Talk:The Rutles

2003

I have the vinyl somewhere in my mess I will expand later. Don't delete please.

---

I reverted the recent additions as they looked at first glance to be vandalism. So then I reverted my reversion when I realized this was parody. I am unfamiliar with this group and would think that it would be easy for others who were unfamiliar to think that the whole article is suspect, except for the fact that it has been around for over a year, so it is hence probably legit. Strange group. Nanobug 13:05, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I tried to insert in their fictional history this morning, got several paragraphs in, then found out somebody deleted it... You know, there are two sides to their story: real and fiction. The fictional side deserves to be told too!

Che Stadium

I have a distant recollection that in the film Che Stadium was named after the Cuban revolutionary Che Stadium. Could someone who has the film please check this Billlion 08:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it indeed is. MakeRocketGoNow 18:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's right. Somebody ruined a perfectly good joke there...

Ricky Fataar

Is the Ricky Fataar who played Stig the same Ricky Fataar who toured with the Beach Boys in the mid 70s? If so, I think it deserves a mention! --HappyDog 01:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it indeed is. MakeRocketGoNow 18:27, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, Stig, the "quiet Rutle," doesn't have a single line in the entire mockumentary. He sings, but he never speaks. --Mr. A. 14:50, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Should someone add something about the newer film, Rutles 2: Can't Buy me Lunch?

DKK

Erm...Rikki Fataar doesn't add much to "Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch",as he was busy touring as the drummer for Bonnie Raitt. Besides drumming for Bonnie Raitt on a large portion of her recordings, Rikki was a one time Beach Boy. He started out in a band called "The Flames" featuring his brothers. ( They co-incidentally did a lot of Beatles covers! )--Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

length

This article is longer than the one on the beatles...... 66.33.249.200 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What? The insect?LessHeard vanU 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• No! The Be'''a'''tles!

• Gaa! Sorry. Beatles. Anyone find this odd?216.37.227.202 19:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No - it makes perfect sense being as though the Beatles have a real, larger history which can be spread across a number of different articles and pages, whereas the Rutles history is relatively self-contained and can be put into one slightly big article 94.169.37.85 (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Beatles lawsuit ?

I presumptuously deleted this section, which looked bogus, and the non-specific link (bmi.com) seemed like a fool's errand.

In settlement of a lawsuit, some Rutles songs are now listed as being co-authored by Lennon and McCartney. As of early 2006, these six songs from the first Rutles CD (which were not on the original LP release) are credited solely to Neil Innes, according to the official BMI web site: "Baby Let Me Be", "Between Us", "Blue Suede Schubert", "Get Up And Go", "Goose Step Mama", "It's Looking Good". The other 14 songs from the CD (that is, all of the songs from the original LP release) have all had John Lennon and Paul McCartney added to the songwriting credits along with Neil Innes.

However, www.bmi.com/search/ does confirm Lennon/McCartney credits to Rutles titles (which should be included in this article -- Wikipedia is not required to sustain the parody). I can't Google any mention of this lawsuit, but am restoring this with a ^{{{citation needed}}} cos it now seems more plausible to me. More info (with citation) on this lawsuit would certainly be interesting.

(As an aside, now that George is out of the picture, will Apple sue all of the projects he greenlighted? Bad news for Monty Python & Cirque du Soleil[1]) edgarde 17:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ironic, considering "Get Up & Go" was left off the original LP precisely because it was just TOO close to "Get Back" for legal comfort. MrBronson 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's bogus, because I heard something about this several months or maybe a year ago and I checked it out, and I did find that the songs were now credited to Lennon/McCartney/Innes. And I do believe it was the BMI web site. If the lawsuit had been brought in the US instead of the UK, I believe the Rutles would have won because parody/satire is constitutionally protected speech and trumps statutory protections in the copyright law...but the lawsuit was brought in the UK, and my understanding is that back royalties had to be paid, the owners of the Beatles songs get a cut of future royalties, and songwriting credits now list Lennon & McCartney as well as Innes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnold Gallagher (talk • contribs) 09:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Arnold Gallagher (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Arnold Gallagher

I'm back again. The section should not have been deleted. A quick 30-second trip to bmi.com showed that the songwriting credits are now Innes/Lennon/McCartney. This could easily have been verified before deleting the accurate information. I went to bmi.com and entered "cheese and onions" in the search. I had to click an "I AGREE" button, then the site chastised me for leaving the search field blank, but I entered "cheese and onions" in the search field again and got the page with all 3 names credited as songwriters. It is BMI Work #230135, that may be another way to search. I presume that any other song would yield the same result. If I try to paste the entire URL here it looks like this which may be unusable but here goes: http://repertoire.bmi.com/TitleSearch.asp?querytype=WorkName&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyname=cheese%20and%20onions&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=False&blnAltTitles=False User: Arnold Gallagher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.245.104 (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Apropos to nothing in particular … isn't it odd to attach Lennon/McCartney to a song - "Nevertheless" - that is strictly a parody of a George Harrison song? And , what about songs that are parodies of songs The Beatles covered , but , didn't write ? ( "Number One"/"Twist & Shout" , "Goose-Step Mama"/"Some Other Guy" , "Blue Suede Schubert" / "Roll Over Beethoven". ). Since many bands embraced the "Mersey Beat" sound in the 60's , that part of the equation should be negated. ( Of course that opens the flood gates for those other artists to step in.). And … in a similar irony … Innes got sole credit for "I've Got You Under my Skin" … a Rutles song he didn't write! ( He Rutle-ized it , but it's a cover of a Cole Porter song! ) 75.104.174.56 (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheese and Onion

This song don't sound like anything the beatles done. There's a touch of A Day In The Life in there, but the melody sounds like "Isolation" off of plastic ono band. Can anyone elighten me?--Crestville 11:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I always thought it was a satirical psychedelic extension of the "Yellow Submarine Sandwich" concept. Can anyone tell me whether the word onions in the film was misspelled "onoins" as a joke based on the idea that Lennon mentioned his lover in lyrics whenever possible at the time? Or was that just something that I thought up myself? Britmax 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[2] It's spelt "onions". But the song does go "Do i have to spell it out?/C-H-E-E-S-E-A-N-D-O-N-I-O-N-S/Oh no!", so there is an Ono (oh no) reference in there somewhere. The video is amazing. I actually forgot I was watching The Rutles and thought I was watching "Yellow Submarine", though I stand by my original point, it's not as good a song parody as the others. Except for the "end note"!--Crestville 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a pastiche, not a parody. MrBronson 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On the original LP the lyrics were "Do I have to spell it out?/C-H-E-E-S-E-A-N-D-O-N-I-O-N-S/Ono". The animation was done by the same animators that did Yellow Submarine. Apepper 10:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems to have a dose of "Sexy Sadie" in the melody, plus a tip of the hat to "Glass Onion" in the title of course. White Album and "Submarine" soundtrack songs are both 1968, no? -- Neil H.

It utilizes most of the same chords as A Day in the Life, and is SLIGHTLY remniscent of said song. --Kaizer13 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

The song is slightly "Mind Games" , slightly "Imagine" ,and with the orchestral build up and solitary end note,"A Day In The Life". When Innes performed it on Saturday Night Live he played the song on just a white piano,reminiscent of the "Imagine"-era Lennon. The solitary end note,is supposed to be a parody of "A Day In The Life"'s long final chord.( Which makes Paul Simon's comment,in "All You Need Is Cash" about the chord that "went on forever" even funnier.He must have been VERY stoned! ). The song also just works for it's appearance in "Yellow Submarine Sandwich",as "A Day In The Life" -a section thereof - is heard as The Yellow Submarine blasts off for Pepperland. The animation was by "Big Little Films' whom still exsist,and do numerous music videos.( Among them: Elvis Costello's "Accidents Will Happen") --Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I can also hear a bit of Only a Northern Song in it. --2003:EF:1704:4E37:E9C1:113C:52E:DD9 (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Inhabitants of Rutland?

I lived in Oakham (Rutland) for some years and never heard the locals described as 'Rutles'. The nearest I ever heard was 'Rutlanders'. I suggest this reference be deleted unless a firm citation can be found

82.152.149.195 21:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Must agree. I've been through the Rutland area ( U.K. not Vermont ),and not once were the locals called "Rutles". "Rutlanders" sounds not only most logical,but very probable. I think the person writing the "Archaeology" re-issue liner notes was trying to start a pathetic trend.--Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole inhabitants of Rutland thingy … someone cribbed part of the liner notes from the cd re-issue of “Archaeology” and tried to pass them off as reality. ( Missing the rather obvious joke.) 75.106.32.81 (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Re: Similarity to 1984 film 'Complete Beatles'

Just watched the Rutles DVD last night, and in the extras, Idle mentions (in an excerpt from his (unpublished ?) memoirs that he had access via George Harrison to an unreleased but offically-sanctioned documentary film about the Beatles that was later completed and released, and Idle writes that he tried to emulate the feel of this footage with his Rutles film. It's unclear to me whether or not the film he saw as 'The Long and Winding Road' ended up becoming 'The Complete Beatles'. He mentions Neil Aspinall as the director, but Aspinall's name doesn't appear in IMDB as director or either the Complete Beatles or the Beatles Anthology.

I've reproduced his mention of this issue below. BTW, he also takes credit for the mockumentary format in general, as the Rutles preceded Zelig and Spinal Tap. He overlooks Woody Allen's 'Take the Money and Run' from 1969, and the many shorter "mini-mockumentaries" (including his own work on Monty Python). --Neil H.

Here's the exact quote from Eric Idle about the making of the Rutles:

"[George Harrison] had supported me all the way, encouraging me to do it, telling me endless Beatle stories, and even showing me 'The Long and Winding Road,' an Apple cut of the documentary footage of the Beatles which none of them could agree to release. This Neil Aspinall film eventually became the basis for the recently released 'Beatles Anthology', but for a long time my movie existed as a strange parody of a film no one had ever seen."

From "Say No More," The Unpublished Memoirs of an ex-Python [as reproduced on the DVD extras of "The Rutles: All You Need Is Cash"]

nitpicking here - but wasn't that documentary actually titled "Compleat Beatles" not "Complete Beatles" ?

Reactions by the original

We can read quite a lot in the article of that George loved the project, but I think it ought be interesting to include what the other three Beatles thought about it, maybe also a comment by George Martin if it exists. --Tlatosmd 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Idle has said on several ocaissions that George , besides encouraging The Rutles , and appearing in "All You Need Is Cash" , also acted as technical advisor , because he had a really good memory. ( Stage set ups , equipment , etc. ). George also loaned them guitars. Ringo Starr told Idle , cryptically , that he only liked it after 1968.Ringo also loaned them a limo. Paul McCartney was angry about it. Not because of it being a parody of The Beatles or anything , but it was released just before McCartney's "London Town" album ,and numerous promotional interviews got bogged down with "Rutles" questions! He later reconciled these feelings,after meeting Idle at a party. ( These are all from bits and pieces of stories Idle has told during his live tours.). One fan fuelled rumour is that someone asked Lennon what he thought ,and he SUPPOSEDLY sang a few lines of "Cheese & Onions". And ,above all, The Beatles/Apple Corp. had to sign off on use of the old Beatles footage used. Is all this relevent to the main entry? I dunno. It's the same question Neil Innes gets asked a hundred times at every Beatles related convention! So , maybe it is. Harvey J Satan (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Affectionate and Masterly Songs

I happen to think that the Rutles songs are indeed masterly (masterful?), affectionate tributes. However, there's a lot of that type of thing in this article, and with no citations it seems very POV, so I'm taking those descriptors out. Mrquizzical (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation? (Their History (Fictional))

It has been some time since I last saw the movie, but the "Their History (Fictional)" Section resonates as a transcript of the narration of the movie. Someone should check, because if it is such a transcription, then this section is a transcription, then the section constitutes a copyright violation. Acsenray (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like (at least the first couple of sections) that it's been taken from the Rutles' official page. Which doesn't really help much does it? Anyway, it's not word-by-word, but perhaps someone should rephrase it to avoid any problems eh? --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I too have noted the extreme similarity between the "History" text and the fictional account. While it bears a strong similarity to the movie's narration, I think it more closely follows the text from either the website or the CD booklet (which may well be exactly the same text). I will look for my CD and see if this can be verified, but I strongly suspect that there's a potential copyright violation here. EJSawyer (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the fictional Rutles Discography has been deleted. Could someone please tell me why this happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.191.200 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone has uploaded the 1978 All You Need is Cash film to YouTube here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm deleting the fictional discography. As noted by another person in the Talk, it isn't Wikipedia's job to be a parody ... those albums were never made, and there's nothing significant about a list of names making fun of real Beatles albums. See my other comments about overall rewrite. Leptus Froggi (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Good Call Leptus! Since this article is about a work created by Eric Idle & Neil Innes , all the other items NOT written by Idle or Innes were unneeded baggage! Harvey J Satan (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Why "Kevin" Isn't "Pete Best": The Case Against!

For some reason many Rutle-philes,have assumed that the mysterious " Kevin" is in fact a reference to " Pete Best" , this of course is wrong.

Firstly who is "Kevin" ? On the 1976 release "The Rutland Weekend Songbook" , The Rutles are captured on vinyl for the first time - live - and their line-up is listed as Dirk, Nasty, Stig & Kevin.

As most would guess,Eric Idle was in a hurry with the album liner notes and inadvertently wrote "Kevin". Let's face it,Eric was sloppy with the whole original Rutles concept. In the first film Eric is "Dirk" but represents his friend George Harrison.David Batley plays "Stig" whom is the Paul McCartney parody. Nasty only has a last name! ( And yet,there's " The Children Of Rock-N-Roll" by RON Lennon a few tracks later on the same album! ). Obviously he didn't forsee the Rutlemania that would be coming within two years time! Even the birthplace of The Rutles changed from Rutland to Liverpool!

So,here's why "Kevin" isn't " Pete Best":

• In The Rutles leather jacket photo,the lads are: Dirk,Ron,Stig & Barry. Barry clearly representing the spot where Pete Best would be in The Beatles equivalent photo.

• On the original " I Must Be In Love (Live)" recording,the announcer says The Rutles are wearing their M.B.E.s. Pete Best wasn't in the band long enough to receive the M.B.E.

• The original recording is also a song from The Rutles first film " A Hard Day's Rut", Pete Best was out of The Beatles before they made their first film.

Is Leppo , Pete Best?

• No. Leppo is described as a "friend of Nasty's from art college",and his position in the band was "someone who mainly stood at the back" , descriptions usual associated with Stuart Sutcliffe , John Lennon 's chum from Art College.

Basically, The Rutles never had a " Pete Best".

Baring all this in mind,and if you still wish "Kevin" to be a part of The Rutles universe as opposed to a hastily scribled note by Eric Idle,there actually is a solution! One Man played drums for The Beatles live , after Ringo Starr joined the band,and after they got their M.B.E.s. This One Man is Jimmy Nicol , whom filled in for part of the 1964 Beatles European tour when Ringo had his tonsils removed and was bed-ridden.

"Kevin" IS " Jimmy Nicol" ! ( Which would also show that once again viewers of "Rutland Weekend Television" got the cheap end of the stick. )--Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What about identifying "Kevin" as Andy White? He drummed only once with the Four-(minus-one-)Headed Monster, which was for the single version of Love me do. During the audition at EMI, they'd still had Pete with them, and when they turned up with Ringo to record their first single, George Martin didn't allow him in and brought White in. After Love me do had struck #17, the lads were allowed to have the drummer they wanted to record the Please please me album. See the Anthology where Ringo says, "Well, he didn't play that well on the single that I couldn't copy it when we did the album." --79.193.43.2 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy would be a valid answer , had he played after the Fabs got their M.B.E.s. ( That's the one trip up in Idle's announcement.) Harvey J Satan (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Rutles music was written and performed by the original Beatles"

Not long after All You Need Is Cash first aired in Britain, a conspiracy theory appeared: the Rutles sound like the Beatles, because the music was written and performed by the Beatles themselves as a self-parody. The first time I heard this claim - on a radio station in Liverpool, ironically enough - was when a spokesman ( for Lennon ? ) had publicly issued a statement denying the rumour.
If anyone has a citable reference, would it be worth mentioning in the article, as public reaction to the movie ?

Neil Innes & Eric Idle have both confirmed in interviews , that two Beatles actually did sing a Rutles song! it was "Ouch!". ( But it was at George's Friar Park home with George , Ringo , Innes , and Idle. ).Otherwise , no Beatles were used during the making of the songs. Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Prefab Four" versus "Pre-Fab Four"

Just wanted to point out that there is a distinction. The former was the nickname of The Monkees, for the record (no pun intended). Someone fix that and make the distinction in the article; thanks.

71.241.123.178 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. People started calling The Monkees the "Pre-Fab Four" AFTER "All You Need Is Cash" came out. I was a big follower of The Monkees in the 60's , and they were never referred to as the "Pre-Fab Four". This association seems to have occurred in the 80's when MTV was re-running the television episodes. Harvey J Satan (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

At the time, a 'pre-fab' was a pre-fabricated building - hence the name - that was used as a post-war stop-gap to provide quick and cheap 'temporary' housing for those who had had their houses demolished in the bombing in 1940-41 in London and other areas. So the 'Pre-Fab Four' title was an ironic reference to the Rutles' suggesting that they might perhaps be not quite up to the standard of the other slightly more famous four, as pre-fab houses were often looked down-on as inferior dwellings by people living in more ordinary bricks-and-mortar homes.

... however, we of course all know which was the superior of the two groups.

... BTW, despite being only intended as a 'temporary' solution to the housing problem, many people were still living in their 'pre-fabs' as late as the 1970s, hence the irony of the group's title would have been well noted by most people in the UK, as well as its reference to the 'Fab Four'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Copyright query

EJSawyer (talk)

I don't see copyright violation in the article as a whole. For other reasons, explained below, I'm removing the "Rutles albums (fictional)" section. That was the closest the article came to a violation, since it does not reflect actual album releases, but is in essence a copy of an extended joke. Leptus Froggi (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Disabling copyvio tag. No copyright issues could be found, possibly taken care of in the reply noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a contradiction in the section "Rutland Weekend Television (1975-76)"

"The Rutles singing "I Must Be In Love", a pastiche of a 1964 Lennon-McCartney tune." - makes it sound as if it was written to be like the Beatles.

"He had written "I Must Be In Love" which he realised sounded very "Beatley" " - makes it sound as if it happened by accident.

I can't say which is right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.183.103 (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Article Rewrite Needed

I'm much a fan of the Rutles ... I own The Rutles and The Rutles2 DVDs, The Rutles 1978 CD, and Rutles Highway Revisited. But the article needs to be reworked to remove fan / blog / essay-type language. Some information isn't at all important (such as the pseudo album list). Some is off-topic, such as other films George Harrison financed. There's too much fan language, and uncited fan language, at that ... "it did not prove as popular as the film", "made it quite clear", "as would happen frequently during the Rutles existence", "and then some".

The factual information is fine, but the selection of what parody jokes to explain is not, particularly. Especially not when the material being parodied has little to do with the Rutles or the Beatles. There's no real point in explaining what "The Fifth Rutle" is, and especially not comparing it to the Marx Brothers. And most especially because it isn't so much a reference to the Marx Brothers, as it is a reference to a theme of Beatle fan magazine material in the 1960s (Along the lines of "Who is the Fifth Beatle?").

I'm making a few needed changes, but there's other work to be done, for example the whole "Fictional history" section should be reduced to a paragraph. The synopsis isn't especially helpful, nor is it very interesting. The Beatles lives and decisions as a whole had social significance ... a bunch of one-off jokes strung together about a group that did not exist do not. Choosing which of the movies' jokes to repeat is highly subjective (choosing such-and-such a joke as important, while another isn't).

A good rule of thumb is that if something doesn't read fairly "dry" ... the way an Encyclopedia Britannica article does ... or as a New York Times article does ... then there's a fair chance isn't suited for Wikipedia, either. Leptus Froggi (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"releasing two UK chart hits."

Hi. This quotation comes up at the very beginning. However, there is no reference. Who knows which songs are being referred to? Jackcauffle (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC) , Rutles fan

I was wondering the same thing. The original lp did have two singles released. But, I’ve never heard of them “charting”. (The album was nominated for a Grammy Award for comedy album, but, lost to Weird Al Yankovic.) Some sort of reference is needed. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Correction: It didn’t lose to Weird Al for the 1978 Grammy Award for comedy album, it was Steve Martin’s “A Wild & Crazy Guy”. ( “Weird Al” would not become popular for another three years … it’s the whole Rod Stewart fiasco, all over again! ) 75.106.32.81 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-Related References

Currently , there is a notation at the bottom of this entry , for Utopia's "Deface The Music". Whereas ,it's a brilliant record , and a parody / pastiche of The Beatles ... it has nothing to do with THE RUTLES. Otherwise , you're going to need to attach a lot of other artists whom also parodied The Beatles. Harvey J Satan (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Barry Wom

Apart from the cited reference, I don't have any other suggestions for where the writers got the name from; does anyone else? Grebbsy (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind , this comes from no "official" source , but simple Anglophile deductions. Idle had already called the drummer "Barry" , so part of the "name shortening" joke , meant he had to have had a longer first name ... thus "Barrington". The last name "Womble" is a reference to a U.K. kids show , called "The Wombles". Said "Wombles" are the butt of many jokes , as they were super annoying to many people. They even released charting singles in the U.K.! ( Think "Alvin & The Chipmunks". ). Neil Innes , while with GRIMMS , even co-wrote a song titled, "The Womble Bashers Of Walthamstow". So , it's a fair guess as to the origin of Barry's last name. Also of note ... Ringo & George were both big racing fans , and one such racer was "Barry Sheene"! ( Whom was the basis for "Dirk & Stig"s "Mr.Sheene" song! ). Just my guesses. Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wombles TV charcters have an article, and the Wombles group, who recorded a number of records that entered the UK charts in around 1973-76, were led by Mike Batt.

Although I also can't vouch for it, I can just see Eric Idle naming Barry after the Wombles, it fits his sense of humour perfectly. As for Barry Sheene and the afore mentioned song, there was also a well-known furniture polish called 'Mister Sheene' at the time, but I haven't heard the lyrics so don't know which the song is most likely to be a reference-to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes , Mr. or Miss. Unsigned ... "Mister Sheene" the furniture polish! Yes. That did exist. But the song , besides having all sorts of lyric references to motor racing ,also had a 45 sleeve with an image of a man on a racing motorcycle. ( Not dis-similar to early photos of George Harrison riding one! )( Talk about layering a spoof! ) ( Not to mention George's song "Faster" ! ) Harvey J Satan (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing Spinal Tap reference

I have researched the non-cited claim in the article that Rob Reiner was inspired by the Rutles movie to make the Spinal Tap film. In fact, Reiner in taped interviews explains the origins of his movie and it had nothing at all to do with the Rutles work. These interviews are easy to locate on youtube. If someone would like to offer evidence to the contrary I would be more than happy to review it. Therefore, the line about there being a connection between the two films is being eliminated.99.32.160.175 (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Mashed words

What does "The Rutles (The Prefab Four[1] pronounced "ruttles"[2])" mean? Please correct this. Thanks, Maikel (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Original Rutles Line-Up

Now that the original Rutland Weekend Television clip is available , in a more pristine version , on the SNL dvd collections … the ORIGINAL Rutles are easier to spot. The announcer notes them as "Dirk,Nasty,Stig and Barry" , the order they are shown is: Eric Idle , Neil Innes , John Halsey and David Batley. ( John stands out , as he is much shorter than the others. ).

Ergo , when "the band" is shown playing in the "A Hard Day's Rut" film:

Eric Idle = "Dirk" = "George Harrison" , Neil Innes = "Nasty" = "John Lennon" , John Halsey = "Stig" = "Ringo Starr" , David Batley = "Barry" = "Paul McCartney".

Confusing , right? Only Neil Innes played the same name/character in all versions! 75.104.174.56 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Mentioned" songs / albums , is a confusing mess.

I "get" that whoever added the section is a BIG Rutles fan … but … how far does the triviality need to be spread? ( And it's slightly incomplete , as it doesn't list all of the songs noted on the "Tragical History Tour" album cover , nor the "Rutland Weekend Songbook" run on title , something along the lines of , "Allyouneediscashwhichultimatelycan'tbuyyouhappiness" ).

But , having said that , "All You Need Is Cash" is only ever used as the title of the first film. Within the film , only glimpsed on the "Tragical History Tour" album cover , it's "All You Need is Lunch". Same thing with "Can't Buy Me Lunch" … only the title of the 2nd film , never noted as a song. "The Lunch You Make Is Equal To The Lunch You Take" , is mentioned , by Tom Hanks , no less , as a LYRIC from a song. ( Which would be from , a-yet-to-be-done , parody of "The End". ).

I would dare to suggest , truncating the "mentions" , and let folks discover them for themselves while viewing the films. ( Or , transferring them as trivia to the Wiki entries for the two films. )

Not so sure , the complete run down of all the Bootleg tracks is a necessity either. Should probably be a separate entry altogether … since , for the most part , they are just a mishmash of the same material. ( i.e. Bonzo Dog , solo Innes works , RWTV outtakes , SNL , and the Rutles Demos from the first album sessions. ) 75.104.163.77 (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Rutles. 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/20110927141608/http://www.neilinnes.org/articles/RutQ96.htm to http://www.neilinnes.org/articles/RutQ96.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20121209044407/http://www.neilinnes.org/rutles.htm to http://www.neilinnes.org/rutles.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) 04:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Associated acts

I don't think that all of those listed as associated acts actually meet the requirements. -- Beardo (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Untitled, unsigned

There was never a band. That the first assertion in the entry is "The Rutles were a rock band...," is utter nonsense.

The Rutles never existed.

Should you take issue with this, ask Eric Idle, as he has said as much, recently.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.114.163 (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

List of songs parodied by The Rutles

A couple things I noticed while adding some songs to the list:

- Rutles songs cannot parody other Rutles songs. They might reference them, but that's not a parody.

- Rut-A-Lot is not a Rutles song, it is a compilation of Rutles songs. Imitation Song is not a Rutles song, it is a Neil Innes solo song re-released under The Rutles name.

- The parodies for "Love Life" mentioned The Battle Hymn Of The Republic. What the fuck? Think about it logically, why would Innes parody that song? It's not even a Beatles track.

These are just a couple things to keep note of when editing that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouchyjelly (talk • contribs)

I removed the section per WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Every song by the Rutles is a parody. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-free content

@Rutlesoul: Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s non-free content criteria before inserting non-free images with insufficient rationale for use in this article. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The list of songs parodied by the rutles

im in a dispute about this he told me to make this to see if it should be included or not Theenglishman124 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

its @Binksternet that im in it with is you are curious Theenglishman124 (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the section per WP:NOR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Every song by the Rutles is a parody.

Wikipedia exists to summarize the published literature about a topic. If you can show me that the media is interested in making lists of songs that the Rutles have parodied, then you have some leverage. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

https://rutles.fandom.com/wiki/The_Rutles_Wiki this is an entire fandom wiki dedicated to listing the rutles albums and songs real and fake. there are hundreds of articles here about the rutles songs and albums Theenglishman124 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fandom and wiki stuff is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Any website that allows users to change the information fails WP:USERG and cannot be considered reliable. So Fandom doesn't count as part of the literature. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

im not saying its a source. im saying that it shows that people are interested in a list of songs parodied by the rutles Theenglishman124 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not how we determine inclusion of things. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

he asked for proof people were instrested in a list of songs parodied by the rutles Theenglishman124 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No he did not. He said "If you can show me that the media is interested in making lists of songs that the Rutles have parodied" (emphasis mine). He is referring to having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Not some random fandom wiki. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.song-list.net/therutles/songs

https://the-rutles.com/discography/

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-rutles-mn0000897214/songs

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/3876019

here are a few sources i found Theenglishman124 (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Binksternet Theenglishman124 (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I said reliable sources. None of those are reliable. The first one is just a generic song list, the second one is a self-published source, allmusic isn't reliable, and the last one seems to be a Wikipedia mirror. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

ok give me one moment Theenglishman124 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

i cant find anymore than those but other than the self published one they show that the media is intrested in a list of songs by the rutles Theenglishman124 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

also no other editors other than you me and binksternet are contributing to this dispute is there a way to fix that Theenglishman124 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no issue with that. Also you did not prove that the media was interested in a list of songs. You provided no reliable sources. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

why does it matter if they are reliable if they show that pages are being created to show a list of rutle songs Theenglishman124 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia uses reliable sources. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

how about an amazon listing for an item. that shows the song list and is unable to be edited to the public Theenglishman124 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

How about you read WP:RS first before suggesting any more links. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

i dont understand how amazon isnt reliable. also, howcome https://the-rutles.com/discography/ isnt able to be a source for this? it shows all of the songs made by the rutles, and its made by the rutles! im sure they would know all the the songs they made and wouldnt lie about their own songs they made Theenglishman124 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

formatting links to main articles

theres a formatting difference between my new additions to the rutles page and older additions please tell me which one you think is better

All You Need Is Cash

Main article: All You Need Is Cash

or

All You Need Is Cash

{{rfc|tech|rfcid=15D787A}} Theenglishman124 (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Theenglishman124:, thanks for raising this discussion. I've boldly removed the Rfc tag above, because this fails WP:RFCBEFORE: there's no extensive, deadlocked, prior discussion about this topic that requires the formality or heavy use of editor time of an Rfc to resolve. You can simply continue your question as a normal discussion, rather than an Rfc. If it happens to deadlock after some weeks of discussion, *then* you can start an Rfc. (As a secondary issue, the Rfc was malformed; the Rfc question is supposed to be included in the Rfc template, it doesn't sit on top of it.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

To the merits of your question, it's not 100% clear what you are asking, but because of your use of the {{Main}} template in the first example above, and the way the article is structured, I'm fairly sure you are asking about how to structure section titles in the page, and whether you should replace the {{Main}} template below the section header, and simply link the section header itself. Was that your question? If so, then I have the answer for you, and it's not based on my opinion, but on Wikpiedia's Manual of Style: the answer is, you have to use the first one with the template below the heading on the next line, and not the second one with the link, because section headings in Wikipedia articles are never wikilinked; see MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As a consequence, I've restored the section headers of three sections you edited to what they were before, per MOS:NOSECTIONLINKS. If you prefer your style, with the links in the section headers, this is the wrong venue to take up this question. You would have to get the MOS guideline changed first, and then you can make this change. To do that, please make your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. To save you time, I can tell you in advance that such a proposal would be exceedingly unlikely to gain consensus; however that's the correct venue, if you want to take it up nevertheless. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

yes thank you for solving the issue i will make sure to use the rfc thing correctly next time Theenglishman124 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem, User:Theenglishman124. It's understandable, as the very name "Request for comment" itself is misleading: it seems to imply it's just an invitation to have a conversation, but it really isn't that. If it were named for what it really is, it would be called an Rf30dodbloueihafaowmhnetabspldicspafaaebaeeoaate (that stands for: "Request for 30 days of discussion by lots of uninvolved editors invited here automatically from all over who may have never edited this article before since previous lengthy discussion is completely stuck, plus a formalized assessment and evaluation by an experienced editor or admin at the end") but that's a wee bit hard to remember, so "Rfc" it is. Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)