Jump to content

Talk:Awaiting on You All/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This must be some sort of karmic co-incidence. I was listening to the track when lo and behold it cropped up for GA on my watchlist. On an initial glance, this looks like a good and thorough article on the song, and appears to be well written. Off we go then...

Lead

[edit]
  • The lead is about the right size.
  • I was confused by the second to last sentence in the first paragraph. It gave the impression that the song was recorded in December 1969, which is believable and in the right timeframe, but what I think it meant is that Harrison merely met some of the musicians that would later record the track in that month.
  • December 1969 is when he toured with many of the musicians. To me, it's quite clear, through the inclusion of a dash: "Harrison recorded the track in London backed by musicians such as Eric Clapton, Bobby Whitlock, Klaus Voormann, Jim Gordon and Jim Price – many of whom he had toured with, as Delaney & Bonnie and Friends, in December 1969, while still officially a member of the Beatles." There's no mention of when exactly he recorded the track, because I guess I didn't feel it necessary to include; we've got just a year appearing for the song's release, 1970, and its recording doesn't differ from that. Talking about a specific tour, on the other hand, does seem to warrant something more detailed – that's my thinking anyway. JG66 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I've got to disagree here. There is no confusion at all, as far as I can see. Having looked at it again, I've even more sure than before – because the change of tense in that phrase following the dash ("many of whom he had toured with") is clearly taking the reader further back in time. And as I've said, the dash serves as a distinct break between the two phrases anyway.
  • Even without the dash and change to pluperfect tense, I really don't think it would be a good idea for that info about D&B and Harrison still being a member of the Beatles to sit in a separate sentence. It just doesn't merit that treatment – but it's definitely worth tagging on to a mention of some of the more well-known backing musicians on the track. If sentence length is an issue, then maybe the previous (also lengthy) one could be split into two, because at least Spector and his Wall of Sound is a major point in the article. I'd prefer not to, of course, because I think people who read these Leads can handle some lengthy sentences. They know they're getting a heavily condensed version of an article. JG66 (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think it matters too much regarding the GA criteria, so we'll just have to agree to disagree for the time being! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the lead talks about the demo, but to me this sounds a little out of place. This could probably be copyedited earlier up, and expanded to mention when the actual recording that appears on the album took place. Should all fit in a single sentence. The infobox should mention this as well.
  • I've expanded it slightly to: "Harrison's posthumous compilation Early Takes: Volume 1 (2012) includes a demo version of the song, recorded early in the 1970 sessions for All Things Must Pass." But I think adding anything more than that might be giving this point undue weight in the Lead, don't you? I'm mindful that there's so much to mention regarding the composition and the official studio recording, so I'm loath to clutter up that discussion with detail on the demo/early take, and also that, by comparison with the original release, both the Bangladesh live reading and this version don't really merit too much attention.
  • I'm not with you on the infobox point either, I'm afraid. From my own experience with song GAs – Behind That Locked Door, Run of the Mill, My Sweet Lord, could be more – the issue of a demo version has always been handled the same way. Also, I can't see there's a precedent in song FAs either for the sort of treatment you're suggesting, even when the alt version or demo might be far more notable than is the case with this song. I'm thinking of Something and The Long and Winding Road, particularly, where the demos or unadorned versions get a fair amount of attention from commentators. I admit I've cast my net pretty close to shore, having looked only at a few Beatles song articles and Imagine (song) – did you have any specific examples in mind maybe? JG66 (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no, you've got the wrong end of the stick - I don't mean anything about the demo. I meant add the date (or dates) the version as released on All Things Must Pass was recorded, if we know them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Okay … Must admit, I've only ever included recording date (and location) in an infobox when the article's about a non-album single, because, to my mind, those details belong in the album article's infobox only. Perhaps that logic's a tad shaky: it's influenced by the fact that for any song on albums such as ATMP or Exile on Main St., we can only give (with any degree of authority) full dates and locations for the entire production of the parent album. So that's an unwieldy set of three possible studio locations and and a vague, six-month timespan for a song like "Awaiting". (Take this to more recent times, I'm sure an album track would require five or six studios.) So I've never done it in the past, but that's not to say I wouldn't. What do you think – add "May–October 1970" and "Abbey Road Studios, London; Trident Studios, London; Apple Studio, London"? Personally, I'd rather not (as you can probably tell!) – because I suspect that nothing was done at Apple on this song, but it's not something I can verify. Similarly, the impression I get is that the basic track was taped in late June 1970 or even later, which would make any mention of May redundant. JG66 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that answers my question. I guess from doing all the Beatles articles, where specific dates down to the day and sometimes time are well documented, that I assumed it would be the case for solo stuff. Turns out it isn't. No worries. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
  • The "Freeman" citation is a little vague. If I wanted to verify this quotation was genuine, exactly how would I do it?
  • Okay, I can see this is going to be relevant throughout the article (starting with your concerns about the Fact or Fantasy? ref below). I'd seen the same type of citation – full details of a radio or TV broadcast, with precise event times – used in a few FAs, most recently in George Harrison using the same 1974 Freeman interview. (There's a citation there for George saying Lennon was a "saint" and a "bastard" under Relationships with the other Beatles. The full source then appears under Harrison, George at the end of the article.) So I was confident it was quite acceptable.
  • As an alternative, I have the whole broadcast on MP3, as it's widely available through, er, unofficial channels. There's a blog site that provides free uploads of interviews such as this; the link from "a lengthy interview" about halfway down this page contains the Freeman interview, for instance.) The Scorsese documentary includes that quote "I was cleaning my teeth ... and suddenly in my head came this 'You don't need a dum dada-pmm pa-pmm-pa …'" And Madinger & Easter (and perhaps Badman, from memory) support the idea that Harrison talks about how he gets inspiration for his songs. He gives the same "Just believe in what we're telling you, and shut up" line in his 1982 interview reproduced on harekrishna.com. So all in all, I'm pretty sure that alternatives could be found to the Freeman broadcast, as a source. But I guess it's down to that issue of the same type of citation being acceptable elsewhere … what do you think? JG66 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's got my heart a-aching. I've replaced all the Freeman cites with locations in the Scorsese doc. I don't agree with it though – I'll be honest, I skimmed through part of that discussion before glazing over … As I say, I've seen this type of citation in FAs, so I can only assume some other consensus was reached in those cases. JG66 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is better to be an outspoken atheist than a hypocrite" - the second source might be problematic. While I'm happy to believe the BBC did indeed broadcast this and people did hear it, if a member of the public cannot access the archives, or watch it on a video or DVD (even if it has gone out of print), it might not necessarily be verifiable by Wikipedia standards. I've seen arguments from both sides and discussions go round in circles on this. Also, how can somebody who died in 1902 be quoted on television in 1970 - a third party (Harrison?) must be involved somewhere.
  • I'll reword to mention that Harrison frequently quoted Vivekananda's words, which is what Olivia H and other sources say. That'll mean we can ditch the Fact or Fantasy? cite you're referring to, but again, this relates to the above point about whether the Freeman radio broadcast and the like are or are not acceptable. The box quote containing a statement Harrison made on a NY radio show in 1970 ("This is really where I disagreed with John [Lennon] … I don't think you get peace by going around shouting: 'GIVE PEACE A CHANCE, MAN!'") is another. That interview's much discussed in biographies, although I don't recall seeing this quote in full. I think it's important to this song article, so I really hope we can keep it. JG66 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now reworded to "whose main contention Harrison would often quote: …" to acknowledge, as you say, a third party's involvement. JG66 (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section gives the impression of being off topic, only mentioning the song right at the end. I think this needs to be moved up to the top, so the reader is aware that the background on Harrison's religious preferences are relevant to the song.
  • Well, it is titled Background – do you not think readers might expect to approach the subject from a wider, background perspective? Often I will introduce the subject of the article directly at the start (say with a quote from I Me Mine); other times – and I admit I've been angsting over this one for weeks – it seems there's quite a lot of ground to cover beforehand. I take your point that you feel the desired effect hasn't been achieved, though; I'll see what I can do, juggling some of the items around. (But I'm absolutely dreading it!) JG66 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think just copyediting stuff should sort this out - the problem I had when reading this section was "well, this is all well and good, but what's it got to do with the song?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworked the section, cutting out a fair bit of detail and bringing forward a couple of song-specific points from later in the article. See what you think now. JG66 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

[edit]
  • I'm not entirely sure what the relevance of the Lennon picture is, other than it happens to be tangentially related to the subject material Harrison is perhaps having a pop at.
  • Given the mentions of Harrison and Lennon's diverging philosophies over 1968–69, particularly regarding the peace campaign, under Background, and the attention afforded the opening song lyrics here, I'd think it super-relevant actually. I'll reword the caption maybe, to specify that Lennon's pictured during his and Yoko's Toronto bed-in or rehearsing his song "Give Peace a Chance", or something. You're not suggesting I ditch the image, I hope?
Yeah, a caption change should sort that out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally (your "perhaps" above), there's hardly a Harrison biographer who doesn't jump on this interpretation! Personally, I think the "love-in" reference is more aimed at the hippie movement generally, but on the other hand, I'm always surprised that commentators don't notice the "horoscope" mention as a possible dig at Ono. JG66 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you came into work and nicked the chocolate biscuits on my desk without asking, I'd be mightly pissed too ;-) ... anyway, I've certainly read that while he was pissed off with Paul more than any other Beatles for being patronising and condescending, he was also upset that John would just wander off with Yoko and give him the cold shoulder. If all the Beatles were still alive and had a serious offer of reforming, I reckon George more than any of the others would say no. Paul would jump at it, Ringo would probably go along with it, John would do a one off if Yoko thought it was a good idea, George ... not likely. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget, the only reason George even got involved with Anthology was because he'd been conned out of millions by manager HandMade co-owner Denis O'Brien, according to Doggett and others. Oh, and let's be clear about the biscuits: they were Chocolate Digestives. I don't know about you, but I think that puts the issue in a whole different light. JG66 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree it would be unreliable as a source to support a comment that the song was about something in particular, or that it was recorded here or there – i.e. anything factual. (On that score, I need to remove it from Background's final sentence, I've just noticed.) But here, where we're clearly referring to Harrison's words from an interview with a Krishna devotee, my understanding is that it's quite acceptable. I'm sure I could replace the cite with one from Dale Allison's book, but this is the authorised version of the interview that authors such as Allison, Tillery, Clayson and Greene all use as their source. JG66 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with using the source from Allison's book. Although it's taking the interview, it's also passing it through an editorial control that has nothing to do with Hare Krishna directly, so is less susceptible to finger pointing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done – it was all in Allison's book anyway. Have to say, I don't agree that it's not a reliable source for the usage I was suggesting. Looking at the homepage, it's the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust site, and (although I realise I hadn't mentioned this before) the 1982 Harrison interview first appeared in a book published by the Trust. Some Harrison biographers give the book as their source, but mostly it's the website. I think it would add a lot to the article by including it, because readers can pick up more about the song there, and the subject generally. JG66 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what relevances the last two sentences have on the song specifically.
  • Do you not think that the preceding sentence – "Allison discusses 'Awaiting on You All' as a precedent for further statements by Harrison against organised religion, particularly Catholicism" – invites mention of a few examples? I'd hoped it paved the way, quite naturally, to then single out the Material World album artwork and particularly Life of Brian – no? JG66 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought of a way of resolving this. Put this information in a separate paragraph and lead it off with mentioning that "Awaiting on You All" was the first of several Harrison songs (Harrisongs?) to have a pop at organised religion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused by this, because there's already mention of the song serving as "a precedent for further statements by Harrison against organised religion, particularly Catholicism" – so I couldn't see any benefit in your suggested addition. Seemed to be introducing a degree of repetition, in fact. I've taken the text to a new paragraph, which, I agree, is way better. JG66 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production

[edit]
  • "bassists Klaus Voormann and Carl Radle, one of whom plays six-string bass" - do we know which?
  • I wish. My money's on Klaus, who occasionally played electric guitar on the many London sessions he participated in during the early '70s (eg on one of the ATMP Apple Jam tracks, a song or two on Nilsson's Schmilsson and Son of Schmilsson albums). JG66 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Authors Chip Madinger and Mark Easter note the presence of a piano part on the recording also" - suggest putting "also" earlier
  • I know what you mean – it feels like the word should appear earlier on – but I think that would give the statement a different meaning. If you're suggesting rewording to "Authors Chip Madinger and Mark Easter also note the presence of a piano part on the recording", that would imply that Whitlock had commented on the track containing a piano part (when in fact he doesn't). In other words, the meaning of "also" becomes "they too" in that wording. I could be wrong, I don't know …? JG66 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well putting "also" at the end of the sentence definitely sounds wrong. How about "Authors Chip Madinger and Mark Easter note there is also a piano on the recording". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went for: "Authors Chip Madinger and Mark Easter note the presence also of a piano part on the recording." But then changed my mind, and now it's: "Authors Chip Madinger and Mark Easter note the presence of a piano part on the recording as well." How's that? JG66 (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Temple devotees could be "the biggest pain in the necks in the world", according to Spector" - source needs further information as to how someone could verify it
Cool. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]

Some of the information, particularly at the end of the section, seems to be more about the album generally than this song.

  • Fair enough. I've cut the 2011 Scorsese quote and I might do the same to one of the three phrases in "All This Must Pass was a major commercial success,[100][101] outselling releases that year by Harrison's former bandmates,[102][103] and topping albums charts throughout the world.[104]" – perhaps even leaving it at "was a major commercial success", without the additional points. But I do think it's important to state how commercially well received this and other spiritually themed songs were, via the parent album's success. What do you think of it now, minus the Scorsese recollection? JG66 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reissue and other versions

[edit]
  • I have the 30th Anniversary Reissue, but I can't remember where my CD is (since I transferred to mp3 ages ago). I'll dig it out and check the sources - it's nice to get at least a few offline cites verified during a review, which doesn't happen at GAN too often.
Okay, I've checked my CD booklet. The press kit stuff obviously isn't there but I can confirm the facts and quotations cited to the CD booklet are correct. Incidentally, the same booklet mentions "Many of the tracks were virtually live." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

[edit]
  • "The musicians who performed on "Awaiting on You All" are believed to be as follows" - would probably better to cite Spizer and Deng directly by name.
  • I'm surprised only one drummer is credit. That's not very "Spector-esque" is it - he'd normally use at least 3!
  • Shocking, isn't it … No multiple pianos either, with musicians playing the same part in different octaves; no "felt but not heard" Badfinger acoustic rhythm guitars. What a lightweight track! JG66 (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • I was surprised to learn that Metrolyrics does proper attribution and royalties, which means it is a suitable link. Well I never.
  • Yes indeed. There's a contributor here who does a great job of policing these MetroLyrics links, because they don't always carry the all-important LF symbol. JG66 (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More later.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on the "karmic coincidence" – I was just returning to the computer, thinking I must write a reply to Ritchie333 on that Talk page, and here I am (and you are). It's just not the talk page (the White Album's) that I had in mind. Thanks for taking this on. JG66 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone through the article now. Most of the comments are minor - the main criticism would be that some of the content (but not much) is focused on tangential topics, and might fit better on an article called Religious views of George Harrison, for instance. Anyway, I'm putting this on hold pending fixes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ritchie. I now what you mean – focus, and the need for an article covering Harrison's religious beliefs. It would then be so easy to direct readers to the more general piece, at the start of Background. I'd had (and still have) a similar problem with sections in the McCartney album article; at least there is a relevant article in that instance, on the band's break-up, although it rather glosses over the important details.
I still think the comments I made above need to be borne in mind (Well, it is titled Background …; Do you not think that the preceding sentence ... invites mention of a few examples?), but I'll revisit the Background section now. I'm going to need the proverbial lightbulb moment there – if it doesn't make it at this GAN/GAR, no probs. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're talking about chopping out great swathes of the article. It'll still be of a perfectly acceptable length for this type of article to meet the GA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that main area of concern, Background, is way more focused now. (Which is great, because I wasn't too confident about being able to fix it!) Thanks, JG66 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think we're all done here, so it's a pass. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Ritchie333. Particularly as your concerns about the Background section have made for a way better, more focused section now. I can see myself revisiting this area, refining it further, hopefully. There's a couple of articles I'm working on that could well take some of the load off this one, as regards background on Harrison's religious beliefs. (That's the plan, at least …) See you around, JG66 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Awaiting_on_You_All/GA1&oldid=1082468005"