Talk:Run of the Mill (George Harrison song)

Logo image

I'm not buying the use of the non-free logo in the article at all. I may be missing something obvious, so I'm posting here rather than just removing it, but what relevance does the logo have to this song? J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for opening the discussion here first, J Milburn – I appreciate that. I do believe the Apple logo has a great relevance to the song "Run of the Mill", yes, in that the logo is, by definition, a visual representation of the company and Apple Corps runs through the song's DNA (so to speak). As shown in other Beatles-era compositions of his, such as "Not Guilty", "I Me Mine" and "Wah-Wah", Harrison had a penchant for commenting on situations within the band from the position of an observer, as the "third Beatle". In this case, the situation was the crisis affecting Apple in the early months of 1969, reflected in the breakdown of friendships within the band. This point is supported by the comment from Harrison that currently appears in a boxed quote, taken from his autobiography. (The comment in full: "It's like the North of England thing – you know, 'Trouble at t'mill'. It was when Apple was getting crazy – Ringo wanted it blue, John wanted it white, Paul wanted it green and I wanted it orange. Paul was falling out with us all and going around Apple offices saying "You're no good" – everyone was just incompetent (the Spanish Inquisition sketch). It was that period – the problem of partnerships." [I Me Mine, 2002, p. 188]) In addition, although I decided not to add a mention in the article, it's worth noting that Harrison's original song lyrics appear on Derek Taylor's official "Fresh from Apple" press release notepaper. So, it's fair to say that Apple, and/or the realities of running Apple, served as the inspiration for "Run of the Mill".

The issue of Apple business looms large also around the time he recorded the song. In that New York radio interview, with a degree of encouragement from the interviewer, Harrison talks in some detail about his, Lennon and Starr's personal differences with McCartney, which leads inexorably towards the running of Apple – it's clear that, to Harrison, McCartney's domination of the Beatles as musicians was no different from his previous domination of Apple and his subsequent unwillingness to cede control. Perhaps Peter Doggett needs no introduction, I don't know: through his features in Mojo (eg "Fight to the Finish", quoted in the article) and especially his book You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After the Breakup, Doggett has come to be seen as an authority on Apple. Doggett quotes at length from this 1970 Harrison radio interview (You Never Give Me ..., 2011, ISBN 978-0-06-177418-8, pp 133–35), as does Harrison biographer Elliot Huntley (Mystical One: George Harrison – After the Break-up of the Beatles, 2006, ISBN 1-55071-197-0), pp 43–44, 47–49); three weeks after the band's break-up, it appears to have been viewed as quite revelatory. The first time a recently ex-Beatle gave anything more than a glib statement to the press since McCartney's announcement. Aside from the portions quoted in the article's Recording section, there's more in that interview to support the idea that, as in "Run of the Mill", the issues of failed friendships and Apple's business problems are intertwined. Some more text from Doggett's discussion (edited by me, simply to give you the relevant portions, I hope): "The launch of Apple marked the moment when McCartney went off the rails, Harrison believed. 'Really it was his idea to do Apple, and once it started going Paul was very active in there, and then it got really chaotic ... When we started doing something about it, obviously Paul didn't have as much say in the matter.' And then the battle between Klein and the Eastmans had begun. ... "It's a difficult one to overcome because – well, you can think of the subtleties. He's really living with it. When I go home at night, I'm not living there with Allen Klein, whereas in a way Paul's living with the Eastmans. ... he was outvoted three to one, and if he doesn't like it, it's really a pity. Because we're trying to do what's best for the Beatles as a group, or best for Apple as a company. We're not trying to do what's best for Paul and his in-laws." Like Doggett, I think the deterioration in personal relationships and the standoff regarding Apple can't be separated. And, again, this is reflected in "Run of the Mill" (Ian Inglis, The Words and Music of George Harrison, 2010, ISBN 978-0-313-37532-3, pp 27–28). At the risk of stating the obvious, when McCartney seeks to dissolve Apple – the only practicable way for him to be free of Klein – it's the other Beatles he has to sue. They are "Apple Corps".

As the final part of what I've termed the song's DNA, there's the interpretation given to "Run of the Mill", even on release, according to Doggett. Simon Leng, Robert Rodriguez and Andrew Gilbert are among the other authors who have commented on the self-referential nature of some of Harrison's All Things Must Pass songs in the context of the Beatles history. I was surprised to learn – but I suppose one shouldn't be – that listeners were scouring these songs, and those on Lennon's Plastic Ono Band, for such Beatle-related messages – Rodriguez: "For the legions of Fab-watchers looking for insight into the group's breakup, the [All Things Must Pass] album provided much to dissect." (Fab Four FAQ 2.0: The Beatles' Solo Years, 1970–1980, 2010; ISBN 978-1-4165-9093-4, p. 148) Of this material, Doggett describes "Run of the Mill" as the album's "most compelling testimony to the recent past" (p. 141) and Leng has written, more generally: "Such celebrity status was attached to the group that the public and media longed for these further instalments of 'the Beatles soap opera.'" (While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison, 2006, ISBN 1-4234-0609-5, p. 85) Apart from 1966, Christmas was traditionally a period when albums charts were dominated by the latest work from the Beatles – even the September-released Abbey Road was still topping the Billboard 200 over the 1969–70 holiday season – and All Things Must Pass achieved the same over 1970–71. I think it's very relevant, then – as a backdrop to such a notable release, at a time of heightened interest in the band traditionally, but especially so in December 1970 – that McCartney and Harrison met in New York during that month and by New Year's Eve, McCartney was suing the Beatles/Apple Corps. In other words, while All Things Must Pass was scaling album charts around the world and listeners were recognising Beatle references in "Run of the Mill" (specifically, the formerly private issue of failure of friendships, intertwined with the highly publicised failure of Apple), the announcement came, on 31 December, that McCartney was seeking to dissolve the partnership in London's High Court. There's some logic in thinking that the song was a soundtrack of sorts to this court action. In the same way, because of the three-against-one situation, "Wah-Wah" was immediately interpreted as being directed at McCartney alone, just as "Isn't It a Pity" was seen as a lament on the band's demise, even though Harrison wrote that song in 1966. It's the interpretation given to these songs on release.

If I haven't made a better case for retaining the image, I'd say that's down to my casting too wide a net in the discussion here perhaps. It's certainly not the case that "Run of the Mill" is anything less than synonymous with Apple Corps – the latter provided the inspiration for the composition and contributed to both its reception on release and its legacy. If I had to think of an image to sum up the song "All Things Must Pass", say, it would be an autumnal scene on the Catskills; for "I'd Have You Anytime", that Elliott Landy photo of Harrison and Dylan leaning out of the window of a wooden cabin at Bearsville; "Behind That Locked Door" – the concert poster for the 1969 Isle of Wight Festival. And for "Run of the Mill", it would be the Apple logo, no question. More so than for any other song by a Beatle, save perhaps for McCartney's "You Never Give Me Your Money" – but then it should be noted in the latter song too that, typical of each Beatle's narrative style, business and the personal are never removed from one another, as McCartney's lyrics start off addressing Apple but soon go on to muse nostalgically on the Beatles. "Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp" contains an image of Crisp; Harrison's "trouble at t'mill" song wasn't titled "Ballad of Apple Corps", but it might as well have been, given the company's "presence" in "Run of the Mill". To repeat, I think the logo's a perfect visual representation of the song. Or, to return to your question, J Milburn, about the relevance of the logo to "Run of the Mill", it symbolises Apple, and Apple is the whole reason for the song. Any advice you can offer to help retain the image would be much appreciated. Thanks again, JG66 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't quite expecting a response of that length, but here's the thing- while you've managed to accurately show that the song is tied up with Apple, that's a very different thing from showing that the song is tied up with the logo. Non-free images can be used only if they add significantly to reader understanding of a topic, and their non-use would be detrimental to that understanding. You say "If I had to think of an image to sum up the song..." but, actually, you don't. There's no need to have a non-free image in every article about a song, and there's no automatic entitlement to a non-free image in every article about a song. While it's generally held that a single cover (for the song/album itself) is generally acceptable in an article on the song/album, that doesn't mean that you can just use some other image if there is no cover. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hear you (particularly on the "response of that length" point – I enjoyed writing it, though). I can't argue with that stipulation regarding non-free images; it would be aesthetically pleasing to include the image, one could say, but no more than that. Just on your point about "You say "If I had to think of an image to sum up the song..." but, actually, you don't." – in fact, it's my experience at GARs over the last few months that reviewers want to see an image included in each article. Not necessarily a non-free content one, per se, but then there's rarely a free image that's appropriate to a late 1960s/early '70s song or album article. Before last December, I don't think I'd ever have been thinking of adding an image for a song that wasn't released as a single. Anyway, thanks for that. I'll remove the logo and caption now. JG66 (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks- very reasonable of you. I can understand the pain of leaving articles unillustrated; my current GA nomination had to go unillustrated when I realised that we didn't have a free image of any of the philosophers mentioned, while my last FA nomination was promoted without a single image of the species itself. Maddening! We do have a free image of Harrison from 1974, which may be a possibility. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maddening – yes indeed. Those articles of yours look great, by the way. I know that 1974 Harrison image well ... and I loathe it well too! Not a great year in the life of George Harrison, 1974, and it really shows in that photo. The search goes on ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)