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)

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)

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)

• "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)

• "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)

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)

• 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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

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)

More later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)