Log In
Register
8.55am
11 September 2012
Offline
On the Dear Prudence article it says: “Lennon recorded additional layers to his vocals. Handclapping, tambourine and cowbell were then added by McCartney and Harrison.” Seems to me, from what I just read in the Lewisohn book, Lennon only added double tracked vocals, while Paul and George added the additional vocals. Thought I’d post here first… Maybe there is another source, as http://www.pophistorydig.com/?…..nce-farrow has many sources listed. The latter about additional vocals could be fixed regardless I think. Thanks
2.42pm
14 December 2009
Offline
So, are you going to edit the Wikipedia article yourself?
Paul: Yeah well… first of all, we’re bringing out a ‘Stamp Out Detroit’ campaign.
5.52pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
Wiki isnt the best place to go as its not entirely accurate, it doesnt help that over the years numerous books and authors have claimed someone played something only for another book to contradict it so there are differing sources offering different details. Even now recording details are being questioned. Should also add that Lewisohn has admitted to there being errors in his books due to deadline pressures, not that theyre flatally flawed and should be ditched, they are still some of the best beatle books about.
Going off topic, there was a story recently about an author (Philip Roth) who spotted an error in the background influences section for one of his books, wrote to wiki to get it changed and was declined saying he wasnt a sufficient source, they needed another. You can read about it here.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.54pm
4 December 2010
Offline meanmistermustard said
Wiki isnt the best place to go as its not entirely accurate, it doesnt help that over the years numerous books and authors have claimed someone played something only for another book to contradict it so there are differing sources offering different details. Even now recording details are being questioned. Should also add that Lewisohn has admitted to there being errors in his books due to deadline pressures, not that theyre flatally flawed and should be ditched, they are still some of the best beatle books about.
Going off topic, there was a story recently about an author (Philip Roth) who spotted an error in the background influences section for one of his books, wrote to wiki to get it changed and was declined saying he wasnt a sufficient source, they needed another. You can read about it here.
Having read the article’s chat page, Roth was making a fuss over nothing. Wikipedia reported that various critics had seen the similarity with Broyard, and that Roth had said he wasn’t his inspiration. Here is the article before the open letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde…..=508328139
Wikipedia is generally a very good source. Fears of its inaccuracy are often overstated. Vandalism is usually removed very quickly, and a study in Nature found that it contained a similar number of serious errors to Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The horse has bolted!
I told her I didn’t
7.34am
11 September 2012
Offline Von Bontee said
So, are you going to edit the Wikipedia article yourself?
Not in any rush if anyone wants to beat me. Yeah, Wiki is generally good. And that error, if an error, is not a pressing matter.
1 Guest(s)