Talk:Think for Yourself/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a go. A quick read through suggests no problems, so I don't see any issues with this getting to GA status.

Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this one on, Ritchie. It's been so long a-sittin' on the noms pile, I'd pretty much forgotten all about it. JG66 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reword one of the two sentences next to each other that starts with "The lyrics"?

I guess you mean in the lead – "The song's lyrics … The lyrics …" Have rephrased but personally I'm always keen to avoid constant mentions of "the song" (hence some rewording later in the sentence to avoid "The song … a love song … Bob Dylan's song …"). I thought previous wording was better. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the first time that a bass guitar had been recorded with a fuzzbox device" - are we absolutely certain this is the case? John Entwistle was playing bass through Marshall 4x12s twelve months before this was recorded and was well-known for putting all sorts of effects through his bass, though possibly not as early as '65.

Well, absolutely certain based on what the sources, Walter Everett and John Kruth, say – yes. (If the Who released a track before 3 December '65 with Entwistle playing bass through a fuzzbox, and it's supported by a reliable source, then OK …) I don't rate Kruth's book on Rubber Soul at all highly, from the point of view of exploring what the album's about and its impact at the time, and I've read other readers expressing the same disappointment. One thing he is good at, though (too good), is jumping on tangential points and exploring them to the max, and he gives the fuzz bass part on "Think for Yourself" some attention. So, endnote 4 in the article condenses his discussion of possible precedents, with input from Carol Kaye: this amounts to how loads of bass players long before the Beatles used to doctor their amps to achieve a distorted effect, but no one apparently had actually recorded bass played through a fuzzbox – which is the "first" that's stated under Recording. I've cited the statement to Everett's The Foundations of Rock: From "Blue Suede Shoes" to "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" (which, it goes without saying, focuses on rock history way outside the Beatles or the 1960s). Don't know what else to say. I certainly don't want to attribute this or any other first to the Beatles for the sake of it; but if they're credited with this, and nothing appears to challenge the point, it seems to me that it's "fact". JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, in the first change you made, you've ended up underplaying the historical aspect of there being two separate bass lines. The lead now describes this feature as "atypical" but I think the previous wording – "a departure from convention" – is more accurate. The claim's supported in the main text by the statement that there was no precedence before "Think for Yourself" for having a standard bass part and a fuzz bass part on the one song. I imagine Spector might've had two bassists playing the same lines on a track, perhaps upright and electric to create a fatter sound. But the significant point is that this song contains two completely separate lines. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard about the lyrics possibly being directed towards Pete Best before. Although there are multiple sources confirming this, I think it still might be worth trimming this section down a little bit to give due weight to the other viewpoints. Given Harrison wrote "Taxman" not long after this, having a swing at the government and the "squares" sounds the most obvious choice of where the lyrics came from.

Aargh. In fact, it's only this "Best biographer Mallory Curley" who says that writers/commentators have interpreted it as a song directed at Best. Months ago, I looked everywhere I could to see if anyone held that opinion (it was complete news to me as well), let alone whether it was an interpretation that had gained some traction with others. I found nothing, but I did find enough to realise that Curley's book is in no way a reliable source: it's self-published (I couldn't even get an ISBN for the title); and comments by Spencer Leigh, I think it was, suggest the book's claims are dubious, partly fictional even. As I alluded to above, I'd forgotten the article was up for GAN – thought I'd pulled it before going away for a month in August. This Curley/Best issue was something I'd flagged in my mind back then. Will just cut the whole paragraph. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The song reflects the influence of Bob Dylan, whose work had inspired the Beatles, particularly Harrison, as a nascent songwriter in 1965" - wasn't Lennon equally Dylan-influenced at this point, though? ("You've Got To Hide Your Love Away" and "Norwegian Wood" have Dylan's influenced stamped all over them).

Dylan certainly (still) influenced Lennon, and for the first time McCartney, around this period, yes. I think the point that Inglis is making is that Dylan was a far more profound influence/inspiration for Harrison because he was just beginning to really engage with songwriting post-Help!, and so it more fully informed his work as he tried to find his own voice as a songwriter. Put it another way, Lennon and McCartney had been writing so long by 1965, they'd been able to explore and develop by incorporating or imitating a long line of influences and musical heroes (Buddy Holly, Elvis, Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Wilson Pickett, etc) from the late '50s onwards, whereas, as most commentators have it, Harrison's development as a writer began, in effect, with his absorption in Dylan (and hallucinogens). JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While the musical form is all technically correct, I think this is one instance where a 5-6 second audio sample of the chord sequence in the verse would help explain things to the reader.

I agree, but I have to confess I'm utterly hopeless when it comes to samples here! I can't even get it together to play any of the files that are currently in Wikipedia music articles. If you or someone else wants to add a sample, that would be great, but I've never found it to be an issue before. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a sample in - hopefully that should be alright. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://oldies.about.com/od/thebeatleshistory/a/The-Beatles-Songs-Think-For-Yourself.htm is a dead link

Yep, replaced with archived url. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lennon's keyboard part audible at all in the final release? I can't hear it.

For sure. He's playing eighths over the verses and choruses, set far right. Always makes me think of the cha-cha, for some reason. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be because of the triplets in the middle, emphasised by the fuzz bass line. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A Rickenbacker 4001S. McCartney used a similar model" - according to MacDonald, it was that model (as opposed to my Rickenbacker, which is a 4003FG).

Okay, I've reworded it. I was trying too hard perhaps to avoid the implication that McCartney's own 4001S was necessarily the guitar in the picture. PS. Re your edit: I know you're a Macca fan 'n all, but do you really think the Ricky image needs to look so gigantic?! I laughed at first but, quite honestly, I'd rather we lose the pic altogether than see it appear so comically large. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for enlarging the pic was primarily because the caption looked squashed; no other reason. File:Rickenbacker 4001S.jpg might be a better choice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has the audio verite recording of the vocal overdub session been released on bootlegs? (I've heard a boot of the overdubs for "You Never Give Me Your Money" in which you can hear McCartney shout "oooh, bloody hell" at the end).

I've added mention of the first bootleg release. Somewhere down the line, I might add a bit more detail on this tape. It receives a fair bit of attention in books by John Winn and Richie Unterberger, and (as Unterberger notes) pages worth of commentary in Mark Hertsgaard's A Day in the Life. JG66 (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it really. On hold. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything's been addressed; the issue with the picture or choices about copyediting don't really affect the GA criteria, so I'll pass this now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again, Ritchie, and especially for adding the sample (not that I can play it). You haven't commented on the "atypical"/"departure from convention" issue, but I'm hoping you're okay with reinstating the wording as I've suggested, to more accurately reflect what the sources say. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine - it's just a minor niggle. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]