Talk:Billy Preston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fifth Beatle?[edit]

Someone added a sentence today that he was definitely NOT considered "the fifth Beatle", and that George Martin was. I removed this sentence -- the article clearly explains that Preston was one of SEVERAL people who were sometimes called "the fifth Beatle". Of course it's a subjective thing, but if you feel the need to debate it, here's the place. Vandelay 18:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


According to the latest issue of the Advocate, Preston was gay but didn't like to talk about his sexuality. Are there any more resources on this? It seems like the straight, white Beatles appropriated from two black, gay men: Little Richard and Billy Preston. Can Preston be listed under a "Gay Musicians" category?

On August 18, 1991, singer and keyboardist Billy Preston was arrested in Malibu, California, after a 16-year-old boy reported that he was sexually attacked and shown obscene pictures. Preston was charged with exhibiting pornography, annoying a child and possessing cocaine. A year later, he entered no-contest pleas to the cocaine and assault charges. He was sentenced to nine months at a drug rehabilitation center and three months of house arrest.[1]--Kstern999 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Preston's orientation. However, according to press reports in the early 1990s, Preston picked up a hooker and discovered that the "girl" was a transvestite. He beat the prostitute and was caught and arrested.
This is probably the same arrest referenced above.
Since the victim of the beating was only 16 years old, the judge threw the book at Preston, and the charges were very harsh.
In court, Preston claimed that he beat the hooker because he was outraged, feeling he was "fooled" by the transvestite. He claimed he assumed the prostitute was an adult female until he discovered otherwise.
While on probation, Preston tested dirty on drug tests over a period of several months and went to jail.
Some enterprising person should look this up on a resource like the Los Angeles Times archives, and document the facts in a focused way. I frankly don't know enough to link this properly. As it stands, it just looks like rumors. Obviously this stuff should stay on the talk page unless confirmed. Vpfritz 11:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Annoying a child" is a criminal offence in California? Where I come from, it's a civic duty.PrivateSponge (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Annoying a child" is a euphemism for child molestation,not an excuse to make idiotic, failed attempts at humor. Please don't waste these pages with your idiocy. ( (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC))

Well, I just go through watching TvOne's Unsung show about Preston and I was shocekd to find out that he was gay. SO it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

General chat[edit]

I'm thinking this page is out of proportion -- I think that the discography should be cut way down, and his association with the Beatles should be emphasized more. --Arcadian 02:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If he was one of TWO people credited on Beatles albums, and I'd always heard he was the ONLY one, WHO is the other???? 14:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (The answer is Tony Sheridan, I believe) Vandelay 18:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but there seems to be no mention of one of Billy Preston's biggest hits, "Will it go round in circles?". Mirlin 21:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the article needs to discuss his career as a solo artist, including the hits Will It Go Round In Circles, Outta Space, Space Race, and Nothing From Nothing. SleepyheadKC, 12:02 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please sign using ~~~~, which will add your username and the date and time automatically. --kingboyk 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been nine months, and no one has objected, so I'm going to pare the discography down. --Arcadian 01:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Billy had a nice hit with "God Planned it (that's the way). It was a gospel flavored tune that rocked, probably 1969. When he played at the "Tastefest" in Detroit, for free, that is the one song he omitted. Instead of an encore, he ducked behind the band and raced for his limo. Possibly he was pissed because some ignorant fan was throwing an album on stage for an autograph. That was a big disappointment.

No mention of "Live at the Fillmore" by King Curtis? Surely some of his best work. I can understand the need to keep the discography short, but not to mention that album seems unfortuate.

No meantion of his begining in Gospel music playing for the King of Gospel Rev. James Cleveland. There is a youtube video of Gospel Singer Jessy Dixon saying that Billy was the organist for James Cleveland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

In any account of a major musical figure [Preston was], a complete discography is essential - non-negotiable, for an authoritative source. I assume Wikipedia aspires to something of this kind. Cutting the discography is foolish, and amateurish.

More attention is needed, I agree on his early career, gospel roots. This is crucial. You cannot understand Billy Preston without knowing this.

Issues at individual concerts, unless unusually noteworthy, are irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Deller (talkcontribs) 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Can't we find a better photo ? -- Beardo 04:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Give the man a little more dignity than a still from SPLHCB! Sheesh!

I agree, the photo has got to go.

Then find a better one people! --kingboyk 20:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bring back the Sgt. Pepper photo! The purpose of the photo should be recognition basis; I should be able to click on a name that sounds familiar, see a pic and say "Ohhhhh...THAT guy." I'd wager dollars to donuts (whatever that means) that more would recognize Preston as a smiling energetic performer than from the sombre album cover now shown... Wencer 03:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Um... it hasn't gone anywhere. It's right there underneath. The picture was changed so that you could actually see his face. Gordon P. Hemsley 04:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And this photo with an "AFRO" just the chileans said yo his hair??? El Manu!!!


I didn't know. I can't say I'm suprised though, given recent reports of chronic ill-health. Rest in peace Billy, you had soul alright. --kingboyk 17:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  • 5th or 6th? Web news stories are dated the 6th, but the entry says the 5th (though the death section says the 6th. Can we get a source that we can use for a date? Rjhatl 17:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (NM, that's been fixed now)
  • Rest in Peace Billy. you will be missed. From Montreal to Tokyo, you were known world wide. Thanks for the great music.
  • 'Night Bill. Isn't it a pity?--Crestville 14:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


I've just commented out the following line:

He had been in a coma since November 21, 2005.

From what I can tell, Billy Preston was up and around until the time of his death. According to his website, he had scheduled appearances before and after his death:

Billy will be a guest performer on the season finale of American Idol. 8PM ET/PT. Billy will be taping "Later with Jools" while in London on June 7th.

Any other related sources? Gordon P. Hemsley 21:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... maybe the line was true.... It seems that the website may be out of date, because Billy Preston appeared on the season finale of American Idol (Season 5), which was last year. A Reuters via AOL article seems to agree, as well. Gordon P. Hemsley 21:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you must have meant American Idol (Season 4), the one that ended in May 2005, so that would be consistent with the "coma since November" question. USA Today showed a photo of him there.[9] Vandelay 12:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre. I guess the media will eventually sort it out, but some sources are still reporting that he was in a coma. [10] In fact, a Fox News story from March talks about a court battle related to his coma. [11]. His own website reports that "As a result of a medical insult he'd been in a deep coma since last November 21st, but was still struggling to recover." [12]. The only thing I can think of is that the scheduled appearances were prearranged. Since the official press release of his death on his own site reports that he was in a coma, I'll restore it to the page. Rjhatl 21:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If he was in a coma since last November, how could he have recorded the Red Hot Chili Peppers track? Whotookthatguy 22:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's part of what got me confused, as well. Gordon P. Hemsley 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Rolling Stone magazine, the Peppers began working on "Stadium Arcadium" in September 2004.[13] So it's entirely within reason that Preston recorded his track before November 2005. Vandelay 12:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob Dylan?[edit]

I don't understand the listing of Blood on the Tracks in Preston's session discography. There is absolutely no record on reputable Dylan fan sites of Preston ever participating in that album. Any objections if I delete the listing? Signinstranger 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I had already deleted it once; I've just done it again. The problem is that Preston's official web site lists Blood on the Tracks in his discography [14], so it will probably keep coming back. Ccoll 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Be forewarned: some newspaper obits today list Billy as being on Blood on the Tracks, so people will keep placing it here. But Paul Griffin plays the organ on BOTT, according to the album credits.
RIP Billy. 15:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[edit]

What can I say than more??? 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC) S.K.

Beatles WikiProject[edit]

After holding off for a long time, I've added a Beatles WikiProject tag to the talk page. Billy was a close friend and associate of The Beatles, and recorded for Apple Records. I think either of those is enough to have his article come within project scope, both is a cert. --kingboyk 09:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • And the discography??? The 80% of the Billy's albums has a Beatles song.

El Manu!!! 09:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Abbey Road was the last album the Beatles recorded. Not Let it Be

WP:BLP Tag[edit]

I took off the BLP tag, since the subject died last June 2006. I assessed the article as well. Real96 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles' miscellanea[edit]

Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether... ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 16:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

confusing sentence[edit]

In the Beatles section, it reads:

'It would have made Preston officially "the fifth Beatle," a title he was not loath to exploit over the next three decades'

Is that a typo, or am I misunderstanding? --Chfprd 06:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billyp2.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Billyp2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billy Preston.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Billy Preston.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

American Criminal[edit]

I think including Billy Preston in the American Criminal category is wrong under the definition of the category and think it's shameful to put him there. Repeatedly. Over the objections of at least three other editors. To make a WP:POINT. It's an especially unseemly part of the ongoing discussion about who is an American Criminal.David in DC (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He was convicted of one felony, sent to prison for 3 years on a probation violation, then convicted yet again on another felony. All of that is well sourced. What part of "conviction" do you not understand? John celona (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What part of "discretion" do you not understand? There is no point to running around labeling people "criminal." Anyone who feels the need to run around and attack people in that way is clearly suffering from a case of low self worth. Further, the category (as it is now) does not warrant inclusion of an individual like Preston (as numerous editors have pointed out). Celona, you are acting unilaterally here. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There are approximately 450 names in the category. I am responsible for about 15 of them. That leaves some 435 users who are doing the same thing-adding to the project while YOU are the one who is unilaterally removing the work of hundreds of people while the subject is under a RFC. John celona (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please find me another user who runs around labeling people "criminals" in the way you have. It's nonsense, pure and simple. --Jkp212 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There are 435 individual users who have utilized this category. You hold a minority view. Stop edit warring. John celona (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, users have utilized the category. Please find any users who run around and SEEK OUT subjects to label "criminals."? It takes a pretty low self worth person to do that. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
There are about 435 users who you have just slandered. You hold minority, pro-censorship views. Stop edit warring. Preston's multiple convictions are well-sourced. John celona (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
None of those users seek out subjects to label criminals. You hold a pro-nonsense view. --Jkp212 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This edit-warring is unseemly and disruptive. I've fully protected the article until the RFC reaches a conclusion. Of, course, I may have protected the "wrong version". This is not a content decision, it just happened at the time when I ran out of patience. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the category definition [15], people should only be included in the category 'American Criminals' if they "can claim notability solely because of the crime". In full:

For inclusion in this category, a person must have been duly, lawfully, and finally convicted by one or more United States federal courts or State courts (excluding impeachments, convictions that have subsequently been fully pardoned, cases resulting in a conviction that have been sealed or expunged, or cases resulting in a conviction that have been subsequently dismissed and/or reopened with a new trial), can claim notability solely because of the crime, or else the person must have committed notable and unambiguously verifiable criminal acts, but have gone unconvicted for reasons other than lack of proof such as death during the commission of the crime where the allegation of criminal activity was undisputed, undisputed confession, death during appeal where guilt was undisputed, or being a fugitive from justice where original guilt was undisputed.

So I guess he shouldn't be in that category. LHMike (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That one is tricky. The definition contains three major clauses, the last two linked by "or". On that basis, I'd argue that the first part would apply , but it is very badly worded. Unfortunately, this definition seemed to have "just growed", and we have no idea of the intentions of its various authors. That, I suspect, is the main reason for the current confusion. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's badly worded, and have just read the endless debate on the discussion page at the category. Nonetheless, as it currently stands, the definition seems to hinge on the essence of notability for the crime. A review of others in the catagory mainly reveals rapists, murderers and robbers - if 'minor' drug offences were included, the vast majority of rock musicians in America would have to be included. However, regardless of who is in the category now or what the definition used to say, what it seems to say now, however badly worded, is that notability for the crime is required. Until the category definition/title changes, I can't see any reason why this biography is in it. LHMike (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm perfectly prepared to argue that WP:UNDUE applies to the use of this category especially in relation to WP:BLP; Jimbo Wales has set out a principle which should be of more general application. This might end up in the RFC. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's a viewpoint that would be welcome at the RfC on the talk page of the American Criminal category, Rodhullandemu. At least I'd welcome it :) David in DC (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Roughly half of the articles in the category consist of musicians, actors, celebrities, politicians, Etc. who have well-sourced convictions. This has not been a problem for years until a couple of pro-censorship users recently began making scores of unilateral changes without consensus. This led me to ask for an RFC which is still pending. John celona (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that something has been around for years does not justify an argumentum ad antiquitem or prevent us trying to get things right for the future. This encyclopedia is by definition an organic, evolving entity and what seemed to be correct then is not necessarily correct for the future; that's the point of the RFC, but can in no way justify edit-warring, particularly subtle, cross-article edit warring- which hasn't gone unnoticed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Birth date[edit]

This page has been unclear about Preston's birth date for some time. An editor has recently chosen one of the two candi-dates. No reason given in the edit summary.

Is the current version correct, or a best guess?David in DC (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced to a Motion filed in California State Bankruptcy court, and therefore, presumably, reliable. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The COGIC Singers[edit]

Hi Billy Preston experts :-) I am not too familiar with all of Preston's work, but do have two things that you all may want to add to this article. I didn't see any mention of the COGIC (Church of God in Christ) singers in this article, but it was Billy's first group. Let me give a history, in case you are not familiar... In June, 1960, at the Southern California State Convocation, Andrae Crouch was asked to prepare for a rendition on the state program. Gloria Jones and Andrae's twin sister, Sandra were rehearsing for the program. During the rehearsal, three others drifted into the group: Frankie Kahrl (who died just 2 weeks ago), BILLY PRESTON, and Jeanie Greenly. The rendition that night was so well received that the group decided to stay together.

Anyways, thus was formed the COGIC singers, and they recorded and released an album in 1964, called It's A Blessing. Gloria Jones went solo and recorded the original version of Tainted Love, and Billy plays organ on her single Heartbeat Pts 1 & 2. There is footage of Billy playing organ for that song on Gloria's youtube channel.

Also, in 1984, the COGIC singers reunited for a final album, which features Billy Preston on acoustic and electric piano, and clavinet. He also sings a duet with Gloria Jones on a song called What The Lord Did For Me.

I have scans of these album covers, which are hard to come by, as well as scans of a pamphlet (with pictures) on the COGIC singers, from 1962, if anyone is interested in adding this info to the article. I didn't want to do it myself, because you never know which articles are heavily 'guarded' :-)

Automaticshoes (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"latter be culled" ?[edit]

Under the section "Relationship with the Beatles", a line reads "...some of the material from which would latter be culled to make the film Let it Be and its companion album..." I don't know much about Billy Preston's history, but this phrase doesn't sound correct to me. Both "latter" and "culled" seem odd in the context. Perhaps it should read, "later be used (or applied, employed, etc.) The Original Wildbear (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why Beatles?[edit]

Just a title, that's not my question. My question is that, with all the session work that Preston had, as well as work as a sideman, along with a solo career that I'm not too young to have forgotten, why does the whole article seem to focus almost exclusively on Preston's relationship with the Beatles? The guy lived and performed all his life. I know it's easier for a passing editor too swamped to help to complain, but it is true, right? I'm guessing that at least a couple of books with good sections on Preston must exist. The Rolling Stones members have written quite a few; Eric Clapton has done interviews. That kind of thing. And, the OTHER reason I stopped through is that I'm looking for information on concerts for the Prince's Trust. Apparently there were several; I got some good photos and would like to ascertain when they were taken, since whomever wrote that article did not think that it was worth mentioning when these charity concerts took place and who attended. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


A strange summary of the man's life. (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Overcame his problems in the early 1990s?[edit]

The article states:

  • "he was treated for alcohol and cocaine addictions" (sometime during the 1980's)
  • "Preston overcame his problems in the early 1990s"
  • "He had voluntarily entered a drug rehabilitation clinic" (sometime before his death in 2006)

With all due respect for a great artist, entering rehab in (or around) 2006 indicates that he did not, in fact, overcome his problems in the early 1990s. Apparently he sobered up for a time in the early 1990s, then relapsed into substance abuse, although the article makes no mention of this relapse.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

== Looks like this post, these posts are a year old, etc. Just a comment in general, partially in relation to this comment, but intended generally.

The question in any article is what to emphasize. Preston's sexuality [previous post; pardon - similar issue] does raise questions, without doubt, considering his arrests. I daresay people close to him would know something about this. One problem seems to be that information is quite thin. 2 arrests with sexual elements, later in his life. My observation: I wondered about it, considering no mention, that I've seen, of any actual "sexual" relationships in his life. This is obviously unusual. No girlfriends, marriages, kids, etc. So - certain absences provide inferences, coupled with the arrests. But this is "evidence" by absence; not relevant [as it was not included in the article, appropriately]. Interesting that it never came up in any clear way, as did Little Richard's tendencies. The article as I recall it mentioned the legal problems, but no reference to homosexual incidents with minors. When evidence is doubtful, discretion should be the word. If it's public record - it's public. But in fairness to the law, and the individual - if no conviction, no real record. That's only fair, at the very least.

He clearly had substance abuse problems, without doubt [like many others had, as mentioned]. It is my impression, based on interviews and his work record post-prison, that he had vastly improved his "response" to these difficulties. Again, perhaps, it's a question of emphasis. The sentences in question are few, but the statement about "overcoming" these problems is probably overstated.

What should be emphasized, actually, [the real issue] is Preston's productivity in the midst of the kinds of problems that brought many others down. Eric Clapton, and others, would not have sought him out if he had not remained a consummate musical professional. THAT needs emphasis, not his legal/criminal problems, which, compared to some, are relatively minor.

The article overall seems fair. Mention of arrests and his lifestyle/personal problems are certainly biographically relevant, but have little bearing on his contribution to American music. What is not objective, exactly, but perhaps even more relevant than any of the objective "facts," is the inordinately high esteem in which Preston was held by his peers, peers of the highest caliber, as well as many many fans. The comments written about his performance at the Concert for Bangladesh, as well as many others, are ample testimony.

You have to know who you are talking about, and what. Preston was a major figure. Arguments about how to evaluate his "criminal" proclivities and and actual legal consequences are somewhat minor, compared to his accomplishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Deller (talkcontribs) 23:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreleased material[edit]

I've fixed some spelling and grammar, and then moved the following data from the article to this talk page. Please re-insert it if it can be sourced:

"Preston also recorded as-yet-unreleased material for Maxi Music Productions in the early 80's. This material, the rights to which are owned by Lee Maxi, has been passed down to recording artist Kay'Don Calrissian. An album release date has not been established."

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gay and abused[edit]

Billy was gay and abused as a child. Keith Richards' book Life mentions Billy's gayness. In this documentary by the BBC on 21th December 2010, Billy's sister confirms both facts.[16] JenAW (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


Apparently he was an original Monkee too (on live/session recordings). So he was both a Monkee and a Beatle. (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

/* Singles */"You're So Unique" UK, "It Will Come in Time" UK and "One More Time for Love" US R&B[edit]

Re: Edit

Noticed an error/s which I have rectified.

US----US R&B-----UK

"It Will Come in Time" (with Syreeta Wright) — — 47 (corrected from 47 in US)

"One More Time for Love" (with Syreeta Wright) 52 72 — (added/included #72 in US R&B - confirmed with Syreeta Wright Wikipedia page)

Hope this helps.

Thanks. :)

PS Also noticed and corrected that The song "You're So Unique", did not reach #3 in the UK charts. In fact it failed to make the charts in the UK (which was a Top 50 at the time back in 1974).

What movie looks similar to Billy Preston?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Associated Acts – George Harrison?[edit]

Should George Harrison not be included in the Associated Acts section of his side box? He played on many of his records and they were close friends as well as colleagues. CityFeedback talk 08:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

YES Preston also played with Harrison at the Concert for Bangladesh and the Dark Horse tour. Hotcop2 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Billy Preston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Credits on Beatles records[edit]

"Preston was the only musician to be credited on a Beatles recording other than the group's four members: the group's number-one hit "Get Back" billed as "The Beatles with Billy Preston" There are several other musicians credited on Revolver and Mal Evans is credited on Rubber Soul. He may be the only musician credited on a Beatles single, unless you count Tony Sheridan. (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

On which single was Sheridan credited? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The article now says, "Preston was one of five musicians[2] credited on a Beatles recording other than the group's four members." What's this about? The reference says nothing so far as I can see, and I've no clear idea who the other four are. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:3217:C400:95D5:28A:58F:37BA (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)