Talk:Beatlemania

References

I don't know whether the lyrics 'British Beatlemania' in the song We Didn't Start the Fire by Billy Joel are worth mentioning in this article. I haven't added it, I'd rather get some opinions first.

i.e. the line "The term later became the name of various tribute groups dedicated to singing the songs of The Beatles. These groups have had John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr impersonators." I don't agree that this necessitates a citation; it's very common knowledge, and would not require a citation even by the rigorous standards of academic writing. The Beatlemania tribute bands performed all over, and even had a healthy television ad campaign promoting the tours. Having to cite that line would be akin to having to cite a statement that the Beatles themselves toured as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.112.116 (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Title

This article deserves a better title: "Beatles Tribute Bands", or something in that vein. "Beatlemania (groups)" is too vague - it could refer to groups which play music in the style of the Beatles, or were contemporaries of the Beatles (see Merseybeat). 217.34.39.123 08:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Move to Beatlemania

This page should be moved to Beatlemania, which is now just a redirect to The Beatles. It's basically unsearchable now. The same article should discuss briefly the beatlemania phenomenon in a little more depth. -R. fiend 3 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

Done. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Beatlemania - the psychology of...

There is a possibility of a learned piece here regarding the phemomenea of Beatlemania as manifested by the (usually) teenage female fans. The hysteria, including fainting and involunatary urine release (is that "learned" enough?), was a highly uncommon event before The Beatles. I think Frank Sinatra had some similar incidents in the early Bobby Soxer days, but they were less frenetic (or at least the reporting of same was not as lurid). Interestingly such behaviour was not reported at Elvis Presley concerts. The only real precessors I can think of are the "Religious orgys" in late medieval times, where acolytes - again normally females - would work themselves into a (non sexual!) ecstatic state.

I feel this should fall under The Beatles umbrella for two reasons; firstly, The Beatles were the first recorded focal point by which this behaviour became apparent, and created the term which has (as mentioned in the article) been subsequently adopted for other groups/individuals and, secondly, "Beatlemania" had an influence on the Beatles themselves. I would argue that much of the early interest by the media regarding the Beatles focused as much on the fans response - the reporting of incidences of "Beatlemania" - as for the music and its popularity. The media exposure that followed created the environment by which any and all aspects of The Beatles were deemed newsworthy, thus creating a self fuelling publicity device building the fame of The Beatles. As commented on in other articles, this behaviour also encouraged The Beatles to give up touring and live performances as they became aware that the audience was not listening to the music and were indifferent to the quality of the playing. As they were then able to devote their creative energies in using the studio environment they were then able to make the advances they did.

As a generally (Western) cultural aspect, "Beatlemania" can be tied into womens financial/economic emancipation/liberation, the advent of "The Pill", and general changes of perception regarding women that was occuring at the time. As I said, this would possibly be a project for someone with a psychology or behavioural background who would know the appropriate scientific sources, and be able to deliver a coherent piece. In any event, there would be enough references to sex and teenage girls to draw the interest of some casual Wiki browser - it would have worked with me!LessHeard vanU 08:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's WP:OR and so not appropriate here. But agree it's a fascinating subject. I attended A Hard Day's Night (film) and Help! (film) in their first Sydney seasons, and didn't hear a word of any of the 22 songs they included because of the non-stop screams from girls of about my age at the time. It was really weird. Andrewa (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(An idle thought: Is 4 years and 9 months between a comment and the first response, a Wikipedia Talk Page record? Probably not, but it's still pretty impressive) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to give this thread oxygen into a second decade ... There is some discussion on this type of issue in a few reliable sources I've come across, and it would make the article far more interesting than it currently is. (This is partly was I was referring to in a recent comment.) It's regrettable that the culling that resulted from Beatlemania in the UK and (I think) a US equivalent article being merged into this one has meant references to the Beatlemania fan phenomenon standing as the first of its kind – eg as a precursor to Rollermania, T-Rextasy in the 1970s – have disappeared. I've seen a source or two discuss that aspect, and also how Beatlemania was a liberating force for young women, one sociologist citing it as an inspiration for Girl Power.

There's no end of missing, pertinent information about the phenomenon, but the article just traces the Beatles' popularity chronologically, first in the UK and then with way too much about the US tours. The article doesn't touch on the growth of the phenomenon as the Beatles played in more diverse countries, and how its emergence was a sign of social change in some of those countries. The act of screaming and generally acting manic was a communal female activity at first, but by 1966 it represented the wider youth movement. As George Harrison said: the Beatles hitting town, especially during summertime in the US, became the catalyst (I think he called it "an excuse") for young people to go wild and express themselves; part of it was still worship of their pop idols, but another part was a form of sexual, social and political rebellion against their parents' generation. There's also the reaction of legal authorities and moral guardians – they all reacted in some way, and the younger generation's mania invited no end of debate at national government level ... JG66 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

This should not be solely attributed to The Beatles. Frank Sinatra was recipient of this fanfare as was Elvis Presley. By the time, the Beatles emerged, mass hysteria was already applied by the aforementioned. However, with The Beatles, it took on a heightened strata because "The Baby Boomers" reached 18 years if age (1946 - 1964) and so, there were sufficient pre-menstruating and mensurating females in America. The Beatles were recipients of such hysteria "En Masse". Spenser - The Unknown (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Little titbit

Could someone incorperate the fact that girls at beatles concerts would regualrly piss themselves and the people who owned the venues would have to clean it off of the seats. Not only is it very true, it is also very, very funny.--Crestville 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that "Shout! The Story of the Beatles" refers to the occurrence - I suppose there are other references in other publications, too. It isn't an unusual event at "boy band" concerts of today and the recent past, but it was first remarked upon in relation to The Beatles. I still believe that it would need to be a learned article to counter any accusation of being salacious.LessHeard vanU 21:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't understand those last few words, but that was a "no" wasn't it?--Crestville 10:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. It was "yes, but keep it in context". ps. Salacious is a great word, even the sound of it is a bit pervy! LessHeard vanU 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ha, yeah. But what does it all mean, Basil? I think given screaming girls were an essential element to Beatlemania, it shouldn't be too hard.--Crestville 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page for the Who Quadrophenia 5.15 song:

"According to Townshend, the opening stanza ("Eau-de-cologning") was a specific reference to a 1963 concert in Blackpool by the Beatles, infamous for the number of teenaged girls in the audience who, so rapt in sexual exhilaration, urinated themselves."

The ushers "sniffing" the urine would spay something to cover up the smell.

Stub?

Should this article be a stub? Just from reading it once and admittantly not knowing alot about The Beatles myself, I can casually see here that there is not very much information on the phenominon. Personally I would like some information regarding:

• how it started (what led to Ed Sullivan and after?)
• what happened to The Beatles personally (as mentioned above, they were scared and 'retrated')
• more information on mobs, eg. what was the biggest number of people to swarm The Beatles? What were the early incidences of them being chased? What happened when/if they got caught by the fans? and info on the more famous incidents of mob activities.
• What the deal was with the constant squealing at concerts? (There is a term for this, I beleive, but I only read it once and don't know if its real)

You know... stuff like that. I think this article could be much more interesting and as it stands today, should it be a stub article, until more information can be added? Gohst 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Other / similar examples

Twice now I've added Crouchamania as a similar example of the phenomenon. Twice it's been removed in a quite high-handed and frankly patronising way with comments of "nowhere near" and "idiocy". I amended the entry the second time to make it clearer to anyone who may be quite blinkered why it should be there, yet it was still removed. If Wikipedia is to remove the perception that huge sections are written by members of a "clique" who will not allow others to have an opinion on what is and isn't valid then I think something of a better explanation of this removal would be helpful. I've not put the entry back yet, as I am giving you the opportunity to explain. There's an example of some band most of the world will have never heard of, why is that there? If Beatlemania is (as seems from this discussion page) basically a phenomenon where teenage girls piss themselves at the sight of members of a boy band then it needs to be explained more clearly in the article itself. Read the article itself and explain why Crouchamania isn't a valid example. --Realred 07:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not a recognised phenomimnon (Crouch's time may have already been and gone) and even if it is, what's it got to do with Beatlemania? If you can establish that Crouchmania is recognised (and not ironically) maybe look to creating an independant article which you can link to this one in the "See Also" section. However, it does not belong in the Beatlemania article. A person who types "Beatlemania" into the search engine will most likely have no desire to know about Peter Crouch. Frankly the first time I saw it, I assumed it was a joke, as while I know Crouch's staus (prior to the last game) was growing, it has come nowhere near to the mania or Beatlemania.

If you honestly believe that wikipedia is a "clique" I would advise you to think again. I argue with just about every other user I come into contact with, and yet even I am not prevented from editing. Whilst I appreciate your frustration, if you continue with wikipedia (which I sincerely hope you do, I assure you in a few months you will look back and think "What a silly thing I did". The same thing happened to me, but I kicked and screamed for ages and, a few months down the line, felt quite silly.

BTW, you seem to deride the current state of the Beatlemania artice. If you feel you canb improve it (with information relevant to The Beatles) please please please please do.--Crestville 09:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What Crestville said; and frankly, I don't think that your proposing of Peter Crouch is entirely unbiaised given your username. The only footballer I can think of to approach the level of "mania" is George Best (in the UK). It should be remembered that Wiki is for all with access to the internet, and that some readers don't even realise there is a game called football (FIFA type). The Beatles, however, are a much more world wide phemomena, and "other examples" should be in that category (I had trouble with the Latin American boyband until I read the article and all the links). Until there is a case for including Crouch (and Wayne Rooney, who is a stronger candidate, and any other popular athlete/artist) then such examples will be removed.LessHeard vanU 21:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So there's no chance of having 'Mick McManus-mania' article? Pretty good wrestler in the 70s, even though his shorts looked like large sweaty underpants. andreasegde 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that even Mick's highly dubious Beatles Wig is sufficient to get a mention in this august article... Kid Kendo 22:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Split this article?

It seems to me that only some of the crud in the last section should even be here. Certainly a summary of record sales as a whole should be mentioned but not in so much depth. Should some of it be carted off to The Beatles discography, or just deleted? (this comment was added by User:207.62.186.233 20:15 11 July 2006)

Please note, an anonymous contributor using this IP address has had requests to cease vandalising in the previous few months.LessHeard vanU 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the discography. It's available elsewhere. andreasegde 20:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Beatlemania as an era

Isn't "The Beatlemania era" these days often seen, in an historical context, as a period in the artistic development of the band? Perhaps the article should talk about the albums that they recorded in that period, the musical style that was prevelant etc Spebudmak 21:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Beatlemania", as a phenomena, was something that was outside of the control of the band, and even impacted upon the group. Whilst enjoying the benefits of the adulation the group were also frustrated that their live concerts and appearances were not being appreciated for the content. This led them to stop gigging and concentrate on studio recording. Thus it is the outside influence on the band, rather than the other way round, that helped promote their artistic development. Also, since it was so prevelent, the band could spend time not playing or releasing records knowing that there would be an audience waiting to buy when they did. Lastly, the cultural impact of Beatlemania transcended the group and even artists in different fields could find that they engendered more attention just by adopting Beatlesque references. While the band was the fulcrum and origin of Beatlemania they were not the directors or even the sole benificiaries of it. There was a lot more to it than just screaming girls fainting at airports. LessHeard vanU 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag down a source

While the term is credited to a promoter, I've heard the story it was by a Canadian journalist (whose name I can't recall), which led to an album (the white album?) being released (uniquely) here as Beatlemania. True? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 14:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Should Beatlemania really be called a portmanteau when it simply can be analysed as a compound? It's been a while since I read word formation theory but the way I see it the word Beatlemania clearly consists of two separate morphemes and not just one like motel. -- 83.179.25.167 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the first link in the references appears not to be working. 83.179.25.167 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Beatlemania 1960s.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Beatlemania 1960s.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Beatlemania/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*I first looked at this yesterday and didn't really know what to say. Of course Beatlemania is an important concept (although in a way it's just a word, a dictdef if you will). Strip out the list of chart performances and the section on a musical of the same name (which needs its own article, or none at all if not notable) and all we're left with is a couple of paragraphs. I've therefore added this to the new section at the bottom - articles which are about the general history of the Beatles, and which together form multiple merge candidates. Second opinions invited.-- Steve (14 March 2006)

Last edited at 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007204834/http://www.andilothian.com/downloads/AndiTayAM.mp3 to http://www.andilothian.com/downloads/AndiTayAM.mp3

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beatlemania. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526094345/http://www.televideos.com/barryhood.htm to http://www.televideos.com/barryhood.htm

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge

I don't understand why we need 3 articles about the band's popularity 1963-66. Beatlemania in the United Kingdom and The Beatles in the United States contain basically all the info that is at Beatlemania. The first two are even formatted like "Part 1" and "Part 2" - the coverage on "UK" ends at 1963 whereas "US" picks up immediately afterward. These should be merged. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Very large article

Hey, User:JG66, how much longer are you going to keep adding to this article, which is turning into an encyclopedia by itself! (OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration) You've increased it by more than 25% since you started a couple weeks ago; I'm not sure I've ever seen such an extended barrage of consecutive (non-trivial) edits to a single article by a single editor in all my wiki-years. It's tough to keep up! One of your summaries mentions plans to split some off into other articles - what's that about? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Why, what's the problem? JG66 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem, just wondering. When an article is changed a whole lot by one person over days and weeks, it risks becoming a pet project and the editor in question can become very possessive of it - I've encountered that before. That's not a problem here, but you've made so many nonstop changes that nobody else wants to edit an article that might get changed one or two or 10 ways by the next time we sign in. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Missing footnote sources

This page has several unresolved footnote references:

• Gould (2007). Maybe this is meant to be "Gould (2008)"?
• Davies (1968). There's no matching reference for this at all.
• Lewishon (1988). There's Lewishon references from 2002 and 2005, not 1988
• Lewishon (1992). Same as above.
• Emerick & Massey (2005). No matching reference
• Harry (2002). There's a reference for Harry dated 2000, but not 2002.

There are a couple more. How should these footnotes be corrected? -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikeblas. I'll look into it – I think it's come about through someone carrying over text from other articles without bringing over the full source details too. JG66 (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Great! Indeed, maybe they're from some other article, or maybe newer editions of the same references are available (with a different date, and different page numbers, prolly), or maybe ... -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)