Talk:Getting Better

Consensus per this RfC closure and this RfM closure is to use "the Beatles" mid-sentence.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

The Beatles Low‑importance This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.The BeatlesWikipedia:WikiProject The BeatlesTemplate:WikiProject The BeatlesThe Beatles articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. To-do list: For WikiProject The Beatles A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Beatle wives Other : Project: Add {{WikiProject The Beatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members and coordinate tasks. Enter articles assessed as stubs onto this list, also list articles needing cleanup and other work here. This article does not yet have a related to do list. If you can think of any ways to improve the article, why not create one?

I remember reading John saying he wrote the "I used to be cruel to my woman ..." part. I won't correct article because I don't have the source. I'm sure someone does. 216.19.218.102 23:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Oh, OK, never mind...[reply]

Hope it's ok to make small change. Reference George Martin's Summer Of Love p.108 --Patthedog 15:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this song is musically similar to "Penny Lane". Penny Lane is written with strong minor chords; the second chord in both the verse and chorus is a minor chord. "Getting Better" is pure major chord work. "Penny Lane" is a reminiscence; "Getting Better" is more of a self-reflection. "Penny Lane" includes horns, "Getting Better" is, with the exception of the tamboura, traditional rock instrumentation. 67.121.194.165 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the boundaries between genres are fluid, but calling this song "jazz fusion" is completely unthinkable, even if it is sourced. In fact, slotting "Getting Better" under "jazz fusion" may even be proof that the source itself is unreliable. Thoughts?

C1k3 (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a stretch. The 'I used to be cruel...' part sounds a bit like Big Band music, but the song overall doesn't resemble anything done by, say, Chick Corea, Jeff Beck, or whomever, who were strongly associated with the genre.

It should be changed back to Rock. Radiopathy •talk• 15:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a reliable source—a noted musicologist—who wrote, "The musical focus [in the song] is on the elaborately detailed arrangement and the conjuring of a particular Pop/Jazz/Rock aesthetic fusion that was a McCartney specialty". We should not ignore an assertion by a reliable source because WP editors disagree with him. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is a crackpot; The Beatles' music is such an amalgam of genres, you'd have multiple genres for each song. Is "She Loves You" jazz fusion? Yes - more so than "Getting Better" - and gospel and folk too; does he mention that? Radiopathy •talk• 01:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you've given no source that refutes Alan W. Pollack, and you've called him a crackpot, hardly inducements to discuss this with you further. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does this person refer to this song as "Jazz Fusion"; you're incorrectly inferring the genre from his choice of wording. Radiopathy •talk• 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the two words do not appear next to each other. Still, he says "Pop/Jazz/Rock aesthetic fusion", and Jazz Fusion is a fusion of Jazz with what? Pop/rock. You can disagree with him, but he says it's Jazz Fusion even if the two words are not next to each other. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like he's describing the process of fusion (hence "aesthetic fusion"), not the genre itself. Is it really reasonable to assume that any reputable musicologist would lump a Beatles song together with Bitches Brew or Heavy Weather? It would be like calling Kenny G's music "prog metal." C1k3 (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen to the different constituents of this song, such as (for example) the bass guitar figures and its timbre (double bass) and also the drumming during the “I used to be cruel” segment, then you’re moving away from typical “pop” towards something else, but what then? There are definitely elements of Pop/Jazz/Rock all in there, but not so obvious as Bitches Brew or Heavy Weather.--Patthedog (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment on my talk page. (I am not sure why comments were made there when the discussion should be here.) Radiopathy wrote, "The overwhelming consensus on the talk page of this article is that 'Jazz fusion' is not an appropriate genre." Overwhelming consensus? Two people are opposed to the genre, two people have supported it. Neither editor who has opposed it has offered a compelling argument for why we should ignore the evidence from a reliable source. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one here who supports the genre; unless your source specifically uses the term 'Jazz fusion', you cannot add it to the infobox as a cited source. Radiopathy •talk• 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no one here who supports the genre? I support it, and so does Patthedog, though he said it was not as obvious as the two examples given by C1k3. Your argument that the source must specifically say "Jazz fusion" is not supported by WP policy and seems like unproductive nitpicking to me. It would not improve the article to change the genre to a specific quote from the source; Jazz fusion is a fusion of Jazz with pop/rock and that's what Pollack said it was. We are going over the same ground and it's getting tedious, not better. Do you object to a mixed genre of pop, rock, jazz fusion? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patthedog does not specifically support the genre. I would support the mixed genre you proposed. Radiopathy •talk• 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t really matter what any of us think as none of us have had books or articles published on the subject. I personally wouldn’t have gone as far as to describe the song as JF, but a renowned musicologist has - and has been cited, and that’s the point I think. The "genre" is out of the bottle now. Agree with present change.--Patthedog (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic states "Getting Better stands out as one of the poppiest", so wouldn't "pop rock" make more sense than just plain old "rock"?--SgtPetsounds (talk) 14:50,3 January 2011

According to the Composition section, Paul plays electric piano in this song; according to Personnel, it is George Martin who plays it. Anyone has Ian MacDonald's book and can set this straight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorpik (talk • contribs) 12:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorpik: I agree, the source says that it's George Martin but the article says it's McCartney. Also, someone added information about the Wurlitzer being used in the song, but as far as I know, The Beatles never used a Wurlitzer in any of their songs; the only electric pianos used by The Beatles were the Hohner Pianet and the Fender Rhodes. Someone has gotten creative with the Beatles' credits and the instruments used in any given Beatles song. I'm removing the information about the Wurlitzer.--Kevjgav (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone added information about a

I'm sure that addition was probably OR because, yes, the Beatles personnel lists seem to be forever open to such tweaks and changes. The pertinent thing is what the source states. We currently cite MacDonald '05; I've only got the 1998 edition of that book, which gives McCartney on vocal(s) and bass (i.e. <underline>no keyboard part</underline>), but Martin on piano and "pianette". So I'm hoping it's a case of MacDonald having changed his credits for this song by 2005 …

The Beatles' use of Hohner and Rhodes is well-documented, but I don't know if they never used a Wurlitzer – Nicky Hopkins often did, so maybe he played Wurlitzer on "Revolution"? Andy Babiuk's Beatles Gear would have the answer to that sort of question, I imagine. Walter Everett's two The Beatles as Musicians volumes also list new instruments used/acquired for each new project by the band. But anyway, I'd think we should be giving generic terms in these credits (MacDonald certainly does) rather than stipulating the brand of keyboard, which is a detail that belongs in the main text if it's needed at all. Having said that, I admit I always go for "Hammond organ" rather than just "organ" … JG66 (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK,

This section being about an aspect of musicality should probably understand that drones have no counterpoint. A rephrase may be sensible. - Steve3849^talk 01:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]