Talk:Within You Without You/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on, FunkMonk. Looking forward to working with you. JG66 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps add a sample of the song?
 * I have to confess there was a sample here previously – it didn't work, though (for me anyway, trying on various devices), so I removed the file. Evidence of a degree of technophobia on my part, but it's not a requirement for GA to include one. At least, that's what I've been told by reviewers in the past … JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a requirement, just thought it could be cool. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Mexican EP cover seems a bit of an odd choice for the infobox, but I guess it is the only release where this was the main track?
 * Yes, that's right. Given that the artwork is taken from the Sgt. Pepper cover, which the song's Indian influence carried over to, I thought it was quite appropriate. JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "George Harrison began writing" Perhaps present his role in the band at this early point in the article? Now it seems like a given that the reader knows he was the guitarist and occasional writer etc…
 * A tough one, and I don't know that it's entirely necessary – anymore than having to say that this entity "the Beatles" were an extremely popular group and their 1966 Revolver album was seen by many as a groundbreaking release, etc (?). I take your point to some extent, although I can't see that the reader's stranded without it. I think it would be too complicated to introduce at the start, so I added something in the 2nd para: "Harrison had continued to look outside of his role as the band's lead guitarist, further immersing himself in studying the sitar …" It's subtle but it is relevant to the song, at least. What do you think now? JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine to me, as long as it is mentioned he was the guitarist. Considering a recent event, we can't be sure this is necessarily common knowledge anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess there's just no accounting for some of the whippersnappers, is there? Mind you, I read it that everyone there knew full well it was Paul McCartney & co. – no? Actually, this episode reminds me of McCartney at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in about 2012, walking among the cars and VIPs on the starting grid. F1 being an activity with which Harrison was long associated, Eddie Jordan, a TV commentator, goes up to McCartney to get a quick interview but keeps calling him George the whole time. The look of embarrassment/confusion on McCartney's face (he's there with a small entourage, after all, and, you'd think, out to be recognised). Loses a lot in my translation, no doubt, but it was just priceless … JG66 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "friend Klaus Voormann" Perhaps present him as "German artist" or some such.
 * I've introduced him as "musician and artist". JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "of Ravi Shankar." Present him.
 * Yep. I went for "master sitarist". JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "He later said that" Last person mentioned before was Shankar, so perhaps start with "Harrison" instead of "he", for clarity.
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If this song inspired many later Eastern inspired tracks by other groups, perhaps mention some of the most notable ones under "Cultural influence and legacy"?
 * Okay. But the point's not one that is made at this early stage in the article, is that right? (Aside from making the additions you're suggesting for later on, just want to make sure there's not another area of the text that needs qualification on this.) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been taking a look at this. I don't think it's a matter of his fellow musicians taking up sitar or other Indian musical influences because of the track, necessarily. That's more "Norwegian Wood" and "Love You To" – although the Simmons/Mojo quote is correct, I'd say, in that it refers to fans, students: the zeitgeist. It's more about other musicians, and their Western rock audience, picking up on the spiritual/philosophical aspect of the song. I've tried to keep to this line in the article: in the box quote under Release, Kenneth Womack effectively credits the song with the birth of the Summer of Love; as an album, Sgt. Pepper is certainly credited with launching the Summer of Love (e.g., this Consequence of Sound piece; and commentators such as MacDonald, Hertsgaard, Womack and Langager (particularly the latter) highlight "Within You Without You" as the track on the album that most clearly presents the countercultural ideal behind the Summer of Love. So I'm thinking the solution might be to remove mention of "musical [direction]" from the sentence in the Lead, currently: "It also influenced the musical and philosophical direction of many of Harrison's peers during an era of utopian idealism marked by the Summer of Love." Maybe?
 * I have found mention of Eric Burdon dedicating his late 1967 album Winds of Change to Harrison and acknowledging the latter's spiritual inspiration; I've got sources who cite the Box Tops' 1968 single "Cry Like a Baby" as an example of the Harrison-inspired Indian influence permeating Western rock/pop; also, I've got Dave Mason of Traffic, who released the sitar-driven "Hole in My Shoe" in August 1967, praising "Within You Without You" while talking about practising on the instrument at Harrison's house (when he was gifted the latter's original Indiacraft sitar) and Harrison's development within the Beatles through Indian music. Mason, along with Big Jim Sullivan, Brian Jones, Peter Tork and others, btw, were among the guitarists who experimented with the sitar and turned to Harrison for some degree of guidance. That probably sounds somewhat aggrandising, but the impression I get is that all these musicians looked to him partly as a Beatle, but also because they recognised the authenticity in what he was doing – he was Ravi Shankar's student, and he'd been to India and could convey more than just the musical aspect of the genre. I hope I'm not muddying the issue with all this background. What I'm trying to say is, the influence of this song on other musicians who embraced (or continued to embrace) Indian classical music was recognition of the philosophical/spiritual, which happened to be in keeping with the principles of Summer of Love. Aside from that – and it's what Mikal Gilmore comments on – there were musicians like Mick Jagger, Donovan, Mike Love, not to mention the other Beatles, who then joined Harrison on his exploration of Transcendental Meditation. JG66 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as you figured, I was not suggesting mentioning such early in the article, just under "Cultural influence and legacy". FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, you don't agree with that suggestion in my second reply, that the way to go might be to remove the mention/implication that WYWY influenced songs by other artists (i.e., from the Lead: "It also influenced the musical and philosophical direction of many of Harrison's peers during an era of utopian idealism marked by the Summer of Love.") ? To me, that makes sense rather than adding, later on, any mention of the Burdon, Box Tops and Traffic songs, because the "cultural influence" of this track was primarily a spiritual/philosophical one … JG66 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I might have lost what exactly your proposition was, the comments were a bit convoluted, but what you suggest there seems reasonable. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've just edited that sentence in the Lead, removing mention of the song's musical influence on Harrison's peers. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "he also gained a philosophical truth" Which was what?
 * Reworded to "he also gained a philosophical perspective on the effects of the band's international fame". I see why you queried it before – does this rephrasing take away the need to instantly define what it is he "gained"? (The message being that he gained a philosophical perspective where he didn't have one before.) JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "and together stating a tihai to close" You briefly explain other terms, but not this one.
 * Added mention of "rhythmic cadence". That is another musical term, but I'd hope that, after we've had "melodic unison", mention of "rhythmic cadence" is partly self-explanatory to the average reader. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Inspired by a musical piece that Shankar had written for All India Radio," The Harrison quote states he based it directly on it, so the wording you use seems a bit ambiguous.
 * With "inspired by" I was just trying to avoid repeating the wording from the source. Changed now to "based on". JG66 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * " with Eastern monism" Link? Not a common term.
 * I've linked monism. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "reference to the concept of may" Which is what?
 * I guess I figured that it becomes obvious in the lyrics that are then cited, also in Greene's paraphrasing of the song's message. (I mean, some explanation is useful for readers, generally, but if a term is linked and its context provides something in the way of explanation, I think that should be sufficient.) Anyway – I've added a loose definition. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't obvious which specific part of the lyrics it was linked to, so the clarification helps. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "and admitted that, following his return from India" When was this admission?
 * Added "later" – I'm thinking you mean something (anything) is need to avoid the idea that Harrison said this at the time, perhaps to McCartney(?). JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a date? FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "to reduce it in length from an original 6:25" You could mention here what the resulting length is, as it is otherwise only mentioned in the info box.
 * Yes, thanks – added the official track length. JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "although he conceded that he had enjoyed working on the record's iconic cover." Why is this written as if the first part of the sentence was somehow in opposition to something, which it doesn't seem to be?
 * Well, I thought there was an element of contrast, if not quite contradiction. Have reworked this, trying to clarify the point – what do you think now? JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Better, I saw little contradiction before. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Harrison described it as "a milestone and a millstone in music history"" What is the first milestone for?
 * Not quite sure I follow you. He described it as "a milestone [in music history]", as well as (less favourably) "a millstone in music history". JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad, I misread it as milestone twice... FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah okay! JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Why did they release an EP only in Mexico?
 * Erm, I don't know what to say to that! I mean, EMI/Capitol's international equivalents were able to release their own compilations following the group's break-up, and many countries did (e.g. Spain and Argentina in 1971 with Por Siempre Beatles). But I'm afraid I can't really add anything about this apart from the fact that they (Capitol's Mexican licensee) did release this and other EPs. JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it would be nice to give dates for the retrospective critical reviews.
 * I've done so where the comments clearly come from a review or similar piece, published on a certain date, in a certain issue of a publication. But I've not done it for the biographers' comments because, being sourced to books that may well have been revised over the years, those views "live on" in the present – much as a song's lyrics and music still convey something (present tense) decades after its release. The one exception I've made is for Riley's book, reason being that he draws attention to the song being "the most dated" on Pepper, which then provides some context for note 6's comment from MacDonald, comparing the 1967 ethos to "the materialistic '80s". So I've added years for the critics/reviewers in the last two paras of "Retrospective assessment", but I think it would be a mistake to attribute each and every biographer's view to a particular year in the first half of this subsection. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "notes the potential for offence" Offence to what?
 * Sorry but I think this is obvious: Unterberger "notes the potential for offence in this, 'the first Beatles song where [Harrison's] Indian religious beliefs affected the lyrics with full force'." I mean, "religious beliefs" being presented in the lyrics "with full force"? JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Stephen Stills was so taken" Present.
 * Okay what I've done (to cover Crosby also) is add "Among other contemporary rock musicians", so the reader expects to hear from Harrison's fellow musicians, including Lennon. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "David Crosby" present.
 * "as "the annus mirabilis" Link, perhaps explain.
 * Added link. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Gary Wright recalls" Present.
 * Done. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "some of whom find it sanctimonious in tone" Where is this mentioned outside the intro? Seems it was rather considered pretentious?
 * Yes, good point. I've reword the Lead to say "lacklustre and pretentious", adding "lacklustre" to touch on opinions from Riley and McCormick/Daily Telegraph. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright, with these things done, I'll now pass the article, looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)