Talk:For You Blue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This Beatles-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.
 


Untitled[edit]

removed, WPBeatles contains same functionality-->

Producer?[edit]

The article doesn't say who produced this song, and I don't have a reference book handy. If it was George Martin please add the article to Category:Songs produced by George Martin. --kingboyk 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It was produced by Phil Spector. In fact, Let It Be is the only Beatles album not produced by George Martin, so it would not need to be included in that category. 204.115.253.51 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

US #1?[edit]

Is this song a US #1? I know "winding road" is a #1, but on the billboard page, they are listed together. On the Beatles Discography page, it does not have a #1 ranking. Diego 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was released as a double-A side. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 02:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Naked version?[edit]

Does anyone know what changes, if any, were made by Paul & co. to this song while re-mixing/reproducing the "Let It Be... Naked" album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.84.114 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ringo's drums were pushed up in the mix; I think that's about it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Spoken words[edit]

"Go, Johnny, go!" Harrison is not referring to the song Johnny B. Goode, he's commenting on Lennon's awesome slide-guitar playing. "There go the twelve-bar blues" - it's quite clear what his words are; he's alluding to the fact the song uses a prototypical 12-bar blues riff. "Bop, bopcat, bop" - "bopcat" is an aficionado of beebop, a blend of jazz and blues; he's not singing about bobcats.

I don't think some random person's opinion (cribbed from the "Songfacts" website) on which song this sounds like deserves inclusion or qualifies as a reference.Nickrz (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

shotgun bullet casing[edit]

The term "shotgun bullet casing" is nonsensical. Shotguns do not fire bullets. A shotgun round is called a "shell" and the portion that remains in the shotgun after the round is fired is called a "hull". The phrase "a shotgun bullet casing" should be replaced with something like "the hull of a spent shotgun round". It seems unlikely that a standard plastic hull would be suitable for use as a bottleneck when playing a steel guitar, so one might suspect that the device used by John Lennon was the hull of a (somewhat unusual) solid brass shell. Mrpaulin (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The source says "shotgun shell", so I'll change the article to use that phrase. GoingBatty (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Compare Let It Be version with Let It Be...Naked[edit]

Could someone write a section describing the difference between the Let It Be version and the version reinstating George Harrison's acoustic guitar on Let It Be...Naked? C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The difference is in the balances and the EQ. Same song. What could be said? Radiopathy •talk• 23:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So in other words, the album version has a spoken passage and no acoustic guitar while the naked version is more balanced with an acoustic guitar but without the spoken passage at the beginning? C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Queen says no to pot-smoking FBI movement" remark was tacked on out of context by Phil Spector. The acoustic guitar is apparent in the Spector version, just not as loud or bright. Radiopathy •talk• 17:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Um...okay :) But the naked version is clearly better in my book as the music sounds cleaned up, re-mastered, more balanced and less tacky. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The acoustic guitar track used in the album version is different from the original one used in the naked version. It says so here. C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Shotgun shell?[edit]

There are sources that variously say Lennon was using a cigarette lighter, lipstick tube or shotgun shell as a slide during this recording. I think a shotgun shell is the least likely to be true and is probably based on someone's interpretation of photos or film from the recording session. Shotgun shells have been used as slides but that would be a solid brass shell and based on photos I have seen, the slide, if it's a shotgun shell, looks like a shell with a brass head and a cardboard or plastic hull. A spent cardboard or plastic shell would be useless as a slide and if he was using live ammunition he'd be up for a Darwin award. Unless a definitive source can be found, perhaps the type of slide should be omitted. I think Lennon had said once it was a cigarette lighter but I'll have to do some searching for that. Piriczki (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, it would be good to list those other possible slides (lighter, lipstick) if you've got sources, and then leave it up to the reader perhaps. I'll take a look in Sulpy & Schweighardt, Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle … I seem to remember reading how tapes from Twickenham capture a discussion with Mal Evans about the choice of slide. That'll only account for when they were rehearsing the track, I realise – so not what Lennon might have used on the official recording at Apple. JG66 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
So far not coming up with much. A book All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Beatles Release says "some thought it was a shotgun shell, others a lighter" and goes on to say it was probably the slide that came with the guitar.[1] I found a newspaper article from 2003 that says it was a lighter.[2] Most of the references for a shotgun shell are fairly recent internet-era stories. Piriczki (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've not found anything in Sulpy & Schweighardt after all. I think that mention in Guesdon & Margotin's All the Songs will do fine, in fact – it sums up the possibilities (which is all we can do, seeing as the shotgun-shell idea has gained some traction). Also, unlike all the other sources I've come across, those authors actually notice there's some bass on the track, so that's good too.
You wouldn't happen to have seen anything we can use as a source for the piano (paper between the strings), no? I've read somewhere that it's only the keyboard's higher octaves that were dampened, which is correct to my ears – can't find it now, though. JG66 (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that say Elmore James favored a shotgun shell as a slide? I can't find any evidence of this other than where it is mentioned in reference to this song. Possibly just an embellishment in this Beatles myth? Piriczki (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll look into it … I admit I'm drawn to any possible link between James and the song, simply because of the attention that "Elmore James got nothin' …" line gets. But I agree we should aim to be authoritative. If nothing [else] comes to light about James having used a shotgun shell for a slide – which is looking likely, from the more credible sources I've checked so far – we just treat that detail as a claim (attributed to one of the Beatles sources) and avoid stating it as fact. JG66 (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:For You Blue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 13:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi JG66, I'll review this. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp, hello. I'm delighted you could take this review! I might give the article a read-through myself, because even though it's only been a month or so since I nominated it, I really can't remember anything about it … JG66 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi JG66, my pleasure. An interesting article of a very good song. Also the article's length is not too daunting! ;-) Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Ha! In fact, I remember coming to this thinking that it would be nice and straightforward (little in the way of background; simple 12-bar composition; no risk of complicated, alt interpretations). So I was slightly surprised that it ended up as long as it has. JG66 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments:

  • The Let It Be... Naked article says a different mix was released on that album. Probably worth mentioning (or did you and I missed it?).
Quite right, yes. The mention of reinstating the full acoustic gtr part at Naked is unsourced (it's quite true, though), but I've added what I could find. JG66 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Consider mentioning the Anthology 3 in the lead? It seems noteworthy to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Thinkin about it, now that I've just added the Anthology 3 take there, do you think we should lose the mention of the Best of GH compilation? JG66 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion, but I think it's OK to leave it in. It's somewhat significant in that Capitol Records deemed it one of George's most important Beatles songs.
Yes, that's the point – that Capitol saw fit to include it on a greatest hits collection. I just wasn't sure on reflection whether the significance of this would mean anything to the average reader. Will leave as is, then. JG66 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Flows well, interesting read.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Spot-checked a few references, and they all seemed well represented.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Good level of detail.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    One non-free image with adequate fair use rationale. Two other images are from Wikimedia Commons.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Great work, am happy to pass this! Moisejp (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, fabulous. Thanks so much, Moisejp – that really was very pleasant, as always, but incredibly speedy also! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. BTW, I added this to Wikipedia:Good_articles/Music#1970_to_1979_songs but if you feel it is better in the 1960s category, please feel free to move it. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on For You Blue. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)