Talk:Old Brown Shoe/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 15:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The main text states explicitly "The line-up on the basic track was Harrison on lead guitar, Lennon on rhythm guitar, McCartney on tack piano, and Starr on drums." But later, in the Personnel section, we learn that there's dispute about who played drums. Maybe acknowledgement of this needs to be given earlier. A minor suggestion, but I also wonder whether it'd be an idea to change "(check out Ringo's raucous drumming)" to "(check out [the] raucous drumming)"—which would still be an accurate quotation, but would possibly lessen confusion for the reader. Moisejp (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it absolutely floored me when another editor added the Abbey Road 50th anniversary credits late last year. So many writers have studied the Beatles' recordings and extracurricular activities, to an obsessional level, yet suddenly in 2019 we learn that Ringo Starr was away filming Magic Christian on 16 April.
Aside from the wealth of literature stating that he did attend the session for "Old Brown Shoe" (eg, Lewisohn, who wrote his book from the EMI session notes and tape documentation), there's the breakdown of contributions to "Something", which the Beatles recorded straight afterwards. In The Beatles Anthology, Starr talks about being absent from recording "The Ballad of John and Yoko" two days before, but says nothing about missing any other session. I don't have the 2019 Abbey Road deluxe edition (or whatever the box set's called) so I haven't been able to read the liner notes myself, but I really wonder about their accuracy. Credits and recording information given in a Byrds box set came to mind – in that they're seen as incorrect. In my ears, I hear Starr on OBS (which means nothing, I realise), and it seems others do also. Given the amount of rehearsal that the Beatles gave the track in January and the comment about Starr finding that pattern on the off-beat, it makes it doubly hard to treat the 2019 credits as authoritative. Unlike Ballad of J & Y, they rehearsed this song as a group – I can't see them thinking they'd do it without him, or even thinking it could be done without him.
The view I took is that the new credits refer only to take 2 of OBS. Perhaps Starr arrived late, contributed to take 4, and then to "Something" later in the session – it does allow for that scenario. Does that sound plausible in terms of what we could live with here? My feeling is these 2019 credits are so marginal relative to the range of reliable sources that, if the new credits belong at all, they belong there under Personnel rather than influencing or (especially) dictating the description that many writers have provided over decades. And all these writers are well aware of Starr's commitments to The Magic Christian, incidentally, because it was always there as the end point of the Get Back/Let It Be sessions. JG66 (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article's history and saw your back and forth with an anonymous user at the end og last year. I found these images on Discogs but they are super small. If you've got amazing eyes, maybe you can find something useful in here: (click More Images and then navigate to the couple of images with the liner notes) [[1]].
Another idea: You could keep the sentence in the main text describing the line-up on the song with Ringo included. Then you could have a footnote there saying "Most historians who have written about the 'Old Brown Shoe' sessions agree that Ringo played drums on the song.[1][2][3][4] However, in the Abbey Road Anniversary Edition (2019) liner notes, the authors claim that Ringo may have been away filming The Magic Christian for at least some of the takes of the song; these liner notes credit Paul McCartney as playing drums on the alternate take 2 of the song, released on the Abbey Road Anniversary Edition." Maybe that would be enough to give acknowledgment to this marginal source, while also implying that Ringo's involvement could conceivably vary by take. Maybe then you could even get rid of the mention of this in the Personnel section. Moisejp (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe, on second thought, it'd be easier to keep the Personnel section as it is now, with the alternate theory included. That might lessen the chance of the anonymous user coming back and disrupting the stability of the article. But you could still add my idea above of the footonote, of course. Moisejp (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was just about to say that: with these Beatles song credits, it's the Personnel sections that are a beacon for what one might call hit-and-run edits – made with no appreciation of what is stated in the prose. I think that option's the most sensible one; will add the note as you suggest under Recording.
I couldn't make out anything in the Discogs images, unfortunately, and there's nothing up to date at AlbumLinerNotes.cm either. I'd rather splash out on the White Album 50th box set, but I'm just about crazy enough to consider tracking down the Abbey Road 2019 release also ... The situation intrigues me, and it would be nice to know for sure. If it was Mark Lewisohn writing the liner notes, that would be convincing, and I think most people would consider new credits per Lewisohn to be definitive. Kevin Howlett, I'm not so sure about (he's a former BBC radio presenter, I gather). The further issue, though, is that Howlett's credits list the overdubs (eg, organ) and they also differ in contributions such as piano – so it's not just the Starr/McCartney drums dilemma. Again, I'd really like to read the liner notes, not just that particular page but the whole thing, to get a feel of how authoritative they are from start to finish. Thing is, the Beatles didn't carry out any overdubs on take 2. So, trying to work with part of Howlett's contention, I wonder whether Ringo came to the session late (missing the first couple of takes; it's inconceivable that McCartney played drums on "Something"), but the liner note writer seems to have taken it upon himself to provide a full list of contributions based on that alleged absence.
Thanks for your engagement with this issue. It's really an example of how having dozens of authors (no exaggeration) dedicated to documenting a subject in great detail doesn't necessarily bring us any closer to the truth! JG66 (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added the note under Recording to introduce the issue early on. Had more there originally, to establish Lewisohn's credentials (and his book's full of recollections from EMI engineers, copies of session documentation, notes from archive tape boxes, etc.), but thought better of it. JG66 (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"George Harrison began writing "Old Brown Shoe" in late 1968 on a piano, rather than guitar." Maybe something like "guitar, his main instrument" for clarity. I'm not sure the most elegant way to say it. The point is made clearer in the block quote, but if you think of the block quote being independent of the main text, it's probably better to clarify this in the main text as well. Moisejp (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. Perhaps I'd assumed the lead's mention of "the group's lead guitarist" might carry through. Will add clarification. JG66 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done JG66 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The 16 April session was the first at EMI Studios for the full group since October the previous year, when they completed recording for their self-titled double album (also known as the "White Album"), and was given over entirely to songs written by Harrison." When I read this I was curious what other Harrison songs were attempted on this day. Would it be worthwhile to include? Moisejp (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The other song was "Something" – I'll add mention of that. JG66 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Okay where it is, do you think, or perhaps deal with the Harrison-exclusive point at first mention? Compromised in terms of finding the right place early on, because the return to EMI/Abbey Road seems quite significant ... or perhaps I'm just allowing it to be an issue. JG66 (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image in the infobox the one talked about in the main text that has a dark brown shoe in a bush? I can't make out any shoe in it, but I presume that's likely because the picture is small and dark. Moisejp (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed, and you're right on the second point too. The shoe's pretty clear in the image reproduced in Spizer's book, but not in the low-res version we've got in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should refs 31 and 32 be combined? Moisejp (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think not because ref 32 is referring to two distinct points on pages 290 and 291 of the S&S book. Ref 31 covers text that falls over the turn of those same page numbers. I'll check again to make sure (I'm writing this now assuming that was the reason for the difference, anyway). JG66 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the infobox image, are there any images it'd be worthwhile to add? Moisejp (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wish. Speaking as a Fender Telecaster player/devotee, I guess we could find a guitar image. Harrison's model was so particular, though, and I can't help thinking it might come across as inadequate, somewhat gratuitous. (You know: here's a Fender Tele, kinda but not like the guitar Harrison used on the recording ...) I'll give it a go if you want, but having had a [home recording image removed at McCartney (album) (which I though was perfect in the context of that article!), I guess I'm slightly wary. JG66 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A guitar image could be fine, even if it's not the exact model. Or my idea, even if they are a bit generalized and not 100% related to the particular recording/release of OBS could be one or two images like this: [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. Or a Bob Dylan photo (an influence on the song), or an EMI/Abbey Road Studios photo? Possibly a photo of someone mentioned in the Live version and posthumous tributes section. Moisejp (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added the 1968 Wonderwall image, Tele image, and 2002 shot of Gary Brooker. To my way of thinking, the Telecaster is the only one that actually adds something, because it is such a guitar song; but as with most guitar pics, it's hard to place within the text because of the dimensions. Further to what I was saying before, I'm concerned that the additions are somewhat gratuitous (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.") I'm all for including them where they work, and I think about the positioning of quote boxes and, as in this article, song samples with an idea of the visual aspect. Just not sure how effective these are. The Wonderwall image might raise questions for the reader, for instance (he's struggling to get his songs accepted but he released a solo album in late 1968), and the artists are shown in the infobox image anyway. JG66 (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just binned the Wonderwall pic after all. I appreciate you were offering a range of suggestions (and thank you for that) rather than proscribing that each one should be included. JG66 (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG66, those are all my comments. I've also spot-checked several online refs, and they all seem good. Moisejp (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, fabulous – merci bien. Replies on their way. JG66 (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JG66. Everything looks good and I plan to promote this tomorrow. It's gotten a little late here tonight and so I hope you don't mind if I wait till then. By the way, how would you feel about combining footnotes 4 and 5, which both talk about Starr being away to film The Magic Christian (and just above this in the Personnel section there is another mention of this)? If you combined footnotes 4 and 5, you could segue Starr's being away for BOJ&Y on 14 April with the Abbey Road 50's claim he was still away two days later. Moisejp (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Very well written, and follows MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The sources are reliable, and spot-checked a few sources for accuracy.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Good breadth of coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral, no biases.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable, no edit wars.
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):
Two Wikimedia commons images—appropriately licensed; one non-free image—appropriate FUR.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: