Talk:Cultural impact of the Beatles: Difference between revisions

In the Artistry and recognition of popular music section, the page mentions 10 of Paul’s most iconic and covered Beatles songs he primarily wrote. Just to make it fair and representative, can you please add a sentence for John’s 10 most iconic and covered songs? That’s all. 172.116.32.173 (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I brought questions about the lack of bands the Velvet Underground influenced on their talk page, but it seems this page also makes no mention of the bands the Beatles influenced, what would be an adequate place or way to feature this? It feels like making a category just purely for bands influenced by the Beatles or Velvet Underground might be too much but at the same time it might be the best way to go about it, rather than incorporating lists like that on an article like this. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That information is included in articles and lists in numerous Wikipedia articles, such as Beatlesque. Some redundancy is OK on Wikipedia, especially for a topic as huge as the Beatles, but we must be careful not to create an article, list, or category that largely duplicates one that already exists. My personal opinion is to expand an existing article, as needed. Sundayclose (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that Ringo doesn’t appear in the Schiphol images showing the Beatles. Instead, temporary member Jimmie Nicol is depicted. Is it possible to replace these images with photos from elsewhere within the Beatlemania era that actually include him? Especially since this article is about their impact, which wouldn’t have been quite the same without him (still significant, but not the same). Especially since he outright named “A Hard Day’s Night” which became a film and the extremely influential, music technology-advancing “Tomorrow Never Knows”. ~2025-34031-29 (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the time Nicol was a prominent substitute for Ringo on the tour. He is a part of their history and no real reason to replace his legacy. What I did do because of your request is bring two of the images to the Jimmie Nicol page, nice additions, thanks! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimmie Nicol is photographed in the article and considered a prominent substitute member, shouldn’t other members of the Beatles be spoken about like Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best? Best was there at their famous The Beatles’ Decca audition. Shouldn’t even some associates like Billy Preston be noted for his great contributions in the late stages of the band? Even their Black influences like Chuck Berry? It feels way too focused on the 4 as this mythical creature when figures like George Martin or Geoff Emerick have been noted as just as important. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is incredibly biased and reads as a circlejerk, there’s valid criticisms of the Beatles that are just not highlighted here or highlighted briefly and then seemingly “debunked” by just one writer and source, wouldn’t this be wp:undue? Just in general I think like in my previous talk page post that the article needs to encompass criticisms as well as the plethora of other people in the Beatles circle. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Despite making a few posts on this talk page already, you have not identified any issues with any clarity. By my estimation, this is one of the better written and sourced articles on the site. Removing claims because you don’t agree with what the reliable source has to say is unhelpful. Tkbrett (✉) 16:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The main part is the lead: ” of , as .” According to who? What developments? You reverted it and said this is adequately sourced but added no source. Please consult before making changes like this and stating that something has been adequately sourced when it has not. I removed this initially and replaced it with more specific information such as how they influenced fashion trends like the Beatle haircut and Beatle boot Aradicus77 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now the Civil rights section of this article is ludicrous! First it rightly states that Bob Dylan and Joan Baez (two figures who were constantly at the forefront of the civil rights movement) had ties to the civil rights movement in America, but then glosses over that to mention that the Beatles, who most of their pop songs at the time concerned love songs and the like were “significant” even though the writer “Roberts” never showcases why and just points out how “the significance of their US breakthrough occurring in the same year that the Civil Rights Act was passed, and also that their first US LP, Introducing … The Beatles, was released by the African-American–owned label Vee-Jay Records.” These have nothing to do with actually aiding the civil rights movement in any way, they are just connections the writer made, and its dubious (and at worst racist!) to say that because they put out a record on a label owned by an African-American that this event supported the civil rights movement.

Following this there’s “the album’s preponderance of cover versions of recordings by black R&B artists, Roberts continues, the Beatles introduced this music to a new audience of white Americans and helped to “relegitimate” an aspect of African-American musical history”. Most artists back then had covers of black music, the whole British invasion was built on the British blues revival. Is it to say the Beatles helped popularize these songs? Yes but so did a myriad of bands before them. This isn’t the most dubious part of that section but again this is another case of where nuance and the need for other sources to paint a better wider picture is necessary. See why I say this whole article is a circlejerk? Because it zeroes in on the Beatles and tries to paint them as these sole actors when many historians have written books on the development of rock music and stressed on a lot of other names alongside the Beatles.

At worst this whole source is just undue or trying to tie in random connections to the Beatles having any grand push for the civil rights movement in their early years. Besides that paragraph, civil rights is never mentioned ever again on the entire article. The whole paragraph relies on that one source. The lead again originally said “orchestrators of society’s developments” and again I say what developments? According to who? Either add more reliable sources that make stronger connections for Civil rights being influenced by the Beatles or rename the section to “Support for African-American musicians”. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best course of action would be for you to search for some of these sources you speak of to try to remove some of the bias. This article has long had a history of neutrality questions (especially between ILIL and JG66 many years ago). With most Beatles editors gone from the website, users like yourself can be bold and try to fix some of these issues you present. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The changes done now is the exact amount of nuance that needs to be done to revamp this article. I’ll go through some of the cited books soon and see what is inaccurate. “According to Moore, the Beatles and the British Invasion bands that followed them to the US initiated the process whereby Americans “gradually encountered and accepted the return of their black heritage”. is a far better of establishing context Aradicus77 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aradicus77: I don’t see where the article states a causal relationship between Vee-Jay’s owners and the Beatles’ impact on civil rights. Since the information appears to have been placed simply for context, I’ve moved it into a footnote. I don’t think “civil rights” should be removed from the header because there is substantial coverage of the band championing integration. ili (talk)