Talk:This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this within 48 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this one on, Dr. Blofeld. I'm pretty snowed under with work right now, and will be until early next week, so if you did wish to take more than 48 hou

rs ... that would be fine by me! Quite understand if it suits you to do the review straight away, of course – I appreciate you giving your time. Best, JG66 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, no rush, I'll begin the review in a few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Rolling Stone's scathing view on Harrison's tour" Do you mean review or remarks?

I've gone for "scathing assessment of ..." – how's that? JG66 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "constituted an about-face by the publication"

Reworded to "represented an about-face by the publication". Was it "constituted" you were querying or the mention of "an about-face"? I'd hope the phrase that follows, "previously one of his most vocal supporters", clarifies the point, no? JG66 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This Guitar" was also issued as a single – the final release for Apple Records in its original incarnation – but it failed to chart in either the United States or Britain. The song has traditionally enjoyed a mixed reception from music critics, partly due to the inevitable comparisons with "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". Can you state the date of release in the prose. "Traditionally enjoyed a mixed reception" also seems odd. "The song received a mixed reception from music critics at the time, partly due to the inevitable comparisons with "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" will suffice.

Yes, thanks – added date for single release. With the second issue, I've reworded to "The song has traditionally received a mixed reception from reviewers"; the point I'm trying to make, as supported in the article, is that this assessment of the song is echoed in modern-day reviews. Is it okay now? JG66 (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wikilink rock, funk and jazz genres with Indian classical music as you've done in the background?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – done. JG66 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Background

A little concerned with the neutrality of this section. It does come across strongly anti-Rolling Stone. If you could find a response by Rolling Stone perhaps a contemporary statement or something apologizing for it or why they thought it was justified this would really help balance this out.

I know what you mean, and it's something I was aware of when revisiting the article a couple of months after putting it up for nomination. Rolling Stone have said so little – well, nothing, really – about this episode since then, that's the problem.

In the magazine's commemorative issue following Harrison's death in November 2001, and in Harrison (effectively a hardback repackaging of that issue with more pictures, published by Rolling Stone Press), there's no attempt to revisit the 1974 tour in any meaningful way. Jann Wenner's foreword skips around it completely; Mikal Gilmore's long essay on Harrison's career reports on the negative reception afforded the tour and Dark Horse album, in the sense of including them in the chronological discussion, but the closest Gilmore comes to a present-day viewpoint, relevant to what's needed here, is: "The tour was almost universally savaged by the press, with Rolling Stone providing some of the most disparaging commentary." Gilmore's comments on the album certainly serve as a revised opinion – "Interestingly, today it stands up as one of Harrison's most fascinating works – a record about change and loss ..." – but he provides nothing that either revises or justifies the magazine's view on the tour. It's tempting to interpret this as a deliberate editorial policy of silence in Harrison, because Fong-Torres' 1974 article is reproduced later in the book, but drastically cut down in size, with much of the sting removed from the piece. (Unfortunately, that's only my observation, after comparing the version in Harrison with the original published version. In all the books and magazines I've collected, I've never found anyone making these comparisons.)

Added to this, in the last couple of years, Jim Miller's review of Dark Horse was removed from RS online, while the magazine's reviews for other Harrison albums through to 1975 are still on the site – tellingly perhaps, but again, just my speculation(!).

Part of the problem, as far as not being able to find the sort of statement you're suggesting (and I totally agree with you – I'd love to add something), is that Harrison never released a live album from the tour, or the concert film he's known to have worked on in early 1976. Also, along with Extra Texture, Dark Horse has yet to be remastered and repackaged the way all his other work was between 2000 and 2006. So there's been no reason for Rolling Stone (or any other music publication) to revisit this episode and offer anything contemporary, one could say.

I think there's a degree of embarrassment on the part of Rolling Stone, on a couple of fronts. The anti-Harrison stance they adopted in 1974–75 was astonishingly mean-spirited – Miller's Dark Horse review, for instance, said almost nothing about the content of the album specifically, instead focusing on the tour and attacking Harrison personally. (Dave Marsh's review of Extra Texture in RS is far from favourable, but at least there's no mistaking that he's addressing a 10-song album.) Also, I can't help wondering whether the fact that such a bold musical venture went over the heads of those at RS – a tour that that some commentators recognise as pioneering and a precursor to world music, certainly for American audiences – whether that's not something the magazine are keen to play down. Again, pure speculation on my part ...

You've made it clear that this is a major stumbling block in the article. Aside from agreeing that a statement providing some balance would be very useful (if it existed), all I can say is that Rolling Stone's point of view is laid out in the article, and Harrison's is a response to that, in the form of his song "This Guitar (Can't Keep from Crying)". The reviews in Rolling Stone were hugely damaging to Harrison's standing as an artist, and commercially, so one could say that the situation is balanced out. And it's not just Harrison who objected to the negative reviews and questioned their accuracy, but concertgoers and his fellow musicians also, because a major part of critics' objection to the tour relates to the Beatles-nostalgia aspect. Fong-Torres describes himself as "a certifiable Beatlemaniac" in his 2001 piece for the San Francisco Chronicle, and in the 1974 RS feature, when discussing Harrison altering the lyrics to Beatles songs, he writes: "To a dedicated nostalgia freak, the slaughter of such secular cows can be pretty frustrating." Like other critics, Fong-Torres made a big issue out of, say, "While my guitar gently weeps" becoming "While my guitar tries to smile". Concertgoers didn't appear to, though (something that's supported by the reaction given to the song in concert, judging by bootlegs recorded throughout the tour, particularly at shows Fong-Torres attended such as Long Beach Arena), yet in their reviews, these critics focused solely on the change to the lyrics, without mentioning that Harrison's audience enjoyed hearing the songs. By omitting those details, certainly in the case of Fong-Torres, the critic's personal preference became a statement on the audience's reaction also; which is what fans' letters to magazine editors, as well as the recollections of the musicians, is about – questioning the accuracy of these reports.

In that "Lumbering in the Material World" feature, Fong-Torres compares the 1974 Harrison–Shankar tour unfavourably with recent tours by Bob Dylan & The Band and Crosby Stills Nash and Young. Those two tours were viewed as triumphs by critics but it's worth pointing out that Dylan, Robbie Robertson, Levon Helm and Neil Young have each described them as miserable experiences artistically, as if they were going through the motions and simply playing by the rules. Harrison was determined not to do the same, believing that, as during his time as a Beatle, the musicians make the rules – which was obviously an affront to music critics by the mid 1970s, since it lessened their status.

Sorry to go on, Dr B ... I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, on the issue of balance in the article, one shouldn't underestimate how much traction the opinions of Feng-Torres and Miller gained, and just how destructive Rolling Stone's verdict was for Harrison's career. "This Guitar" is his rebuttal to these detractors, and the article's Background section therefore outlines the situation that inspired the composition. I really don't know what can be done to present RS in a more favourable light, because even the most neutral observers who offer an opinion suggest that the treatment Harrison received was unnecessarily nasty (far harsher than the dirt dished out to McCartney throughout the early '70s, and even to Lennon for his and Ono's Some Time in New York City album). I'll see what I can do to address the situation in others ways – I just hope I haven't already exhausted your patience to discuss this further! JG66 (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it isn't so much that you argue against Rolling Stone it is the extent that you argue against Rolling Stone throughout the article! Obviously it's very important to the song, but maybe cut back a bit on the background?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. I can't see that the article will work without the "Rolling Stone's 1974 tour coverage" subsection pretty much as is, but I have pulled out a couple of mentions of RS from later in the Background section, along with Leng's further comment about "personal attacks". I've cut one of the mentions of RS from the lead also. I'll see if there's more I can address along those lines. JG66 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a rethink and have now reworked the Background section, cutting it down to two-thirds of its previous size. (Strangely somehow, it's the sentence "Harrison never completely forgave Rolling Stone for its treatment of the so-called "Dark Horse Tour"" that seems slightly excessive there – I say "strangely" because it's a well-known fact, acknowledged by Rolling Stone also.) Anyway, see what you think of it now ... JG66 (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

"While members of his 1974 tour group, including future wife Olivia Arias,[35] have spoken of Harrison's defiant attitude towards the negative tour reports,[18][36] Leng suggests that, with the Rolling Stone articles, he "reacted to them as personal attacks" and adds: "which is hardly surprising. They were."[3" I don't think this belongs in the composition section, certainly not at the beginning, can you move to background?

Must say, I thought it did, because that point about defiant attitude amid personal attacks leads straight into Harrison's introduction on writing the song. Anyway, I've taken it to Background as you suggested, along with the second sentence. JG66 (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- well received" -hyphen needed

Thanks – done. JG66 (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to say it's in the key of G minor (I'm a guitarist and musician myself so it's interesting to know!). Progression from listening to it appears to be almost certainly G minor, E flat major 7, C7 (keyboard plays E diminished over it), C minor 7, B flat, D7, G minor - I'd guess he played it with a capo on the 3rd fret at least in the original key (it would then be a simple E minor to C, A7, A min7 type thing), you might want to check on this live. I know he plays My Sweet Lord with a capo on the 2nd. A lot of songs on here state the progression without a source, it's fine I think. Just mentioning the key is fine although you can mention the chord progression too if you think it will help. The version which I think is the original is definitely G minor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Whenever I'm working on these articles, I have the song playing pretty much non-stop, and invariably the guitar comes out too ... You're spot on with the chord progression, I'd say, but I think he plays it in open G, which allows those changes to roll along so smoothly (plus he plays that 12-string beautifully – it sounds like a harp during the intro). Either that or I've grown too attached to playing it in open G myself! I'll add something about the key perhaps. The thing is, I find I've become so conditioned by others enforcing that "even-saying-'the-sky-is-blue'-needs-a-citation" wikipedia mantra, I'm a bit reluctant to do it, however useful the addition might be, as you say ... JG66 (talk) 08:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open G ah I should try that sometime!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

"with prominent support" -why prominent?

Yes, removed "prominent". I think it came from Ian Inglis or someone else bemoaning the level of Foster's piano in the mix; it's not needed here, though. JG66 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"When discussing "This Guitar" with Paul Gambaccini in London, in September, Harrison described the song as "a cheap excuse to play some guitar".[41][42] Harrison played the slide guitar parts throughout the track, including the closing solo.[62] Leng identifies both "Pete Drake stylings" and the influence of "raga microtones" in Harrison's performance.[52] The wah-effected guitar solo midway through the song was performed by Jesse Ed Davis,[43] who, having first supported Harrison at the Concert for Bangladesh in August 1971, had since mirrored the ex-Beatle's guitar style on John Lennon's recent hit song "#9 Dream".[63] Davis overdubbed his contribution to "This Guitar" on 5 June, the day before the Foster-arranged orchestrated strings were recorded.[64]" Seems to overlap with composition, especially the earlier lines here.

I really don't agree on this. To me, the overdubbing of guitar solos, and comments on Harrison's performance on the recording, belong here under Recording. He was known to perfect his solos alone in the studio, long after recording a basic track and quite separate from composing the song. I guess I see an article's Composition section as covering a song's lyrical and musical structure, and the actual writing of the song. But a detail such as solos – as opposed to a defining riff – is relevant to how the artist ended up realising his composition once in the studio. JG66 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I could consider mentioning scales as composition but other than that I suppose it's fine as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld

Release

What is meant by "generic Apple sleeves"?

Reworded to "available only in a plain sleeve" – or could go with "a standard plain sleeve"? JG66 (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of sounds with "notable" and "noting". -perhaps change to "While observing that the song became the first single by a former Beatle not to place on any of the three main US charts".

Good catch, thank you. JG66 (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, but overall I think you need to introduce some counter criticism to the early sections before I can pass this on the neutrality requirement and dial down some of the Rolling Stone criticism. I understand it's very important in the context to the song but I think it can be toned down a bit if you understand what I mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much improved now. Can you remove the full stops from the end of every citation, it isn't common on here I don't think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the ellipses, inside the end quote marks? I've never heard of anyone objecting to them – on the other hand, there's nothing I loathe more than looking through those MoS pages for so-called "proof"! I don't mind changing them if you want, but it is the triple-points/ellipses you're referring to? JG66 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This, yeah I dislike reading or shoving any WP:xxx thing down anybody's throat too!.. pp. should have a dot after it like p. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed all to pp. but I have to disagree about losing the full stop at the end of each citation. I've never heard of any requirement to do that, certainly none of the articles I've come across follow that approach, and I can't see any examples of CITEVAR (or whatever it's called) that don't end in a full stop. Sorry – I'm not a fan of "pp.", but I can't really argue with that (because I think you're probably quite correct); but the other thing seems, well, crazy. JG66 (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check any featured (and good article) we have, see how many you find which have a full stop after every page note for book references. Page notes for books generally don't have them. Anyway, I'm going to pass this as I think it's fine now for GA as I'm not one to focus too much on minor issues. As you say there doesn't appear to be anything set in stone on it, but I'd rather you didn't call it crazy to bring it up!...

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Good job! Thanks for addressing the points! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, thank you so much for the review, for being so thorough and for your patience throughout. I'm pleased about the pass, of course, but what pleases me more – pass or fail – is when a review so obviously improves the content of an article, as yours has by getting me to address that issue of balance. I'm sorry for branding your suggestion to remove those full stops as "crazy". I meant no offence; the choice of words merely reflects my surprise at the suggestion, based on what I have to admit is a very limited scope of wikipedia articles (a lot of them, yes, but within a very narrow range when it comes to subject matter). I'll keep my eyes open on that issue. If it comes down to it, if I see that citations without full stops is the norm, I'll remove full stops not only in this article but in every article I've worked on. (What a thought ...) Thank you again, Doc. Best, JG66 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For information I pulled 4 books off my shelf to check the bibliographies. Two use them (Weinstock's Rossini and Richard Osborne's Rossini) and two did not (Charles Osborne's The Bel Canto Operas and Galatapoulos's Bellini). WP:CITESHORT has them. Seems with or without would be fine. (The main thing is to try to be consistent within one article.) I usually add them, probably because the journals I used to read used them. I checked some more books (I won't bother listing them), but the majority used them. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert.Allen. Thanks for the input. Consistency within an article is important of course, but I guess I then feel responsible for all articles I've helped expand or started from scratch – if one loses 'em, then I'd better go back and do the same to others. To me, it seems more correct to include full stops; that's from professional experience over the last 20 years (sorry, I know it's horrible when someone pulls something like that in), as well as a degree of conditioning over the past year and a bit of nominating articles for GA. Having said that, if I logged on tomorrow morning to find that every single article's citations section no longer contained full stops at the end of each line, I'd probably ... just carry on drinking my espresso! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]