Talk:In My Life

Tears of a Clown

The article states that the melody of "In My Life" was inspired by The Miracles' song "The Tears of a Clown." Problem is that the latter song was released two years after "In My Life" was released. Unless a source can be cited which can prove to the contrary of what a logical timeline would dicate then that portion of the article should be removed.

In his(and Barry Miles') book, 'Many Years From Now', McCartney says: 'I said, "Well, you haven't got a tune, let me just go and work on it". And I went down to the half-landing, where John had a mellotron, and I sat there and put together a tune based in my mind on Smokey Robinson and the Miracles. Songs like 'You've really got a hold on me' and 'Tears of a clown' had really been a big influence.'

From this you see that McCartney doesn't necessarily say these two songs SPECIFICALLY influenced him to come up with music for 'In My Life'; he just names a couple of The Miracles' songs of the 60s that were of general inspiration to him and the Beatles.

I don't know 'Tears of a clown', but 'You've really got a hold on me', which The Beatles did cover on 'With the Beatles' in 1963, does sound like something that could inspire a chap to come up with 'In My Life'. 84.208.203.173 16:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

McCartney erroneously claims that the two songs had been a big influence up until 1965, but he does NOT say that these two songs were the ones that specifically inspired him to write 'In My Life'. Now I hope I got it quite right... 84.208.203.173 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Musical notes

the bridge is listed ending with "IV iv I" - not sure if someone figured the music out or if its' taken from some official source, but the sound doesn't appear to use the IV at this point, just going straight to the minor iv. Also, just a question if anyone knows as to what actual chord V2-of-IV would be for this particular key (a maj). Thanks. TheHYPO 22:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

In the main article there is a claim that this song doesn't have a middle eight, but in the musical notes section a 'bridge' is referred to. Isn't a middle eight and a bridge basically the same? (I know The Beatles used to refer to everything as middle eights, even if it consisted of four, eight, twelwe or sixteen bars) Any ideas? 192.153.194.200 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the bridge-section referred to, is where George Martin plays his piano-solo. Considering this section musically(the chords, I mean) is the same as the verse(without the extended chorus that John erroneously referred to as the middle-eight), I don't think John gave Paul credit for it, as it says in the article. If he did, it would mean that he DID credit Paul with all the music of this song, and we all know(?)that wasn't the case.

What John DID give Paul credit for was the harmony and the music to the 'middle-eight'(extended chorus): "All these places have their moments...(...)...in my life I've loved them all".192.153.194.200 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the analysis even really neccessary here? The song is not notable for having anything interesting harmonically or melodically more than any other beatles song. If somebody wants to provide an external link to a chord sheet or something similar, feel free, but showing the chord structure and providing a musical analysis is not at all necessary nor particularly appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Lyric?

The first line of the song - many sites list "There are places I'll remember", but the track sounds like it's just "I remember". Is there an official source on what the actual lyric is (or other recordings to confirm one or the other?) TheHYPO 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Cobain's Funeral?

Somebody added that 'In My Life' was played at Kurt Cobain's funeral, which I've cited. I've read a few books about Kurt Cobain and Nirvana that were written posthumously, and I've never come across this information. It may very well be true, but I'd be interested in seeing a source. --Strawberry Pudding Wings

The fact is in Everett True's Nirvana biography, which I've just cited. - Cakewalking 20:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Written with 'input from McCartney'?

I'm not sure about this. I've heard Paul say he wrote most of it, and Lennon helped. Also, Lennon was notorious for trying to steal credit for Paul's writing.

There was significant disagreement between Lennon and McCartney over this song. Lennon says it is his song, with help from McCartney. McCartney says he wrote the music because Lennon had the lyrics but no music. Musicologist Ian MacDonald was of the opinion that the melody was more McCartney's style than Lennon's style. Given the song originated with Lennon, and there was no consensus from the two partipants, I think "written by John Lennon with input from Paul McCartney" is not wrong; McCartney agreed that the song originated with Lennon, and Lennon acknowledged that McCartney helped. The Composition section describes the dispute pretty accurately and thus presents verifiable evidence and allows the reader to draw his own conclusion. Going beyond that, one would have to side with Lennon or McCartney and I don't think that's necessary or appropriate. I suppose the "written by John Lennon" part may seem like it takes Lennon's side, but the immediate qualification dampens that, IMO. John Cardinal 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ian MacDonald is certainly not a reliable source. Though he knows a lot about music and he writes well, his knowledge of the Beatles music is speckled and his book is filled with factual errors. In some instances he even incorrectly indentifies the singer (see for example his notes to "You know my name"). A much better reference source are the notes by Alan W. Pollack (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/HEADER/editorial.shtml). Personally I think the tune of "In my life" sounds much more like Lennon. The melody has many features which are typical of Lennon's writing. In particular the tune is mainly pentatonic, a favourite device of Lennons's (see

 + http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-notes_on.shtml), the chord progressions are not straightforward, and "the tune runs roughshod over them" in places. There is also a lot of free dissonance and gratuitous seventh and ninth chords (compare Lennon's "Julia", see http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/j.shtml). The song also uses Lennon's much favoured minor fourth chord (in this case d minor), rather than the "normal" major fourth, a choice that features in for many of his songs (e.g. "Happiness is a warm gun", "Across the universe", "If I fell", "All I've gotta do"). In addition, the harmony uses the flat seventh chord (in this case G), a feature of many of Lennon's songs right through his career (e.g. "A hard day's night", "Help", "A day in the life", "It's only love", "Hide your love away"). The song "Imagine" also contains the flat seventh note (though not the chord) in the famous little piano riff at the end of each line of the verse. Generally speaking, McCartney's melodies are more natural and his music does not make as much use of such harmonic tricks as Lennon's. It seems more likely that McCartney's memory refers to him writing the (vocal) harmony for the song on his own. In fact, he contributes free counterpoint in the verse which would have required some work and more harmony in the middle eight/bridge. This would be consistent with Lennon's memory of what happened.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknowoo (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 

Authorship in first line

I have a problem with the first sentence as edited yesterday to the "with input from Paul McCartney" wording, which This seems to be devolving into an edit war.

"In My Life" is a song written by John Lennon with input from Paul McCartney (credited to Lennon/McCartney) ...
— new version

"In My Life" is a song written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney ...
— old version as I restored it

This change to the new version, seemed unnecessary to me. It deemphasizes McCarney's role in the writing without adding specific information. While the specific contributions are disputed, Paul at least wrote the bridge, so the word "input" is dismissing actual writing.

I reverted this change to it's former wording. My changes was reverted (and deemed vandalism) back to the new version. The reversion quotes these two sources that are not used in the article:

• http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1007.html
• http://perso.wanadoo.es/sissu/maingear.htm

I haven't checked articles for other Lennon/McCartney songs to see if "with input from" is the convention. I think in this case it dismisses Paul's contribution excessively, and unnecesarily since specifics are detailed later in the article. "Input" can mean practically nothing. / edg ☺ ★ 18:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Firstly, I didn't mean to dismiss your page as vandalism...I guess it's a force of habit? I dunno, I'm sorry about that. Anyway, back to the original discussion. Most sources close to the Beatles or Beatles-based all seem to agree that Lennon was the primary writer of the song. The only pro-Macca source I can find is Macca himself--and I hardly consider that reliable. Lennon and McCartney occasionally seemed to try to siphon credit from the other--McCartney claiming that "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Girl" were co-written (both were definitive Lennon compositions) and Lennon's famous assertion that he wrote "a good 70% of the lyrics" for Eleanor Rigby. Overall though, they did seem to be in agreement on most things, In My Life being an exception.

Usually whoever the main vocalist is is a good indicator of who primarily wrote the song--and witness that the song has been performed at Lennon tributes, and that Macca has never had it in a setlist (and surely he would if he were responsible for the melody).

That being said, it's agreed upon that it was Lennon's idea and Lennon's words, and most sources close to the Beatles say he was most responsible for the melody. It's also a song where Lennon's recollection has been extremely consistent--in both the 1970 Rolling Stone and 1980 Playboy (among others) he says he was the main writer and Macca helped with the middle. Thus, I'd say "John Lennon with input from Paul McCartney" is fair. After all, it was Lennon's song but McCartney contributed to it. I'd say the reverse would go for a song like "We Can Work it Out"--Paul's song, but John wrote the middle-eight--thus "Paul McCartney with input from John Lennon." To say "John Lennon and Paul McCartney" would make it sound like John co-wrote the main melody/lyrics--and he didn't. I'd say the same goes for here, and it doesn't diminish Macca's contributions--it just makes it clear that Lennon was the one primarily responsible.

CinnamonCinder 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is problematic, as it creates a new precedent for identifying in the lead if it's a "John song" or a Lennon/McCartney collaboration. I think this should only be done for undisputed single composer situations, but I'm not the person that needs to be convinced.

Precedent

As currently written, I don't see many opening paragraphs describing collaborated songs as "This is mostly John's/Paul's song" (not that I've looked for many examples). We Can Work It Out (example from parent comment) isn't listed this way. What is being proposed here would be the beginning of changes to many articles, so it should probably achieve some WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles before it gets rolled out.

Language

My specific problem with the "with input from" language is that it is too vague. If I had to guess what it meant, I'd say Pete Shotton's role in "Eleanor Rigby" would count as "with input from"; in fact, so might John's role in that same song, which may have been nothing more than making several suggestions, all of which were eventually ignored.

Finding the right words to do this may difficult as it entails prioritizing different parts of the songwriting process — in this case, dismissing "the middle eight" and "very few lines" as not truly co-writing. I think it's better to use the established language and put the details in the article body, not the opening sentence.

Please will someone else debate this

I have a whole lot of "don't care" about this issue, and don't wish to be drawn further in. Personally, I prefer Throbbing Gristle. Today I found out Ringo contributed a line to "Eleanor Rigby"; please don't make me learn any more about the Beatles. / edg ☺ ★ 23:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a dispute about the writing of a song (and specifically from the writers themselves) it should be credited as read on the label/publishing contract: Lennon/McCartney. If Lennon and McCartney disagree, then who are we to argue and push a POV? Bite the bullet, and leave it as is. --andreasegde 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, the official credit belongs in the infobox and anywhere else the official credit is expected. In the lead sentence/paragraph, I don't think we have to use the official credit; I think a better solution is to create a concise statement that reflects the evidence. I don't think the various revisions here have done that (including mine), but I think it's possible to do so. We just need to discuss it and reach a consensus.

From what I have seen, here is the evidence:

• Lennon said he wrote it but credits McCartney for the middle 8 (I forget the exact Lennon quote)
• McCartney says he wrote the melody
• Ian MacDonald, a credible source, says the melody sounds like McCartney

Given MacDonald's support, I don't think McCartney's claim can be dismissed out-of-hand. That doesn't mean it's the truth, whatever that is. It just means there is credible evidence. Despite claiming the melody, McCartney treats it as a Lennon song; he just makes a large claim about how he helped compared to what Lennon said.

If we can't reach consensus, then we can bite the bullet as described above by andreasegde. John Cardinal 01:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, in the Playboy interview John talks about this song twice. The first time he mentions it, he attributes the whole middle eight(the one that probably doesn't even exist) to Paul -- musically, I mean. The second time, he says Paul 'helped' with the middle eight, which is of course more of an indicator that they wrote it together. It's the latter statement that is the most quoted.

Personally I find it to be a big myth that this song supposedly should be the one over which they disagree the most. Paul claims to have contributed largely to both 'Help', 'Ticket to Ride', 'Dr. Robert' and 'I'm Only Sleeping'-- songs where John basically takes all credit.

So, when John actually GIVES Paul credit for the writing of 'In My Life', as he does in 1980, I find it VERY likely that Paul's contribution is considerable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.153.194.200 (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Help" was solely Lennon's, so was "I'm Only Sleeping"; everyone considers "Help!" to be classic early Lennon. When has Macca ever made these ridiculous claims? And what's more important, what crack are you smoking?

216.165.23.27 06:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Everyone considers..." -- Who is everyone? When have they told you this? ""Help" was solely Lennon's...." -- Based on what evidence? Isn't it basically just a personal opinion you're presenting? John was the lead singer on all of these songs. But he was the lead singer on "Every Little Thing" also, which Paul wrote, so that doesn't work as evidence either. Paul has never suggested that John DIDN'T write these songs, only that he was there with him working on them. However, when Paul made his press statement during the 2002 McCartney/Lennon controversy(storm in a teacup), he did use 'Strawberry Fields...' and 'Help' as examples of songs which John was (more or less) entirely responsible for, which slightly contradicts his 'Many Years From Now' comments on the song. That COULD be used as evidence. --192.153.194.200 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

McCartney makes these claims in the book 'Many Years From Now', written by Miles. It's been around for about ten years. For instance, he talks about having written the whole counter-melody to 'Help'. That could of course be considered as being more of an arranger's job than a writer's. McCartney goes through all of their songs. Sometimes he gives credit to Lennon for contributions to his own songs, sometimes he takes credit. Perhaps he takes more than he gives, which wouldn't really be that odd, as Lennon suggested in 1980: -Remembering his own contributions to Paul's songs was much easier for him than to remember Paul's contributions to his.

McCartney is now the only person in the world who knows the details of the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership, so whether or not he has an agenda -- as some suggest, his testimony should be taken seriously.

Lennon(1980): "Now Paul helped write the middle eight melody. The whole lyrics were already written before Paul had even heard it. In 'In My Life', his contribution melodically was the harmony and the middle eight itself." 84.208.227.164 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: "THE MIDDLE EIGHT ITSELF"!! 50% of the music. --192.153.194.200 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In the Beatles vast catalog there are absolutely no other occasions where Lennon handed over completed lyrics for McCartney to put to music. I *highly* doubt that this was the case with `In My Life.' Paul McCartney as Jon Lovitz's Tommy Flanagan: "Yeah, I wrote `In my life,' yeah...I wrote `I am the Walrus' and `Revolution' too...yeah...that's the ticket." Lux Dixon (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

References

This article does not include claims made in the lead, which should have references:

It was ranked 23rd on the Rolling Stone article "The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time", and was placed second on CBC's 50 Tracks. Mojo magazine named it the best song of all time in 2000. These are not in the article. --andreasegde 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to John Cardinal

I agree. I think any of the following would be appropriate

I think "written by John with input from Paul" is the most effective. But I also think there are alternatives. We could take the possibility of not listing a primary author at all, and saying something to the effect of "the song originated with John Lennon, but to what extent the song was a collaborative effort with Paul McCartney is debated (see below)."

CinnamonCinder 06:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Other editors have already objected to the "with input from Paul McCartney" version and so we don't have consensus there. I like the "originated" phrasing because that is not in dispute. I also like the idea of saying they collaborated but the extent of the collaboration is in dispute. I am not fond of your specific wording (sorry!) so here's my suggestion, in context:

"In My Life is a song by The Beatles written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney. The song originated with Lennon, and while McCartney contributed to the final version, the extent of his contribution is in dispute." — John Cardinal 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen one particularly persistent editor with qualms about "with input for Paul McCartney." But I like your version the best. Btw My wording wasn't intended to be what was in the final version actually, it was merely to get across the essence of what an ideal intro would say. Something like what you said is obviously more clearly worded and encylopedic. Anyway, good job with your contributions and keep up the good work!

CinnamonCinder 06:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If I Fell

The chords of 'In My Life' may be similar to those of 'If I Fell', but as that song, according to McCartney, is also a co-composition(Lennon probably did the intro alone, though); bringing up the chords of 'If I Fell' in this article doesn't support either one of their cases, as to who contributed what to 'In My Life', I mean. --84.208.227.164 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

McCartney makes his claim concerning the writing of 'If I Fell' in the book 'Many Years From Now'. That is the source. In the main article it says: 'Citation needed', after McCartney's claim. I don't know how to supply a citation, and I'm also too lazy to find out, so if anyone could do that work for me, I'd appreciate it.--84.208.224.234 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a bootleg version of this song, basically the whole song sung solo by Lennon on his home tape-recorder playing a (sloppy) acoustic guitar backing. I don't know what the reference for this version is, but I have it myself in MP3! There are some very slight differences to the melody (e.g. a repeat to fade ending which was not used in the final studio version) and one chord missing. In view of this, one has to wonder about Mccartney's claim to have co-written ths ong. In this early solo demo it's all there; this suggests that hMcCartney's contribution wasthe harmony vocal and to suggest a slight change in chords and melody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknowoo (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Recording

When John Lennon used the words 'play it like Bach', he used it as an example of what The Beatles would sometimes ask of George Martin. I don't see any reason to interpret those words as what he told George Martin in this precise case. It seems like wishful thinking to me. George Martin seems to remember that John didn't know what to fill those eight bars with, and that the whole solo was made on his own while The Beatles had a tea-break.. --84.208.224.234 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Credits for the Lennon/McCartney songs

In pop music (since the Middle Age) very often, one song is not the product of just one person, but several. When we read credits like Lennon/McCartney/Starkey, who did what? I´ve always prefered the details, and in recorded pop music, the most important is, first, the lyrics and the melody; then, the arrangment and production; in some cases, the recording and the mixing process; and the orchestra and conductor (when aplies). Let´s see:

"In my life".

• Lyrics by John Lennon.
• Music by John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
• Arranged and performed by The Beatles and George Martin.
• Produced by George Martin.
• Engineered by Norman Smith
• Mixed by Geroge Martin and Norman Smith.

• Ringo: drums.
• George: lead guitar.
• Paul: harmony vocals and bass.
• John: double tracked lead vocals and tambourine.
• George Martin: piano.

So, 75% for John and 25% for Paul, but just for the lyrics and the music, how about given credtis to those who worked in the recording process?

Examples:

"Eleanor Rigby"

• Lyrics by Paul MCartney with John Lennon.
• Music by Paul Mccartney.
• Strings orchestrated and conducted by George Martin.
• Prodcued by Geroge Martin.
• Engineered by Geoff Emerick.
• Mixed by George Martin and Geoff Emerick.

• Paul: lead and background vocals.
• John and George: background vocals.
• String octet.

In the article "list song by singer", they used the formula Lennon and McCartney, for songs written by both; Lennon with McCartney (or viceversa) for songs written primarly by one of them. The order means who is the main composer (and usually is the main singer), and the "with" means "input", a significative one, not a single line or idea. A complete enciclopedya must list all the details of the song. And The Beatles and their fans deserved it too.

And finally, don´t believe Ian Mcadonald, I think he was the firts to list Paul as playing "flutes" on "Strawberry fields".

Referencing

In the "Recording" section, there is a quote by George Martin: "Play it like Bach". This has to be cited immediately after the sentence. I'm not sure which source, 9 or 10, refers to that quote (if either do at all). Could someone please find a source for that quote and cite it. Thanks! Kodster (Willis) (Look what I can do) 22:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Genre

I can see a source for "pop", but the genres on that page are very generalised (I can find only "rock" and "pop"). If we just write "pop" here the same should be done with songs like God Only Knows also [1], and Bohemian Rhapsody should be changed to just "rock" [2] etc. I think it should be "baroque pop" because the piano solo is "something Baroque-sounding". Helpsloose 03:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

this isn't soft rock, it has too much depht and too much baroque stuff in it to be considered soft rock, baroque pop to rock are good phrases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.250.70 (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is not what we think it is, it's what reliable sources, such as Allmusic, say it is. Rodhullandemu 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Impact

This article doesn't describe the profound impact this song had on the musical industry, at all. Surely we can write something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.28.233 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Genre

How is this pop? Pop usually carries the definition (and connotation) of being a corny love song. This is anything but corny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordsurya08 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It's "pop" because it falls into the definition of pop when it was written in 1966, i.e. not classical and not jazz. We do not remove soured material without changing consensus, thanks. Rodhullandemu 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Creators of the song

Sundayclose,

I prefer your last version to your previous version. I do not dispute the fact that Lennon was at the origin of the song, McCartney himself stated it but the fact that Lennon would be undoubtedly the main creator of the song. This is why I originally intended to correct the article introduction. Lennon, in particular in his 1970 Rolling Stone interview, at a time when his feud with McCartney and his rejection of the Beatles myth, were very strong, had a tendency to overrate his own contributions. I recall that a few months later John credited the song 'Imagine' to his sole credit while it is so evident that, for the lyrics, he just borrowed the structure of one of Yoko's poem in 'Grapefruit'. So each time when a Lennon's claim is different from one of his collaborators, caution is necessary.

As Martin wrote in his Sgt Pepper book "Summer of Love", most of Lennon songs' vocal lines are based on very few notes (Listen again to A Hard day's night or Strawberry ("Living is easy with eyes closed ...) or Imagine), sometimes even only one single note

because Lennon was not the most imaginative musician and composer. He had other assets : he was a great singer (at least at the beginning of the Beatles) with much personality heard in his voice, he could be (not always) a good lyricist (his Across the Universe lyrics are appealing to me).

But when you listen to In my Life vocal line you hear many different notes therefore you can doubt if this vocal line was a Lennon creation. I am not saying that it is surely a McCartney melody, perhaps Lennon created it but doubtfulness is not forbidden.

Despite what I have just written,

Lennon is my favourite artist ever. In particular I like much his voice which often moves me

but I am not a blinded fan. If I consider that one of his songs is weak, I won't hide it and I am cautious about any of his own claims.

I also don't think that McCartney has been completely honest about his own songs or contributions. Paul has not always been very fair to George Martin. For instance he said he wrote "In my life" melody but I have never heard him telling that Martin composed the piano solo (and played it at half speed). Certainly the piano solo is a small part of the song's music but such a beautiful piece therefore McCartney didn't write all the music of this song but "only" "most of" the music. That's a small difference but a difference. In Barry Miles's book, McCartney just ignores Martin (and Geoffrey Emerick and others).

If one hears either Lennon or McCartney, Martin's contribution to the Beatles' music is very very low while it isn't the case. Sure Martin is not the main writer of any Beatles's song (except the B-face of the film soundtrack album 'Yellow Submarine')

however 'Strawberry Fields Forever' or 'Eleanor Rigby' would be less beautiful songs without Martin's inputs.

Now I entirely subscribe with the new version of the article. John originated the song but the "motherhood" of the entire song is unknown and can't be attributed mainly to John (as it was in the previous version of this article) without much doubt. Perhaps it is mainly a Lennon song but one can't be adamant about it after McCartney statement in Barry Miles's 'Many Years From Now'.Carlo Colussi (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that the song originated with Lennon. All of your opinions and comments about disagreements about the authorship of other songs and Lennon's talents as a songwriter are entirely irrelevant to discussion of authorship of this song. Please read WP:SYN. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with your "irrelevant" argument. This is not my opinion : a source (John Lennon in his Rolling Stone interview) stated that In my Life was mainly a Lennon song. Another source (McCartney interviewed by Miles) stated that In my life was a collaboration. Though "Wikipedia" was fully aware of these contradictions, "Wikipedia" stated, before my edit, that In my Life was a Lennon song. Sorry, but "Wikipedia" was wrong and couldn't state it was a mainly Lennon song. Wikipedia could have eventually claimed that Lennon claimed the authorship of the song while McCartney claimed it was a collaboration but once again Wikipedia shouldn't have stated it was a Lennon song. Wikipedia must be neutral and should have only noted that the song was officially credit to the duo.Carlo Colussi (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think your comments above about authorship of other songs and Lennon's talents as a songwriter are irrelevant, please tell us specifically how those comments could or should change the content about authorship of In My Life. Sundayclose (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Citing other Lennon songs and discussing about the authorship of these songs is not irrelevant because it just shows that "Lennon claims alone are not a RELIABLE SOURCE". Wikipedia must cite sources but also should cite RELIABLE AND SOLID SOURCES but never fanciful sources such as Lennon alone, not corrobated by his collaborators. To write in Wikipedia that In my life is a John Lennon song just because John Lennon has told it and using this only source in Wikipedia is irrelevant. To cite other "Lennon or so-called Lennon" songs where his authorship is clearly denied or doubtful, just proves that Lennon is not a reliable, trustful source and therefore Lennon's statements about song's authorship should never be used in Wikipedia unless other sources (such as McCartney, Ono, Martin, Harrison & al) have confirmed Lennon's statement.Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carlo Colussi: You avoided the question. How should anything you write about authorship of other songs change the content of the statement already in the article: "The song originated with John Lennon, but Paul McCartney and Lennon later disagreed over the extent of their respective contribution to that song, specifically the melody". So the article already states that Lennon and McCartney disagreed about authorship of In My Life. Please be very specific as to which words exactly should be changed and how they should be changed as a result of your wall of text above about other songs. What exactly should be changed because of your numerous comments about other songs and Lennon's talents as a songwriter? Sundayclose (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. I don't see what I avoided.

The version before my edit read as follows : "In My Life" is a song by the Beatles released on the 1965 album Rubber Soul, written mainly by John Lennon and credited to Lennon–McCartney..

Besides even though in my first edit I removed the passage "The song originated with John Lennon", I do not contradict it.

What I contradict is written mainly by John Lennon because one source (McCartney) states it was not a mainly Lennon song.

The current version reads as follows : "In My Life" is a song by the Beatles released on the 1965 album Rubber Soul, and credited to Lennon–McCartney. which satisfies me.Carlo Colussi (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Carlo Colussi: Hold on. Look at the dates and times in the article's edit history and compare that to the date and time of your first post here. You wrote all of your first post above after the article stated: "The song originated with John Lennon, but Paul McCartney and Lennon later disagreed over the extent of their respective contribution to that song, specifically the melody". You even acknowledged that it is the current version as of the time you made your first post above. And that's what the article states right now. So it seems that you wrote the enormous amount of information about the authorship of other songs and Lennon's songwriting abilities because you wanted to change the article, right? And you said that you disagree with me that your comments about other songs and other matters are irrelevant, so by definition you think that your comments are relevant to needed changes in this article. WP:TALK states that the purpose of a talk page "is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article" (bold added). The talk page for In My Life is not a platform for an editor to discuss information that is not relevant to suggested changes in the article. So once again, what do all of your many comments about authorship of other songs and Lennon's songwriting abilities have to do with current changes needed in the article on In My Life? So far you haven't explained the least bit of relevance of your comments to needed changes in this article. And you didn't just write a sentence or two. You wrote a lot about other songs and other matters that don't seem to relate to this article. If your comments above have nothing to do with necessary changes in this article, please just tell us that and we can move on. Sundayclose (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Before my first edit (11:53, 31 August 2017), the previous version of the article was dated 14:07, 13 August 2017. The beginning of the 13 August article was as follows : "In My Life" is a song by the Beatles released on the 1965 album Rubber Soul, written mainly by John Lennon". I changed that version because the statement of Lennon being the main writer of the song was just based on one source, Lennon himself in the Rolling Stone interview. Another source, McCartney, claimed that this song was a collaboration between both musicians. Therefore the claim that Lennon was the main writer should be changed. This was all the more necessary as Lennon's source is not a reliable source as my other songs examples showed. Carlo Colussi (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bewildering and Inaccurate reference to Bag-Of-Words analysis

Bag-Of-Words analysis simply can't be used to refute or confirm the idea that Lennon wrote THE MUSIC, and it was puzzling for me to read that it COULD be useful in making that assessment. How? Music isn't words. So I read the source cited, and the source doesn't SAY that. The technique used is a PARALLEL to "bag of words" analysis, but one that counts transitions between notes and transitions between chords instead of counting words. Furthermore, it's not trustworthy until it is evaluated by known controls. Here is how you would do that. Take the complete list of musical works documented beyond doubt to have been composed by any known person who has never been so much as accused of plagiarism. Remove one work of music from that collection. Using all of the remaining works in the collection as the "known" sample to perform the analysis, does the analysis then show the single work that was removed from the collection to have been composed by that person? If yes, put the removed work back in the collection, and remove a different work. Repeat. If the person is known to have written 100 songs, there will be 100 possible sets of 99 songs that can be used as a sampling base to assess the sole omitted song. If these 100 tests confirm composition by that known person, you're on your way. Repeat for other prolific composers. Only if the method has a track record for ACCURATELY answering questions whose answer is known by other means, only then can we trust its answer for a question whose answer is genuinely not otherwise known. Without this kind of testing, "bag-of-words" or "bag-of-music" meets the very definition of junk science. We need to be sensitive to this. Junk science has probably wrongfully convicted as many innocent defendants as false eyewitness identifications. Junk science can defeat our attempts to engineer safer machines, bridges, highways, buildings, and this failure MAKES INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE A DEATH THEY DID NOT DESERVE. Since junk science is, therefore, morally the same as murdering random innocent people, scientific claims should be subject to the strictest scrutiny.74.64.104.99 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Inconsistent statements regarding probabilities?

This appears in the section Composition:

In a 2018 study that used bag-of-words modelling, the melody was analyzed by Mark Glickman, Ryan Song and Jason Brown, and from this study, mathematician Keith Devlin reported a .018% probability of McCartney writing the song.[17] Glickman, Song and Brown themselves stated that: "Our model produces a probability of 18.9% that McCartney wrote the verse, and a 43.5% probability that McCartney wrote the bridge, with a large amount of uncertainty about the latter."

How could Devlin come to a probability of 0.018% of McCartney writing the song while Glickman, Song and Brown say their model produces a probability of 18.9% that McCartney wrote the verse, and a 43.5% probability that McCartney wrote the bridge? Can anyone reconcile that? John Link (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest deleting all of this bullshit posing as science. As Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics". No one can determine authorship of a Beatles song by statistically analyzing the frequency of individual words. If Lennon and McCartney have different opinions, it's enough just to state that. Sundayclose (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the original study, they phrase 18.9% as "0.189". Devlin took that to mean 0.189%, and Beatles fans spread that around the internet feeling that it confirmed who wrote In My Life. But if you read the whole study, they make quite clear that 0.189 does not mean 0.189%, it means 18.9%. I presume Devlin might not have had access to the whole study. Certainly his interpretation of the study's data differs from the interpretation given in the study itself, but from my understanding, it's not up to Wikipedia to state that his interpretation is incorrect, unless Mark Glickman, Ryan Song and Jason Brown make a comment that Devlin's interpretation of their findings is incorrect. So that's how you reconcile the differences. I think the article is fine as is, it states Devlin's interpretation and it states the original study's interpretation, and the sources are linked if anyone wants to investigate for themselves. - 2A02:C7D:76A3:FD00:344E:C153:297D:8316 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:76A3:FD00:344E:C153:297D:8316 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cover versions

Twiggy sang it on The Muppet Show, does that count? Grassynoel (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Judy Collins

May we add Judy Collins version here? I believe it should be noted. Turtleshell3 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Baroque?

Please see Lennon’s ‘Rolling Stone’ interview, where he complained about Martin’s ‘Elizabethan’ (sic) piano solo having been imposed without his entire agreement as the song’s middle eight. Lennon was not sufficiently educated in music to have identified, at the time, this pastiche passage as ‘Baroque’. Martin may have been inspired by the fourth chord of the song, which modulates to a major by sharpening the third, a Baroque ‘fingerprint’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.209.157.246 (talk • contribs)

Are you suggesting an edit? If so, it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. If you are not suggesting an edit, talk pages are only for discussion of improvements to the article and are not to be used for general discussion of the topic. Sundayclose (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

George Harrison cover

Maybe some George Harrison expert can post about George covering the song on his 1974 tour. At one point in the song, George changes the lyrics to "In my life, I love God more." M.mk (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I entered this info on the article itself. M.mk (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I added to External Links a YouTube link to Geo's version. M.mk (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe McCartney attended a show on the tour in disguise (Afro wig?) and later said he would have stuck to the original arrangement. If someone wants to track that down... M.mk (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed image of lyrics claimed copyright issue

I visited this article a few months back and saw an image of a handwritten page that was John Lennon's original work on the lyrics. They were very different from the version that was recorded and the article explained that. But I wanted to see them again to include mention of in some work I was doing for my degree. Unfortunately the image file had been deleted due to a claimed copyright issue. I visited the Wayback Machine and found several older archived pages that included the image and was able to copy one for reference. What I found very sad was that the deletion request only identified the image as copyright to John Lennon or the Beatles somehow. But the image was a photograph of the page that was held in a British museum, and the image was not copyrighted Lennon or Beatles but the photographer, Suraj Rajan, who had taken it and stated "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license". It seems to me that the deletion request did not address the fact that Suraj Rajan had licensed his photograph under that license and without addressing that fact, the grounds for the deletion request were wrong and the process should be reversed. But I am only a casual visitor to this web sight and do not know details of how to do this or how to bring it to anybody's attention in any other way but this. 49Sally 49Sally (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@49Sally And how did Rajan get a license from the Lennon estate, the Beatles, or the British Museum? As a general rule, a photograph of a two-dimensional object is not a new work for copyright purposes, so a photograph of a handwritten page under copyright is subject to the license terms of the original. —C.Fred (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Asking how he got the license might be a good question but why ask it when it selects one item out of all the Creative Commons items in Wikipedia. Should all the ones that might be copyrighted but rely only upon supposition to justify removal?

I found the deletion details which mention Wikipedia's rule about "fair use" as a reason why the image was not retained. On that, how can the retention of examples such as these be justified?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candle_in_the_Wind#/media/File:Elton_John_-_Candle_in_the_Wind_(1986).jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowin%27_in_the_Wind#/media/File:BlowingUnauthorized.jpg

I don't need to know the answer, I am only talking about equal application of standards. 49Sally (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@49Sally They're used under the English Wikipedia's standards for fair use. Wikimedia Commons has no such standards--although it's possible that the image could be restored to be moved here if fair use is justified under en.wiki standards. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)