and assign one if not. Secondly, the short footnote produced by {{sfn}} is a clickable link to the full reference. {{sfn}} produces more for less and helps to keep short footnotes consistent. I understand that many editors do not want to learn how to use templates, but this article already uses templates for both short and long footnotes and so unless an editor seeks consensus to use only plain text to create citations, some use of templates will be required to cite sources in this article regardless of the outcome of my proposal.
For his comparison, WesleyDodds chose the simplest example, a short footnote for a book reference. When adding a citation for a news story, journal article, or web site, the {{sfn}} part in the body of the article will be short and sweet whereas the current method used in this article introduces a long interruption into the text.
WesleyDodds and I will never agree about citation styles, but that's not the main point. He is asserting that the citation style in the article can't be changed even if editors reach a consensus to do so. I am asserting that (A) we can change the article—including its citations and citation style—to improve it, (B) that in its present form, the citations are inconsistent, and (C) the {{sfn}} method is a logical choice given the number of citations and the existing use of some short footnotes. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think I would never agree with you about citation styles? The issue is WP:CITEHOW. Yeah, sometimes citation styles are overhauled during heavy rewrites (as with The Beatles), but the idea is you don't just outright change an article's style just for the sake of changing it. There was no rewrite or overhaul of the article prose; you just wholesale changed the inline citation format without any explanation. And there was certainly no precedent for the style you introduced to the article. Logically if you felt the refs needed standardizing, you should use whatever is already predominantly in use. Following the guidelines at WP:CITEHOW is, above all, just good manners. Hell, if I were editing The Beatles and wanted to add a ref, I'd use the citation format it utilizes. I think it's a very cumbersome citation style that uses needlessly complicated script, but I'm not going to push that people change the citation style, and it's never anyone's job to say "This article must use this citation style from now on". WesleyDodds (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per my original comments above. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Change can be a good thing, and if John Cardinal is happy to implement it here after consensus, then I don’t see a problem with it. Anyway, both arguments have been put forward, so why not just wait and see how the vote goes? --Patthedog (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Exactamundo!" Doc9871 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated the consistent use of short footnotes given multiple editors were in favor and only one opposed after a two-week period where editors could make comments. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin mentioned, mentioned and detailed

I doubt that when this article was featured, the original title of the song and its connection with Julian Lennon was mentioned in it quite so many times. I have removed

The song's original title was "Hey Jules", and it was intended to comfort Julian Lennon from the stress of his parents' divorce.

from the 'Inspiration and composition' section, as an identical statement appears in first para, and in any case the para goes on to further detail. Centrepull (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Psychedelic song

I'm pretty sure it should be listed under "Psychedelic songs". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.145.233 (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it shouldn't, as the word "psychedelic" doesn't appear in the article. To be listed in a psychedelic category or genre, the song would have to be described that way by a reliable source. Got one? — John Cardinal (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with John Cardinal. Apart from the fact that we would need to find a reference to someone calling it psychedelic, Hey Jude contains no reference to drugs and doesn't have the usual qualities associated with psychedelic music - special sound effects, 'flanging', etc. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds arguably (!) doesn't contain drugs references either, but it's audibly psychedelic in a way that Hey Jude isn't. Not every song recorded in the late 60s is psychedelic. Lexo (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Promo film as the inspiration for Get Back/Let It Be

According to Steve Matteo's book on Let It Be, after they'd finished shooting the promo for Hey Jude, the band sat up in the small hours watching playback with Denis O'Dell and Michael Lindsay-Hogg and drinking scotch & cokes, and they agreed that they'd had a good time and that they must do that sort of thing again soon - and that this was at least in part the genesis of the idea of filming a live performance which was to culminate (if that's the word) in Let It Be. I can't remember Matteo's source for this anecdote but he did give one (I don't own a copy of his book but I was reading it in a bookshop and it seemed reasonably well-sourced). Lexo (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cover shown in infobox

The single did not have a picture sleeve in the UK or the US. It did have pic. sleeves in Europe and elsewhere but AFAICT this is not one of them. The challenge then is to find a reliable source that states that this pic. is indeed the single cover. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In preparing the Revolution article for GA review, I merely resized the existing pic. I did not try to verify its origin. -Mainstream Nerd (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

7 inch what?

The article says it was released in 1968 as a "7 inch single." Was it a 33 1/3 or a 45? A 45 EP could run that long.The article does not make this clear. The "7" wikilink just goes to a general page about records and not a section on a particular size and speed. Edison (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The standard is 45 rpm. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
45's were common, but that does not mean this one was a 45. Was it an Extended Play 45? 7 inch 33 1/3 records were also in use in the 1960's and 1970's. Edison (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a 45, the A-side was "Hey Jude" and the B-side was "Revolution." Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a copy of the 7 inch single on my desk as I type this. A large '45 RPM' appears beside the Parlophone label. The disc is numbered A-8493. Pressing number is 7XCE21185 and the track time (in brackets) is 7.11. i.e. seven minutes and eleven seconds. 'Hey Jude' is credited to 'Lennon-McCartney' and the recording is 'Produced by George Martin'. This is a disc from EMI (Australia).Bluedawe 22:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Composition and Structure section

There has been a dispute on the talk page of All My Loving about whether to include information about the song itself--its key, the chord structure, notable use of chords, melody, harmony to enhance mood or lyric intent etc. The contentious upshot is that the referenced (to Pollack, Pedler and Everett) musical structure section of that song is slated for deletion, but also that a notice will be placed suggesting that such sections be deleted from ALL wikipedia articles on Beatles songs. This seems a peculiar position and against the instructions about how to deal with a song's musical structure in the wikipedia song project, as well as a growing body of scholarships about the music of the Beatles. Perhaps some editors from this Featured Article might care to offer an opinion on the All my Loving talk page.NimbusWeb (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it's about adding incredibly over-detailed material to these sections such as, "The sense of hope and love is musically assisted..." and "The next line shifts us to the fresh key of C, with a iv (F) chord that threatens the dominance..." It's not about deleting those sections as sections at all. Doc talk 10:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Although the editor above says it's not at all about 'deleting these sections as sections", the following is a post from one of the fellow editors on All My Loving posted on the Something talk page: "It has been proposed to remove the section headed “Musical Structure” from this article (and others) following a discussion on All My Loving. Any comments you may wish to make would be appreciated here. --Patthedog (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)"NimbusWeb (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Influence

Everyone knows that the Beatles' influence on music was incalculable, so it is perhaps pointless to single out this one song for discussion in that regard. Nevertheless, it clearly inspired a fad of lengthy recordings having an extended, repetitious, and often unrelated closing section. Perhaps the best example is Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In, but I could name half a dozen others from the three years following the release of "Hey Jude" (and none from before). I have commented on this before on the talk page for Atlantis (song). I wonder if any reliable source has ever written about this phenomenon or if it's one of those things that has seemed too obvious to mention. Richard K. Carson (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Musical structure

Whoever's been quoted for this section has to be one of the most pretentious talentless individuals ever to touch the world of music. Putting the main F Bb C on its head? O RLY? The coda would then be considered to be in another key. But it's not. The coda to this song introduced a new 'jam' chord sequence that became one of the mainstays of improvised (and even composed) rock ever since. Of course you'd have to be a real musician to know that. And that's probably why this article worries more about trivialities than the truth. Another thing: don't dissect these works of art to smithereens. You people are too good at that. The walrus was Paul, Paul would have been 28 IF... Enough already. Let it be. And in the future don't write crap you know nothing about. Finding a quote isn't sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.134.61.83 (talk • contribs)

The "verse chord analysis" accompanying the article is dead-wrong. The first bar is correct, but the next two bars are variations/inversions of a C-chord. The second measure is C for three beats, then a slur between flat-III/flat-V to III-V to IV-VI for a beat followed the third measure. The third measure is comprised of V-dominant VII (one count) and C(sus)4--all of this with C in the bass. The fourth measure returns to the tonic. And I heartily agree with the comment about "putting the main F Bb C on its head" as erroneous. It's a different mode (F Eb Bb F). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrake2 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Band line-up; Video and studio

There have been a lot of misconceptions of who played what in this song: I know that in the video George Harrison played bass (a six-string bass called a Fender Bass VI) but in the studio Paul McCartney played both the piano and the bass (i.e. double-tracking) with Harrison on lead guitar, as usual. So I agree with whoever wrote that thread; Please stop changing the band-line-up and leave that section as-is.--Kevjgav (talk) 07:55, 17 May 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 that band's name 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) 23:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Parent or parrot?

In his recollection of his first performance of Hey Jude to John Lennon, Paul McCartney is quoted thus: it's a stupid expression; it sounds like a parent. I heard him saying this on the Beatles anthology DVD's many times, and I think he's not saying parent, but parrot. It seems to me that this also makes a lot more sense within the context, he meant to say: the movement's on your shoulder like a parrot is on a pirate's. And that could sound kind of silly given the overall atmosphere of this song, I think that was his concern. Dunglisher (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears someone has changed 'parent' to 'parrot'. Thank you. Dunglisher (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The swearing at 2:58

The article mentions a theory that Paul said it, but Paul was singing at that same time. Or was Paul's vocal track recorded separately? 108.1.112.207 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

His vocals would have been recorded separately from the backing tracks. 217.41.61.6 (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

2009 remasters mix

Anybody wanna mention the differences in the new 2009 remasters mix on Past Masters? The main difference is Paul's singing going wilder and more emotional during the second part. --79.193.34.132 (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it, as I not only have the 2009 stereo remasters but also the Mono box. Lexo (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Having listened to the 1987 stereo mix, the 2009 stereo remaster and the 2009 mono remaster, it's the same vocal performance in each one. It's just mixed differently. For one thing, the mono mix is about ten seconds longer and in the last few seconds you can hear Ringo changing his drum part. Most of the other differences are pretty trivial, but what's certain is that the 1987 Past Masters mix is a lot more like the 2009 Past Masters mix than either of them is like the 2009 Mono Masters mix. Lexo (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that what the original poster really meant is the truly wilder vocal mix found on the 2006 LOVE mashup album. --37.83.164.37 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Line-up on the Track

STOP changing the Line-up to the video version, in the Studio it was performed as ever, credits per beatles Bible:

Paul McCartney: vocals, piano, bass John Lennon: backing vocals, acoustic guitar George Harrison: backing vocals, lead guitar Ringo Starr: backing vocals, drums, tambourine Uncredited: 10 violins, 3 violas, 3 cellos, 2 double basses, 2 flutes, 2 clarinets, 1 bass clarinet, 1 bassoon, 1 contrabassoon, 4 trumpets, 2 horns, 4 trombones, 1 percussion

that's right so leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.77 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the Credits section to the Personnel section per the music project guidelines. I also changed the actual credits--minor changes--to agree with Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, and to cite them as such. MacDonald was the source for the Beatles Bible entry. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Many people think that George Harrison played bass in the song, and I think the confusion comes from the video, where it shows him playing a Fender Bass VI. The instruments shown in the video are different from those in the studio as well. In the video, Paul McCartney is playing a Challen Upright piano, whereas in the studio he used a C. Bechstein Concert Grand piano. John Lennon is playing an Epiphone Casino in the video and a Gibson J-200 in the studio. The biggest difference of all is that in the video George Harrison is playing a Fender Bass VI in the video and a Fender Telecaster in the studio. Paul McCartney played bass in the studio, and it was probably his usual Hofner 500/1.--Kevjgav (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Wilson Pickett version

I only skimmed the article, but noticed that (I think) that the Wilson Pickett version isn't mentioned there. His release included Duane Allman's guitar throughout.. landing kudos from Eric Clapton prior to their meeting. Here' commentary by Clapton too: [2]]. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Nah Nah Nah Nah Giroud chant

I think this should at least get a mention, shouldn't it? OlJa 02:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Evolution of song's subject matter

The opening paragraph states that "Hey Jude" evolved from "Hey Jules" - which was written for Julian Lennon, but a sentence further down says 'Although McCartney originally wrote "Hey Jude" for Julian, John Lennon thought it had actually been written for him.' This is confusing to the reader, as the article does not say the 'finished version' was intended for Julian. I had tried to clarify this sentence, but my edit was reverted by user:Synthwave.94 without explanation. It's not clear to me whether Lennon though the original version or the finished version was about him, so would someone else mind working on a form of words to clarify this confusing sentence. Obscurasky (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Hey Jude. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hey Jude. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hey Jude. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Requiem für einen jungen Dichter

In this edit, I tried to add information to this article, an article mentioned in Requiem für einen jungen Dichter in the lede. Please look if you find it worth adding, also where in the context and in which detail. There are several sources as indicated in the edit summary. "In fact, the two momentarily converge when Zimmermann quotes The Beatles' song Hey Jude (something of a horrific pun, especially given the Requiem's use of the German language and of Hitler's voice in particular)."[3]. Or: "Im Requiem begegnen sich Zitate aus Tristan und Isolde, Hey Jude und Beethovens Neunter, Free-Jazz-Einlagen des Manfred-Schoof-Quintetts, Meeresrauschen und Originaleinspielungen von Hitler, Dubček und Papst Johannes XXIII., Texte aus dem Grundgesetz und Schriften Mao Tse-tungs sowie Lyrik von Kurt Schwitters, James Joyce, Ezra Pound."[4] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hey Jude. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Best selling single in the UK in 1968?

I've done some research and found out that "What a Wonderful World" / "Cabaret" by Louis Armstrong was the best selling single of that year. Here's a link to prove it http://www.uk-charts.top-source.info/top-100-1968.shtml Bob3458 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this from the Official Charts Company answers the point. Although, I have found in the past that what was recognised at the time as the best-selling single of the year – ie the winning song in the category "the highest certified sales of any single A-side issued in the UK in 19.." at the Ivor Novello Awards – might not have translated over to what the OCC gives. "Yellow Submarine" is an example of that. "Hey Jude" did win that particular Ivor for 1968, though, and it appears on the OCC list. JG66 (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Bass guitar (or no bass guitar) through the coda

Oceantracks: You were right about this after all. Just listened to the track through headphones: the bass guitar part does continue, seamlessly, over the transition into the coda, and carries on through to the end of the song. With my revert, I was adhering to Walter Everett's description as a source, but without checking whether he was right. There's no end of incorrect or confused coverage about the Beatles' songs – as much as there is decent coverage – so I think we can simply remove the detail (and save the author the embarrassment). Thanks to FlightTime for their support, but as it turns out, this is a case of the source getting it wrong. JG66 (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Section order

Wouldn't it be chronologically better if the Release section followed the Promotion section, rather than the other way round? Currently it jumps from commentary on the song's commercial success to some of the promotional measures that helped ensure it, then to its critical reception, which to me flows like info on its (commercial and critical) reception being interrupted by material on the promotion that should have come earlier.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's always a tricky thing to get right, because whichever order the sections appear in, there are problems of some sort. Following your suggestion, for instance, we'd have a situation whereby the "Promotional film" subsection discusses TV broadcasts of 8 September and 6 October 1968, and then the reader is transported back to 26 August for when the single was released. That's not to say I don't appreciate your point. I seem to remember leaving a comment in an edit I made months ago that the text discussing National Apple Week and the "First Four" gift boxes (both currently under Release) probably belongs in the "Promotion" section.
I think the solution might be to have a section handling the release and all promotion together; then a section on commercial performance (ie, everything from "The single was a highly successful debut for Apple Records" onwards); and then a section on the song's critical reception, influence and legacy. I don't think it's necessarily a problem that critical reception, which, as you say, would have had some bearing on the single's commercial success, is discussed last of the three – it's in keeping with the suggested layout at WP:ALBUMSTYLE.
What I do consider a problem is having "Composition and structure" appear after "Production", because, from my experience, these song articles always outline the composition and include commentary on the lyrics straight after the opening section, on the song's background and inspiration. I've been meaning to fix that issue for years; it should just be a case of reducing the text from Riley that's clearly focusing on the recorded track, and adding more musicological discussion. JG66 (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree a release/promotion section and a Critical reception section would look good. And I agree the critical reception should come after commercial; sorry if I didn't make myself clear regarding that, I was just concerned that between the commercial and critical receptions lay the promotional section, but as you say there lies further problems, as the TV broadcasts followed the release. The TV broadcasts I agree would make sense coming after Release, as they do, but the window graffiti precedes the events of the Release section. In my mind a semi-solution to part of it would be the commentary on the window graffiti and video/TV broadcasts bookending what currently constitutes the Release section, but that's purely preference, and it would create perhaps a different problem, i.e. the info promotion sub-sections being separated. Generally I am indifferent regarding the order of 'composition/structure' and 'production' in song articles but I think I see your point here.--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. I'll give this a go sometime soon – restructuring along the lines of: Release and promotion; Commercial success; Critical reception and legacy. JG66 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Suitability of reference used in article

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:BEATLES#Craig Cross. Ojorojo (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC) —Ojorojo (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hey_Jude/Archive_7&oldid=1208432533"