Talk:Wonderwall Music/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 17:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do confess that my main knowledge of this album is hearing it while, umm, "worse for wear" at parties in the mid 1990s (Anthology-mania had arrived and suddenly anything the Beatles had got hold of, especially obscure stuff, was fair game to dig out and have a listen). Still, on with the review…

Ah, it's certainly an education. Enjoying something of a renaissance now, I think. Hey, thanks for taking this on, Ritchie. JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead is a bit long for a 33K article, but looking through it I can't see anything obvious I'd chop out
"Harrison also provided selections in the rock music vein" - this sounds a bit pretentious, how about simply "Harrison also used rock musicians"?

Reworded to "Harrison also recorded Western rock music selections for the album" – how's that? JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the 2014 reissue of Wonderwall Music" ..."Before then, the album was remastered for CD release in 1992". While I see what the narrative is trying to do, it does feel a bit jarring to jump back from 2014 to 1992.

I know what you mean. I think it's very important to deal with the Harrison-as-performer issue at this point in the Lead so the jump can't be helped, to some extent. As soon as the 2014 reissue came out, a couple of weeks back, I found myself with loads to do, trying to rework this point … I've tried to lessen the jarring effect now (I think the main problem was the words "Before then"?) – changed to: "The album was first remastered for CD release in 1992, …" JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrison biographer Simon Leng writes of the film's appeal:" - may be easier to say "Simon Leng wrote", we can tell from the quotation that follows that he's explaining why the project was interesting

Yep, thanks. I've removed the "film's appeal" bit. JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"The soundtrack to director Joe Massot's 1968 film Wonderwall," ... could this go later on in the sentence.

To avoid "… Wonderwall, Wonderwall Music …", I guess you mean? I played around with a few possibilities, but the only thing I could see that works, without completely rearranging that sentence and the next one, is to insert the year following the film title. (Lame?) JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth explaining why Harrison wasn't interested in the Beatles at this point (iirc he hated touring the most out of all of them and almost left the band and needed a long break, and was more interest in playing with outside musicians, anything else?)

Well, it's not really any of those things, I'd say. As far as Sgt. Pepper's goes (and it's something I always thought should go in that album article, along with viewpoint from a Beatle other than McCartney!), Harrison went to India straight after the 1966 US tour and couldn't get back into the Beatle thing. But you know, I don't really see that anything's needed here. We state what he was interested in – "immersed in his discovery of Indian classical music" – wouldn't you say that's enough?

Concept and composition

Personal opinion this, but isn't there quite a bit of music hall on this album, especially the piano and mellotron bits?

The only thing that I'd think comes close is "Drilling a Home", but that's sort of honky tonk. (Just how "worse for wear" were you?!)JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, he would provide selections in the more familiar, rock music genre" - since we've mentioned the traditional Indian instruments, we should follow suit and mention these instruments too

Don't agree with that at all, I'm afraid. The point is, the Western music was "familiar" (typical trippy '67 rock and experimental doodlings) whereas the Indian portion was intended as an introduction/education for the average rock/pop listener – that's an important point about the soundtrack album. The Indian instruments merit some discussion for that reason. JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"and [Simon Leng] writes that because"

Hmm – but why? The same subject (Leng) carries across the two phrases – "Leng describes Barham as … and writes that …" That's perfectly good English, no? JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Barham was a natural choice over George Martin" - could we say why was this?

Sorry, but again, I think that would be unnecessary. It's already been stated that John Barham was "Harrison's 'fellow traveler', due to the two musicians' shared appreciation of Indian classical music"; and we've definitely said why: "because Harrison needed a collaborator who 'empathized with his [musical] ideas'". JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

"Over this period, Harrison also worked at another London studio,[31] De Lane Lea Studios" - any particular reason he chose this over Abbey Road? (Did it have an 8 track then?)

I'm really not sure. Availability maybe? I know the Beatles used De Lane Lea occasionally – eg, "It's All Too Much". JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrison had finished the album before going back to India" - there could be a link to The Beatles in India somewhere in this

Sure. I've just added it on "Transcendental Meditation course". JG66 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"According to a contemporary issue of Beatles Monthly magazine, further work continued at Abbey Road on 11, 20 and 31 December." - don't we have a more definitive source than that? I thought Abbey Road kept meticulous logs of absolutely anything any of the Beatles committed to tape.

Who knows. Madinger & Easter's book is noted for its super-thorough research, it must be said. JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"although he had directed the recording of ... "Within You, Without You" over 1966–67 with minimal input from Martin" - other Beatles, sure, but Martin did the string arrangement for "Within You, Without You" and hence made a crucial contribution to it

Maybe, but the point being made relates to the actual session for each song. I can see it wouldn't hurt to find another source to support this statement (many do). I mean, even Martin has acknowledged he was pretty much a passenger and never really gave Harrison's songs much attention until much later. JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"you get spoiled working on eight and sixteen tracks" - presumably Harrison is talking retrospectively about sessions, because I don't believe sixteen tracks were around in 1968?

I'll check the 1992 CD booklet to be sure. I remember the quote's introduced with something pretty vague, along the lines of "after his return from India". I'm thinking it could well be around the time of the album's release, end of '68, at which point he'd just worked with Jackie Lomax, the Wrecking Crew and others at Sound Recorders in LA. (I'm sure the Stones were working on 16-track at Sunset Sound for Let It Bleed – and that was October 1969. Perhaps even with Beggar's Banquet too, the year before.) JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Wonderwall by George Harrison.jpg - as far as I'm aware, you can only claim an image is free if it has no copyright markings and has not previously been published. But, of course, by 14 December 1968, the White Album was in the shops and it has exactly the same picture on the inner sleeve, as you're no doubt aware.

Well, I've always understood this to be an alternative pic from the same session. Just pulled out the White Album booklet to check: they do look slightly different to me (same with very subtle difference between pic on original All Things Must Pass cover and that used on colorised 2001 edition, for what it's worth). I don't know if it's just me, but I see a stern/intense look on Harrison's face in the Billboard ad, whereas in the White Album portrait he just looks calm(?) JG66 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll AGF they aren't the same - I've got to admit, I've never looked that closely! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... okay, sorry about the intermezzo, I'll carry on with the review then deal with the comments so far.

Contributing musicians

"The latter observes" - do you mean Peter Levezzoli? Might be worth being specific here

But who else could it be? JG66 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a matter of consistency with the rest of the prose in this area, that's all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey. Fixed it now. JG66 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the track-by-track credits come from?

Apart from citing books by Lewisohn, Madinger & Easter and others in his bibliography, Spizer includes quotes from Wonderwall contributors such as Barham and Manley. He also appears to have had access to plenty of Apple Records archives through Allan Steckler, who headed Apple in the US (well, headed Apple full-stop from 1970 onwards) under Allen Klein. So I guess it's a combination of all those sources. Worth noting perhaps that Spizer's work as a Beatles archivist has been recognised by Apple – for instance, items from his collection have been included in reissues such as the 2005 Concert for Bangladesh CD/DVD (with an acknowledgement). I'm sure there's a degree of guesswork involved, if that's what you mean, but no more so than in Ian MacDonald's (supposedly) authoritative musician credits for tracks by the Beatles, surely. JG66 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Harrison himself ever actually confirm he was playing on it, or is our only evidence from third parties?

As far as the actual sessions go, he's only ever spoken about the experience of recording in India. Which is hardly a surprise: he was never exactly one for revisiting a project or discussing the particulars of a recording. JG66 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Harrison was now keen to "go to the source", Leng writes" - might be easier to just put "According to Leng" at the start of the sentence
"Aashish Khan and Misra's contributions were recorded at Abbey Road Studios, however" - I don't think you need the "however"

I didn't put the word in originally, but then felt it was needed – because we've had the point about Harrison now wanting to "work with the best musicians in India", and the Bombay sessions have been discussed. JG66 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't there four people in the Fool, or am I just getting confused?

Yes, there were. But from what I can gather, it was later on – 1969 perhaps, when they moved to California – that the fourth member, an American named Barry Finch, joined them. I've gone for the three names that Everett provides when he's discussing the Fool's involvement with the Beatles. JG66 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Well known for his theme to the BBC television show Dixon of Dock Green" - who was? Tommy Reilly or George Martin? This might just benefit being reworded a bit.

Seriously? I can't see how anyone could possibly read it as referring to Martin. "Well known for his theme to the BBC television show Dixon of Dock Green, Tommy Reilly came to the sessions …" (I mean, Martin is the last of three people named in the sentence – after Reilly and Harrison.) JG66 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't, but I've seen enough articles to know that wherever there's possibility for confusion, it'll happen. I think "Tommy Reilly, an established BBC theme composer (including Dixon of Dock Green)" should sort it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to fix it, but couldn't go with your wording (per the source anyway). It was "his" theme tune in that Reilly was credited as the performer, but I can't be sure he composed it. (And I notice the Wikipedia article states that a number of composers wrote pieces for him to record.) JG66 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musical content

"Through the absence of mastering rills between some of those selections, however" - I think this needs to be reworded slightly, don't need the "however", and I'm not sure "rills" is the right word to use here

I've had a go at rewording. "Rills" is a term I understand, Madinger and Easter use it throughout their book. I'll use an alternative if you've got one. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"over which Harrison's chosen instrument features" - might be better to say "over which Harrison put a dominant instrument featuring the main theme / melody"

I don't really agree, but I've reworded. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"On "Ski-ing", Clapton plays "a bluesy fuzz-tone [guitar] riff", Spizer writes" - similar to above, "Spizer writes" here is a bit jarring

Reworded now. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Madinger and Easter suggest that the tambura might well have been played" - can probably substitute "might well have been" for "was" - it's stating their opinion, not necessarily the truth

Not really, at least not without diverging from their statement. I've just ditched the point entirely. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"features what Clayson terms "Pink Floyd-ish accompaniment" - suggest "a Pink Floyd-ish accompaniment"

reworded this anyway, to allow for your next point. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"one of which resembles the sound of a human voice" - is this just the author's opinion or was this guitar specifically treated to sound like this?

Well, it's a wah-wah pedal, heavily flanged, so the sound's resemblance to a human voice is hardly unusual. But yes, as with many details appearing in a Wikipedia article, it's taken the observation/opinion of an author or other secondary source for the point to merit inclusion … I'm not really sure why you're asking. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Overdubbing a lead instrument was unprecedented in Indian music until this time" - do you mean traditional music did not have two lead instruments, or that overdubs had not been tried in an Indian recording studio? The former sounds significant, the latter less so, given overdubbing and "recording studio as instrument" techniques were only just coming into fashion.

The whole idea of overdubbing was unprecedented in Indian music. Have just reworded the sentence. It's still significant, I think – partly explains Khan's enthusiasm, and adds to the earlier point about Indian musicians being intrigued by the project also. JG66 (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Album artwork

Might be briefly worth saying who Derek Taylor is, for those who don't know

I think it's fine – the reader immediately gets an idea of who Taylor is: an executive at Apple. JG66 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I was looking for, just "Apple executive" will be fine, but I'd rather we state it so there's no ambiguity, as inferring and assuming can be the mother of all arguments from my experience. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to include "Apple exec …" JG66 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To Gill's chagrin," - is "chagrin" the right word? Maybe "disappointment" or "objection" would be better

Just looked the word up, it's fine. JG66 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Madinger and Easter write" - this jarrs and the sentence probably needs rewording

Reworded. JG66 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Receiption

" Chip Madinger and Mark Easter opine" - WP:LASTNAME, we've been referred to "Madinger and Easter" earlier, and is "opine" the best word to use here?

I know, but as I've witnessed in FACs, first names can be and are repeated when the reader's had a host of names appearing in a long article. Seems to me, Reception's an ideal place to repeat such information anyway, because we're now seeing them in the role of reviewers, not as commentators or music historians. That said, I've removed Chip and Mark. JG66 (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural influence and legacy

Oasis and Kula Shaker have examples of this album influencing them, what about Supergrass and Ocean Colour Scene?

Clayson doesn't give any specifics. JG66 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson says something, but I seem to recall you thought this source was problematic? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that author being problematic, I can't see anything there about Ocean Colour Scene (or Supergrass) relating to this article, can you? JG66 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I was thinking of Kula Shaker. D'uuuh. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Okay, that's all I can think of. If I had to give a main criticism, is that there is a bit too much reliance "according to 'x', Harrison did 'y'" or "'x' writes / opines / muses that 'y'..." The reader can examine the footnotes and sources to see who wrote what. Specific attribution is useful for exact quotations or information that may be considered controversial, but if we go overboard it becomes difficult to parse what's there. Anyway, I'll put the review on hold and have a look at all the replies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've gone through everything. Some stuff I've briefly commented on, but the for the majority, I think we're okay to agree to disagree, and none of it is obviously seriously affecting the GA criteria, so we should be good for a pass fairly soon. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think everything's now resolved or at least we've got consensus, so I'm happy to pass the review now. Another Harrison one in the bag! :-D Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time, Ritchie. That's great news … JG66 (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]