Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive1

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 11 years ago by GabeMc
Learn more about this page

Review from JG66

edit

Comment: Good luck with this, GabeMc and Evanh2008, but I'm surprised to see this up for FAC so soon actually. The coverage seems very limited, especially in light of what was deemed worthy of inclusion in the corresponding article on Paul McCartney last year. (Apologies if through inexperience I've misunderstood the process; I'm assuming that if it's up as a candidate, it's almost ready to roll.) As an example of this disparity, in the McCartney article's Beatles section, we have mentions of promo films for "Paperback Writer" and "Rain"; Geoff Emerick and studio experimentation/varispeeding on Sgt Pepper's; the Beatles growing moustaches in '67; US sales for Magical Mystery Tour, etc. I'm not saying that a George Harrison article needs that level of coverage by any means (I don't think those particular details belong in a McCartney article either), I'm just trying to give an idea of how light on detail this one is in comparison, where a lot of relevant points are missing.

Just off the top of my head, I'm thinking that the following points really deserve a mention in the Beatles section, in that they're what Harrison brought to each album:

  • introduction of 12-string Rickenbacker in A Hard Day's Night – very influential
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • backwards guitars on Revolver
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • exotic musical stylings (a la Brian Jones) in 1966–67, through not just sitar, but tamboura, swarmandal and dilruba/esraj-like lead guitar (eg Lucy in the Sky). One of his biographers makes the Brian Jones comparison, I can't remember who right now.
Done. I've added a bit about Harrison's sitar and tamboura playing. On which Beatles track did Harrison play a swarmandal? According to the sources I've checked, they hired Indian musicians to play that one on "WYWY". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
swarmandal on Strawberry Fields Forever – MacDonald, pp 188, 194. But I'd hope that MacDonald, Lewisohn or someone else might provide a more general point about Harrison's Indian instrumentation on Beatles songs, rather than you needing to give examples of particular songs and their relevant use of sitar/tamboura/swarmandal. "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "Getting Better" also feature Harrison on tamboura (MacDonald), for instance, so that recent addition of "Harrison also contributed a tambura part for the Sgt Pepper song, 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'" doesn't actually cover the issue unfortunately. Another one that effectively slips through the net is "Across the Universe" (sitar). That point I made about dilruba/esraj-like lead guitar on Lucy, I suggest, is quite important – the guitar part mirrors the vocal over the second portion of the verses, much like a dilruba or esrajin does in a Hindu bhajan, and George certainly stated how proud he was to "sneak" that in. (I think that was his phrase – I just wish I could remember which interview it's from. Could be one of the two 1987 interviews that are reproduced in the RS Press Harrison book, or maybe from his 1987 Musician interview. I'll dig on this and on the more general point about Indian instrumentation, but I don't have Lewisohn's book.) JG66 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've now added the bit about Harrison playing a swarmandal on "Strawberry Fields Forever". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's good but as mentioned, I think a general comment regarding Harrison's use of Indian instrumentation in 1966–68 would be more effective, to avoid the assumption that other examples are missing (Tomorrow Never Knows, Getting Better, Universe). You could say that Harrison played sitar, tamboura or swarmandal on a number of tracks in 1966–68, and give notable examples – "Across the Universe" for sitar, "Tomorrow Never Knows" for tamboura, and "Strawberry Fields" for swarmandal. This wouldn't interfere with the treatment you've given "Love You To" and "Within You, Without You", which are rightly singled out for further comment. After the text on WYWY, my suggestion would be to mention, as a further example of Harrison's adoption of Indian music, that he added a lead-guitar part on "Lucy in the Sky" mirroring Lennon's vocal line, imitating the role of the sarangi in a Hindu bhajan. (My mistake in mentioning dilruba and esraj earlier, although it is dilruba that does the same thing behind Harrison's vocal on WYWY). As sources for this last point, there's Lavezzoli (pp 179–80) and Leng (30), who notes that Harrison repeated this effect with his guitar part on "Baby You're a Rich Man". Harrison's own comments on Lucy, but not the quote I'd hoped to find, appear in the Anthology book (242–43). Another thing in this paragraph, perhaps the appearance of sitar on "Norwegian Wood" should be mentioned rather than the current wording, "leading the others ... into Indian classical music with his exploration of the sitar". It just seems a bit premature to be talking about "exploration of the sitar", which is more applicable to the Revolver–Sgt. Pepper era – so perhaps: with his introduction of the sitar on "Norwegian Wood"? I do think this Beatles section is looking quite a bit better with the recent changes, by the way. JG66 (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good point on "Norwegian Wood", it was in a note, but now I've included it in-line. I've also included material about how Harrison's guitar part for "Lucy" resembles how a sarangi player would accompany a khyal singer. Good suggestions, thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
This could be a bit radical, so I thought I'd run it by everyone here first, rather than jumping in on the article. (It does make for a long cut & paste here on the FAC page, though, which I know isn't ideal.) I've been thinking partly of that point I mentioned above, about providing a general mention instead of being specific about Indian instrumentation (a general comment regarding Harrison's use of Indian instrumentation in 1966–68 would be more effective, to avoid the assumption that other examples are missing ...), but also of the issue I raised originally regarding the "Interest in Indian culture" section not exactly delivering, imo. Good news on that front, though, at least to my way of thinking: because of the additions made to the Beatles section (regarding Harrison's 1966–68 musical contributions, the extra treatment given to WYWY, inclusion of The Inner Light, and more), that Indian music subsection seems far less of a problem once we get to it later in the article. (Now, after we've read about Harrison's Indian music with the Beatles, I'd say we come to the later section with less expectation than was the case before.) There are some missing points, for sure, and I've got a few ideas. Anyway, what follows is my suggestion for the paras handling the 1965–68 years within the Beatles section. I think it covers everything – but does it cover too much? I've made some additions regarding his Indian music compositions, part of which could be moved to the later "Interest in Indian culture" if necessary; on the other hand, these details are all things that Harrison brought to the Beatles' recordings. See what you think ...
By 1965's Rubber Soul album, Harrison had begun to develop into a musical director, leading the others into folk-rock via his interest in the Byrds and Bob Dylan,[1] and towards Indian classical music through his use of the sitar on the song "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)".[2][3][4] His two songwriting contributions to the album included "If I Needed Someone".[5] Harrison's musical involvement with the Beatles reached its peak on Revolver in 1966 with his contribution of three songs: "Taxman", "Love You To" and "I Want to Tell You".[3][6] The sitar- and tabla-driven "Love You To" represented the Beatles' first genuine foray into Indian music[7] as well as a new precedent in the history of popular music, according to ethnomusicologist David Reck, who wrote: "For the first time an Asian music was not parodied utilising familiar stereotypes and misconceptions, but rather transferred in toto into a new environment with sympathy and rare understanding."[8] Harrison contributed other new musical ideas to Revolver, including the addition of backwards guitar on "I'm Only Sleeping".[3][6][9] On another Lennon song, "Tomorrow Never Knows", Harrison introduced the drone-like tambura to the Beatles' sound, which would include further examples of Indian instrumentation from him through to 1968 – on sitar ("Across the Universe"), tambura ("Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds") and swarmandal ("Strawberry Fields Forever").[10]
By late 1966, Harrison's interests were moving outside the Beatles, a development that was reflected in his choice of Eastern gurus and religious leaders for inclusion on the album cover for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band in 1967.[11] Harrison's sole composition on the album was "Within You Without You", on which no other Beatle plays,[12] and which stands out for its difference from all the other songs on Sgt. Pepper.[13] Harrison played sitar and tambura on the track, backed by musicians from the London Asian Music Centre on dilruba, swarmandal and tabla.[14] Juan Mascaró, a Cambridge academic, and an authority on ancient Hindu texts, wrote to Harrison saying: "['Within You Without You'] is a moving song and may it move the souls of millions; and there is more to come, as you are only beginning on the great journey."[15] Lennon also praised the song, calling it one of Harrison's best: "His mind and his music are clear. There is his innate talent, he brought that sound together."[16] In addition to Harrison's Indian instrumentation on Sgt. Pepper, his guitar part for "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" mirrors Lennon's vocal line in much the same way that a sarangi player accompanies a khyal singer in a Hindu devotional song.[17] Harrison later commented on the album: "It was a millstone and a milestone in the music industry ... There's about half the songs I like and the other half I can't stand."[18]
In January 1968, Harrison recorded his song "The Inner Light" at the EMI Studios location in Bombay, India, with a group of local musicians playing traditional Indian instruments including sarod, shehnai, bansuri and pakavaj.[19] Released as the B-side to the McCartney-penned "Lady Madonna", "The Inner Light" featured the other Beatles only as backing vocalists.[19] Built around a quotation from the Tao Te Ching supplied by Mascaró,[15] the song's lyrical themes reflected Harrison's deepening interest in Hinduism and meditation,[20] while musically the composition embraced the Karnatak discipline of Indian music, rather than the Hindustani style of his previous work in the genre.[21]
During the recording of The Beatles (commonly known as the White Album) in 1968, ...
That D.B. Reck quote appears in Leng, by the way (p. 22), and Reck's first sentence (which I've in fact paraphrased above) is actually more impressive: "One cannot emphasise how absolutely unprecedented this piece is ..." (If you do agree that the Reck quote should appear, you definitely should give original source rather than Leng, I suggest, since it's clearly a specialist journal whose impartiality would be important in this article. I'm surprised there's not a wiki page for the journal, Asian Music, since it's being going a long time. It's published by the University of Texas Press. JG66 (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your comments JG66. I've now worked in as much of the above content suggestions as I feel are needed, those I left out (e.g., specific Indian instruments not played by Harrison on "The Inner Light") would be better suited for the corresponding topical articles, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yep, you did some judicious pruning. Good idea to cover your bases re other tracks featuring Harrison's Indian instrumentation; you might want to add "Getting Better" (tambura) perhaps (MacDonald, 1998, pp 213–14), it's very prominent in that last verse ("I used to be cruel to my woman ..."), and I imagine other contributors might remark on its omission (?). One other thing, I notice you've reinstated the indefinite article before names of the Indian instruments ("Harrison played a sitar and the drone-like tambura", "Harrison played a sitar and a tambura on the track", and in other examples in the two paras). I always think that looks odd – one would talk about "McCartney played piano and bass on the recording", no? JG66 (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've now included the tambura part on "Getting Better" and dropped the indefinite article from before the names of Indian instruments per your suggestion. Please feel free to trim out any that I missed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You know, I'd put the Getting Better mention in that note covering "Further examples of Indian instrumentation from Harrison", away from the main discussion. The line I'd suggested ("In addition to Harrison's Indian instrumentation on Sgt. Pepper, "), which follows the Getting Better point right now, only worked with the idea of covering a few notable songs in the main text straight after mention of tambura on "Tomorrow Never Knows" (my suggested: "on sitar ("Across the Universe"), tambura ("Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds") and swarmandal ("Strawberry Fields Forever"" etc). Right now though, the mention of Getting Better's tambura part makes that "In addition to ..." comment redundant, because all the Indian instrumentation on the album (I think I'm right in saying) has been listed. I don't know about you, but I don't believe every single example needs a mention in the main text, which is why I'd gone for that particular wording for "Love You To", removing the mention of its tambura part, but added mention of tambura being introduced on "Tomorrow Never Knows" (recorded before Love You To) and suggested the cover-all, general point containing a few 1967–68 examples. (It's getting quite complicated to explain this(!).) I guess you need to be mindful of bulking out the section too much, especially when the note option's there for this point, and it's not as if we have any examples of Harrison's 12-str guitar work, say, yet currently, aside from the detail on Across the Universe being supplied in note form, I'd say that every single example of Harrison's Indian instrumentation is now mentioned. I think Lucy's tamboura should be included in the note also actually; swarmandal on Strawberry Fields merits inclusion in the main text, because it can be viewed as a new instrument that Harrison introduced to the Beatles' sound. Also on the point of possible over-bulking, the Farrell quote about WYWY might work just as well down in the "Sitar and Indian music" subsection later in the article. I'll come back with some suggestions on that; I'm just putting together ideas about the Interest in Indian culture section, so obviously there's an area of overlap. JG66 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I put the "GB" bit in a note, removed the redundant comment, and fixed the "TNK" chronology issue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 08:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • bond established with The Band and especially Bob Dylan in Nov '68, co-writing Cream's "Badge", producing Jackie Lomax album in LA with members of legendary Wrecking Crew – all these activities had a huge bearing on Harrison's refusal to accept the usual treatment from Lennon and McCartney at Twickenham in Jan '69, not to mention providing him with confidence and inspiration for a prolific period of songwriting. (Loads in Leng on this, plus: John Harris's piece "A Quiet Storm", from Mojo, July 2001 [very useful]; Sulpy & Schweighardt's Get Back: The Unauthorized Chronicle of The Beatles' Let It Be Disaster; Alan Clayson, George Harrison; Mark Hertsgaard, A Day in the Life; Huntley, Mystical One.)
Seems like a bunch of excess detail to me. The "Badge" bit is already covered in "Family and friends". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
With respect, I suggest you actually read this stuff. The reason I could pull out those works without even needing to think too hard about it is I know how significant Harrison's Oct–Dec '68 US trip is, according to those writers. I'll dig around and come up with something myself perhaps. JG66 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have added a paragraph, cited to Leng, on Harrison's relationship with the Band. If you think any of it could be written or cited better, let me know. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You pretty much nailed it content-wise, Evanh – yeah, that's what I was talking about in my original comment. Bit of a shame not to see the Lomax project mentioned (that was in October–November, in LA, when he first met Bramlett, Leon Russell, worked with the amazing Hal Blaine and others), but what's there now gets the point across, and there's loads on it in the Lomax album article. I dived in and did a bit of rewording, also reworked paras because it was slightly out chronologically – I hope that's okay, I don't want to intrude. One thing I did was remove mention of the Thanksgiving '68 visit contributing to Harrison wanting to become a solo artist. I'm not sure if Leng actually says that, but the statement sort of went against everything I've understood about Harrison's situation in 1968–69 (from many books, including Leng's). Harrison certainly wanted creative fulfilment, and found it outside of the band in '68–69 (Apple an "emancipating force", etc, Leng p. 55); but the only Beatle who appeared to want to be a solo artist was Lennon, by all accounts. Just had another thought: where it says about troubled rehearsals at Twickenham in Jan '69, "later released as the album and film Let It Be", some scenes from the movie were filmed in Twickers, but I'm pretty sure that none of the album comes from that period, in the first half of January – might be an idea to check with MacDonald and others? Alternatively, and it's the incontestable route, you could instead refer to the Get Back sessions with a wikilink to a specific Let It Be album or film section, maybe? JG66 (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Had to look this up, actually. All of the songs were recorded at Apple, either in the studio or on the rooftop. The snippets of dialogue ("Queen says no...", "That was 'Can You Dig It' by Georgie Wood", etc.) were from the Twickenham tapes. I'll see if I can reword to make it clearer. As to your edits, that's absolutely fine. Anything you can do to make my prose better or more organized, feel free. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Rephrased to "the filming of rehearsal sessions ... for what later became the album Let It Be". I was originally going to use the phrase "Get Back sessions", but that seemed likely to cause confusion between rehearsals ("rehearsal sessions") and the actual recording ("recording sessions" or just "sessions"), and I thought "rehearsal sessions for the Get Back sessions" sounded somewhat redundant. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • broadening his musical horizons into soul and gospel through producing Billy Preston and Doris Troy; also relevant, Leng's quote about Apple projects providing an "emancipating force" for Harrison from restrictions of Beatledom?
WP:OR? Or can you offer a source from which this material could be verified? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Not OR, just a case of getting a book and reading it, to be honest. The phrase "broadening his musical horizons" is my generalisation, yes, but in fact that choice of words doesn't seem to do justice to the importance of Preston and Troy on Harrison's work. All these quotes are from Leng 2006 and state the case to various degrees: "Working with Preston cemented Harrison's interest in soul music and gave him firsthand experience of gospel power ..." (59); "Troy's taste for 'the gospel music that gives you good news' was perfect for 'That's the Way God Planned It' and perfect for George Harrison's emerging philosophy of music" (60–61); "... the pivotal Doris Troy track for George Harrison's career was a version of the gospel standard "Jacob's Ladder' ... the main points of interest were the call-and-response backup vocals and a sense that this was essentially a chant ... As such, it was an unlikely companion piece to the 'Hare Krishna Mantra' and a pointer to 'My Sweet Lord.'" (62); "Harrison was in effect taking a songwriting master class from the New York soul diva as he fought his way back from self-imposed raga exile" (62); "This rolling, lilting evocation of African-American spirituality, penned with Preston, is ... another important milestone in George Harrison's career ... 'Sing One for the Lord' is effectively the manifesto for George Harrison's solo career" (71); "[Encouraging Words] is one of the key albums in George Harrison's musical story for what it taught him about the structure of gospel music and how that music is used to express spirituality" (72); "He eventually found a Western equivalent to this Indian axiom in gospel music, and his late 1960s work with Billy Preston, Delaney Bramlett, and Doris Troy squared a musical-philosophical circle that led to his great statement, All Things Must Pass" (319). Leng p. 55 for "emancipating force". JG66 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've now added the "working with Preston cemented ..." quote, great specific suggestion, thanks. The other stuff seems a bit excessive and redundant, and material better suited at "My Sweet Lord". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad you agree a comment is needed. (Yes, other stuff definitely excessive; I remember putting relevant points in a new Doris Troy album article, will do same for Billy's Apple albums. I presented all those quotes here simply to state the Preston/Troy/soul/gospel significance.) Thing is, your addition does appear very late – I couldn't find it at first. With the particular quote you've chosen, Leng's referring to the period immediately post Get Back, and the point actually belongs with mention of the D&B tour (the latter just Europe by the way, not US). How about, at start of that para discussing D&B tour: Harrison's music projects during the final years of the Beatles included producing Apple Records acts such as Billy Preston and soul singer Doris Troy. According to Harrison biographer Simon Leng, "working with Preston cemented Harrison's interest in soul music and gave him firsthand experience of gospel power, which seemed a natural partner to Krishna power." ? Ideally, I suggest, from those quotes given above and/or other discussion in his book, the viewpoint from Leng should in fact be a paraphrasing of his words on the importance of working with Preston and Troy. I appreciate you hadn't included mention of Troy; either way (just BP or with DT), this is definitely a 1969 activity, side by side with Radha Krishna Temple, working with Leon Russell for the first time, Joe Cocker and Jack Bruce very briefly, hanging out with Dylan at the Isle of Wight – everything that culminated in the D&B tour in Dec '69. JG66 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Good points all. I've now moved the quote and included your suggested topic sentence addition. Thanks again for all the insightful comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • influence on Beatles' 1969 sound through Harrison's acquisition of a Moog synth after '68 US visit, and adoption of (obsession with?) Leslie-treated guitars after recording Badge in October '68. The introduction of the Moog, Harrison's growth as a guitarist and what he brought to Abbey Road are all covered by Leng.
Mikal Gilmore's article in Harrison (p. 39) mentions that Harrison's Moog was the first one imported into England. Leng p. 43, relevant to points above about Moog and his musical contributions generally: "Abbey Road may be the Beatles album that most heavily features Harrison's melodic signature, played on guitar or moog synthesizer (another Harrison innovation). Aside from [on] 'Oh! Darling,' his is the most prominent musical voice on side one ..." In Leng's Abbey Road discussion (pp 41–45), he also mentions it being a "key moment" in Harrison's "guitar journey" and that the album "documents seismic developments in his songwriting and instrumental skills". Looking at some of the reviews on the album page, the Moog touches are observed as examples of the band "still pushing forward in all facets of its art" by Allmusic, and the Daily Telegraph refers to "a big, modern sound, swollen by judicious use of a prototype Moog synthesiser". I know MacDonald makes mention of the Beatles' "obsession" with Leslied guitar arpeggios (I think he says they had them "on the brain" or something, but I haven't looked). That last point's not really the important thing, although it is a notable addition to the band's sound (if some references can be found); but I'd think his introduction of Moog (following 12-string Rickenbacker, backwards guitars, Indian instrumentation) and the high standard of Harrison's musicianship throughout Abbey Road warrant some comment? JG66 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Delaney & Bonnie tour in Dec '69 – very important in Harrison's career (introduction to slide guitar via Delaney Bramlett; writes My Sweet Lord; the D&B musicians go on to play on All Things Must Pass the following year)
I absolutely agree regarding Delaney & Bonnie & Friends; that was an oversight on my part. I have added a paragraph summarising the tour and subsequent events to the top of the "Solo work" section. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Those are glaring omissions, in my opinion, even regardless of how coverage compares in other Beatle artist articles. Some other details/suggestions for that same section – and importantly perhaps, we should bear in mind that there's no separate "musical career" article for George Harrison as there is for Paul McCartney, so readers won't find these points grouped together elsewhere. JG66 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • mention first officially released composition, "Don't Bother Me"? (I think it appears in the rather inadequate Songwriting section, but I suggest a mention is needed here, to provide an informative picture of his Beatle years.)
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • add some perspective from subject's point of view by including quote from George (in Anthology) that Rubber Soul–Revolver period was his happiest time recording with the Beatles (again compared with the Mac piece, it's very noticeable how few quotes are included in this section – just the Sinatra one, I think). Mention "If I Needed Someone" as a well-known composition
Sounds like you have a particular quote in mind. Perhaps you could provide a source and page number, versus sending us on a wild goose chase for a quote that may or may not exist (though I also agree that it does, but where?). I've added a bit about "If I Needed Someone", but I'm not sure what you mean by "a well-known composition". Is it more well-known then any of the other songs on Rubber Soul? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It's in Anthology, and I'm thinking the segment might've been included in Scorsese's Living in the Material World (because it's so fresh in my mind). I've found something in the Anthology book, but like a number of opinions and comments aired in the 1995 TV show, wording appears to have been altered for the 2000 book. There, George confines it to Rubber Soul, and he's talking about his favourite album, rather than his happiest period of recording with the Beatles (p. 194). Is it acceptable in an FA to include a DVD as a source, if I do end up tracking it down in the Scorsese doc? JG66 (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure its acceptable. We have the doc listed under "further reading", and all we need is the exact location of the event and we can cite to it in the article using an sfn template ala: {{sfn|Scorsese|2012|loc= Scene: "Gone Troppo", event occurs at 08:05}}. If you could find the quote and location it would be most helpful. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • rather than saying he contributed three songs to Revolver, name them, because they're all well known, and with 3 out of 14 tracks, this was George's highest quota on a Beatles album. (Again, mention of this 3 tracks on Revolver comes later, but I'd say it belongs here; a Songwriting section should be discussing his songwriting, this section should be an overview of his achievements as a Beatle, no?) "Love You To" merits extra comment here as his first Indian composition.
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • aside from comments above re Harrison's musical contribution during Sgt Pepper's period, when discussing 1967 I think you need to say what George was moving to, not just away from. He was disillusioned with fame, repulsed by Beatlemania, and found a truth in Vaishnavism/Hinduism after journeying to India in Sept '66, following the band's US tour. (I imagine Joshua Greene's book would be a good source for that discussion; also Harrison's comments in I Me Mine and Anthology.) Okay, Hinduism gets discussed in some depth later, but I can't see that that means it shouldn't be mentioned here to explain what was also a change in musical direction as well as the foundation for his growth as a songwriter
  • Again, bearing in mind precedents set in the McCartney article, the mention of "Within You, Without You" invites a quote or two, rather than a mention of its "difference" from other tracks on the album. Lennon and George Martin have both shown great admiration for the song, and Ian MacDonald called it the "conscience" of Sgt Pepper's. There was a Cambridge Sanskrit academic who wrote to Harrison after hearing the song, having never heard a westerner write and sing a bhajan. This track merits some attention, I suggest, as much as Yesterday, Eleanor Rigby and A Day in the Life did in the McCartney piece.
Per: "bearing in mind precedents set in the McCartney article", 1) no precedents were set, each article stands on its own merit, 2) please see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. There is no requirment to include more quotes so that Harrison's article has as many as Macca's. Much of this requested detail would be more appropriate at "Within You Without You". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I just don't see how you can say that, GabeMc – yes, they each stand alone, but of course these individual Beatles articles are open to comparison with one another. And while I acknowledge it's more of a housekeeping issue – that is, editorial style/spelling – there seems to have been an acknowledgement from you and Evanh that a uniformity is required. (Another stick-in-the-mud message from me there, I'm afraid!) It's not as if I'm counting the number of quotes in one and then looking for parity in another. I mentioned the quotes issue because it's so noticeable in this section of the article; and here, with the song "Within You, Without You", is an example of an area that, I think, definitely merits a quote, and more discussion. But if you're talking about an article standing on its own merit, I have to ask, why is it that in the McCartney article, after we've been told "Critics described Rubber Soul as a significant advance in the refinement and profundity of the band's music and lyrics", we then need to hear from Paul a couple of sentences later: "we'd had our cute period, and now it was time to expand." ? Why do we need to hear about the band's two 1966 videos and when they aired, in an article on Paul McCartney? (Did he direct them? With the inclusion of the Harrison quote, why isn't that mention here instead, then? [No, I'm not saying move it here for a moment.]) Why is there a standalone sentence stating "The band gave their final commercial concert at the end of their 1966 US tour" – as if it's a point relevant to McCartney specifically – when a more incidental mention could be incorporated into either the start of the following sentence (Later that year, following the band's final tour, ...) or the start of the following para (Upon the end of the Beatles' performing career in August 1966, ...)? Why the inclusion of "The Sgt. Pepper cover piqued a frenzy of analysis. The Beatles' heavy moustaches reflected the growing influence of hippie style trends on the band, while their clothing "spoofed the vogue in Britain for military fashions", wrote Gould" in a McCartney article? (Okay, it was based on a sketch he did, but all four of them picked the celebrities. It wasn't as if the moustaches were Paul's idea or anything; in fact, it would seem George grew one first, immediately after the US tour, at Ravi Shankar's suggestion – something that Mac would no doubt have known about.) And why do we need to read about MMT in such detail – "The only Capitol compilation later included in the group's official canon of studio albums, the Magical Mystery Tour LP achieved $8 million in sales within three weeks of the release, higher initial sales than any other Capitol LP up to that point" – when the point's already been made that the project was McCartney's idea, he did most of the direction, the film was viewed as an artistic failure, but the soundtrack did very well? Like the EP, the US album wasn't Mac's idea as such; it was a case of the Beatles providing a soundtrack as they'd done for their previous films/EP, and (hardly an unusual situation post-1965) McCartney provided the majority of the songs. Why "In January 1968, EMI filmed the Beatles for a promotional trailer intended to advertise the animated film Yellow Submarine", when the Macca-centric point is that their animated film Yellow Submarine was (as the sentence goes on to say) "loosely based on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition"? In all these examples, there's an obvious focus on telling the Beatles story, rather than simply concentrating on the many notable points relating to McCartney, and I don't think it can be said that these details are needed for clarifying other statements or anything. So, on one hand, I'm wondering about your understanding of "each article stands on its own merit" – and I know I've voiced all these concerns before. But it's crazy, surely, to think that the approach adopted in that FA has no bearing on this article: it seems fine to you to have padded out the McCartney article with these points, as if you're telling the Beatles story; but now you appear to adopt a policy where some highly relevant points – relevant to the subject of the article – are dismissed as "excess detail". "Within You, Without You" is a monumental song. David Fricke includes it among his "25 Essential Harrison Performances" (Harrison, p. 200), describing the song as Harrison's "purest excursion on a Beatles record into raga" and adds "his sitar solo actually sings and swings with the clarity and phrasing of his best rockabilly-fired guitar work". But I suggest one has to look outside of western rock circles to understand the song's importance (as for much of Harrison's achievements): Juan Mascaró, a Cambridge (UK) professor specialising in Sanskrit texts and responsible for one of the most popular English translations of the Bhagavad Gita (i.e. not a man easily impressed by pop stars, one would imagine), wrote, "it is a moving song and may it move the souls of millions; and there is more to come, as you are only beginning on the great journey." (I, Me, Mine, p. 118; Lavezzoli, p. 182) Those words might not sound too impressive or notable, but the point is, in the career of George Harrison, that endorsement is easily as important as that Gould description of "Eleanor Rigby" given in the McCartney article (""a neoclassical tour de force ... a true hybrid, conforming to no recognizable style or genre of song"), more so maybe – Harrison was out to move listeners through his immersion in spirituality, not just entertain them, and an authority on ancient Hindu texts no less had just stated that he was moved. Similarly notable, given the book's subject, is a quote from Gerry Farrell's Indian Music and the West (reproduced in Leng, p. 31) acknowledging that Harrison had created a "new form" through his weaving together of various aspects of Indian music: "It is a quintessential fusion of pop and Indian music." Lennon called it one of Harrison's best songs, and he was unusually generous: "His mind and his music are clear. There is his innate talent, he brought that sound together" (Anthology, p. 243). And of course there's Ian MacDonald's the "conscience" of Sgt Pepper's. Lavezzoli goes into some detail about the recording (pp 178–79), which I think is certainly as relevant in a George Harrison article as mention of Paul conducting the orchestra for "Day in the Life" and Emerick's comments regarding the band "looking to go out on a limb" and all the tech points about recording Pepper which ware in McCartney's. Of course, I'm not suggesting that all those quotes re WYWY could go in the article – I'm just trying to get the point across that this song does seem to be a remarkable achievement in Harrison's career. Martin added a string section, I know John Barham was present, but George pulled it all together himself. I'm sorry to go on (once again), and I'm sorry to be attacking work you've done previously in the McCartney article – but I just can't buy it that you believe this song's not worthy of any further comment than a mundane "[it] stands out for its difference from the rest of the album's compositions".
I've added the Lennon, Farrell, and Juan Mascaró quotes, thanks much for the specific suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
A couple more points about this Sgt. Pepper period. Groundbreaking album cover, as we know, so how about mentioning that all George's choices for the characters appearing with the Beatles were either "Eastern gurus" or religious leaders (according to Clayson, p. 212)? Also, mention that Harrison was not too impressed with the album? – "It was a millstone and a milestone in music industry ... There's about half the songs I like and the other half I can't stand." (GH quoted in Clayson pp 214–15) JG66 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Definitely need to name "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" in a discussion of his Beatles years, and I suggest "Not Guilty" (a rebuttal to the fallout post-Maharishi/Rishikesh) and "Piggies" (its tragic countercultural influence – 1969 Manson Family murders)
I've now mentioned "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", but "Not Guilty" was passed over for inclusion, and is therefore not that notable for the section on the Beatles IMO. I'll see what I can dig up on "Piggies". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
MacDonald (1998 Pimlico edn), p. 278, for a start. JG66 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Also, Anthology p. 311, John's comment, and a brief comment from George about the unfortunate association with Manson. Schaffner p. 115 describes Manson interpreting some White Album tracks as a "series of instructions", of which "Piggies" "described their victims". This is a piece discussing Manson's interpretation of specific Beatles songs, apparently based on prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's interviews with Manson Family members. JG66 (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Manson family stuff is best dealt with in detail at "Piggies" and the related Manson articles, though I've now included a brief mention in the Harrison article per your suggestion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely yes. As with Preston/Troy point, attention due WYWY, and others, I try to pull out anything I can just to make sure the song or whatever doesn't get overlooked. It's never with a view to having each and every quote reproduced, or whatever. Looks good. JG66 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • His two Abbey Road tracks invite another quote or further comment – Lennon stated they were his favourite songs on the album; then there's the commonly held view that Harrison had at last matched Len-Mac in his songwriting (Schaffner, Clayson, Lavezzoli, etc.) And for "Something": the much-discussed guitar solo adopting Hindustani stylising; also mention that it's the most covered Beatles song after "Yesterday"?
I've now added that Lennon considered "Something" to be the best song on Abbey Road. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm surprised you mention "For You Blue" (the single wasn't a double A-side, according to Castelman & Podrazik's All Together Now); "The Inner Light" and "Old Brown Shoe" are far more worthy of discussion. MacDonald, Leng and others identify those two as classic B-sides of the era.
"For You Blue" was definitely not an A-side; thanks for pointing that out. I will add a bit on "The Inner Light" shortly, as I do think it deserves a mention. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Per this chart, we have determined that "For You Blue" was an American double A-side with "TLAWR". According to Bill Harry (2000, pp.417–418): "'For You Blue' was issued in America as a double 'A' side with "TLAWR" ... where it reached No. 1 in the charts." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, GabeMc. I'd been doing some investigating and found examples supporting the double A-side (as well as others that treat it as a conventional, A- and B-side release). Can't argue with what you've unearthed. JG66 (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • You discuss the 4 Jan '70 final Beatles recording session – why not add that it was for a Harrison song, "I Me Mine"? (And delete mention of Lennon's non-attendance surely, can't see that that's relevant.)
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Moving on to first part under "Solo work":

  • mention that Wonderwall was first solo album by a Beatle and first album issued by Apple? Also, over half the album consists of Harrison's Indian compositions, recorded in Bombay in Jan 1968; some truly great Indian classical musicians appear (Ashish Khan, Shivkumar Sharma, S.R. Kenkare); and the album features the sound collage "Dream Scene", recorded six months before "Revolution 9" ... Some points of notability here perhaps?
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just to say, I removed the point about Harrison not playing on the album; in fact, he just didn't credit himself. Leng p 50 mentions a "Harrison piano vamp" on the track "On the Bed" (as opposed to a [rather more elegant] "John Barham piano vamp" on "Dream Scene"); Harrison was apparently embarrassed by his mellotron doodling – Clayson p 234 gives half the quote I was looking for (Harrison talking about "loads of horrible mellotron stuff"; on "Greasy Legs" presumably). Aside from those keyboard parts, for what it's worth (and this is nothing more than educated guesswork from me admittedly), I'd say it's Harrison playing the "Tomorrow Never Knows"-like tambura on "Ski-ing" (no one's credited for that instrument on the album, and the song was recorded in London, so without the Indian musicians), as well as acoustic and one of the electric guitars on "Party Seacombe" (a quick burst of rockabilly-esque acoustic picking late in the song gives it away, imo). JG66 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I find the discussion under All Things Must Pass bizarre, quite frankly. So much is dedicated to the MSL/He's So Fine lawsuit, whereas a fair amount of important details are missing. I suggest you cut down the lawsuit discussion by half, skipping the mention of how earnings were calculated, especially; an inline link to the song article's Plagiarism suit section could do the rest. As far as missing details go, I think mention needs to be made of Derek & The Dominos' formation during the sessions; fellow Shankar collaborator John Barham's orchestration; death of Harrison's mother during the sessions. Also, the songs: many were rejected for inclusion on Beatles' records (that's a crucial point), and the likes of Isn't It a Pity, Wah-Wah, All Things Must Pass, Run of the Mill have all been identified as being about and/or directed at the Beatles, covering the failure of friendships within the band. ATMP is the best-selling solo album by a Beatle; My Sweet Lord was the biggest-selling single of 1971 in the UK (and perhaps worldwide but I can't confirm that); a number of music critics consider it the best of all the former Beatles' solo albums. And a quote or two surely: Ben Gerson's "the music of mountain tops and vast horizons", Richard Williams' "Garbo talks! − Harrison sings!" ? Minor point but the order you've listed the participants in is unusual: Mason is not thought to have featured on much of the album at all; Klaus Voormann, Bobby Whitlock, Jim Gordon, Carl Radle, Jim Price, Bobby Keys and the guys from Badfinger all contributed way more than Mason.
I have added info on Derek and the Dominos and tweaked the listing of backing musicians. I believe most of the songs' status as Beatles-era compositions is made clear in the ATMP section already. The rest of your requests may be more at home at All Things Must Pass, though I certainly appreciate your input. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yep, I see your point in hindsight, for the most part at least; bit surprised that "music of mountain tops and vast horizons" doesn't merit a mention, same for a brief comment on "Wah-Wah" and "Isn't It a Pity", both of which are so tied up with the end of the Beatles: [1], [2]. Even with your tweaks, I'm still confused by the selected list of participants. On one hand it still flatters Mason's role (it's only with input from interviewees Klaus, Joey Molland and the great John Barham that Leng recently established that Mason had a minimal role); on the other, it fails to reflect what Schaffner (pp 142, 147), RS Press Harrison (187) and album reviews such as Gerson's all refer to as the grand cast/orchestra/"virtual who's who of rock royalty". To get this idea across, my suggestion is: "Starr, Clapton, Gary Wright, Preston, Klaus Voormann, the entire Delaney & Bonnie Friends band and Apple group Badfinger." The sentence that currently follows that one will disappear if you agree with my comment above, re Preston[/Troy] point being moved up to start of Solo work section. So then I'd reword the Del & the Doms point (partly for accuracy, ie not formed "later"): "Early on in the sessions, Clapton, Whitlock, Gordon and Carl Radle formed the short-lived band Derek and the Dominos." That way, imo, you'll be giving a more appropriate list of participants, and the implication should also be there that Radle was among the many musicians contributing to ATMP.
No comment from you regarding that discussion on "My Sweet Lord" plagiarism suit. Okay, many important details regarding the album and the single should be left for the relevant articles, but then why so much on the plagiarism suit? Here are some examples of the issue being given short, sharp treatment, in keeping with approach throughout this article: New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock&Roll (1995), p. 419 (remembering that fruitless Wilburys discussion, GabeMc, I think you said you had an '05 edition?), [3] and (okay, perhaps a little too brief ...) [4]. JG66 (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I do intend to trim the info on the lawsuit a little bit, and should get around to that in the next hour or so. I still have a lot to go through below, and will probably implement changes as I read along, so be patient. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Trimmed out the section on how damages were calculated, as it was certainly excess. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay, quick question, since I am away from home at the moment and only have as much of the sources available as Google Books and Amazon have available for viewing: Was it really the entire D&B band that took part in the sessions? I was fairly certain that some of them were not involved (Delaney and Bonnie themselves, at least). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I love questions like this. I suggested wording it as "the entire Delaney & Bonnie Friends band" because the Friends were seen as the other band members, besides the Bramletts (i.e. D&B is being used there adjectivally; it's confusing perhaps because the whole act is/was often referred to as "Delaney & Bonnie", but "Friends" makes it clear it's sans the Bramletts). Delaney and Bonnie themselves were there at the sessions: Leng quotes Delaney's observations on George as a producer during the sessions; in that excellent John Harris/Mojo Solo Beatles Special article I referred to above (in point re Lomax/Dylan/Band '68), Phil Collins mentions Delaney and Bonnie Bramlett, Klaus Voormann, Ringo, Maurice Gibb all being there at the 1970 session for "Art of Dying", but none of them play on the song. (This is partly why there's traditionally been such confusion about who plays on what song on that album; they were all hanging out at the sessions anyway.) So, those actually playing on All Things Must Pass, as credited on the album and confirmed by Leng's research, it is the whole of the Friends band, yes: Whitlock, Radle, Gordon, Keys, Price, with "special guest" Friends Clapton and Mason. So, to my understanding, that wording I suggested above does the job, but if you think it could be confusing, perhaps say "the entire Friends band", or "all five members of the Bramletts' Friends band" ?
Okay, thanks for clarifying. That essentially confirms what I thought. I've reworded it to "the entirety of Delaney and Bonnie's Friends band", which I hope is clear enough. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
"the whole of" might read better? Also, I notice you've got "Delaney & Bonnie", with an ampersand, which I totally agree with for the name of an act; but when the additional "Friends" identity is brought into it, I'd think the full name should be written as Delaney & Bonnie and Friends. Your call, I just figured I'd weigh in on that one. JG66 (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Another question: When did Clapton, et al. first perform together as the Dominos? I only ask because I believe standard practice (as implemented at the Beatles) is to date a given group's formation to the first time they work together under the name. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That would be sometime in June 1970, a month at most into the ATMP sessions, playing at the Lyceum in central London. Most of Apple Jam is thought to have been recorded pretty much as the band came together. It all happened so quickly (although they'd been playing together since the Blind Faith tour in mid/late '69); mind you, it all ended pretty quickly too. They rush-recorded a single in June also, "Tell the Truth", produced by Spector, with George on the B-side, but it was soon withdrawn. (Castleman & Podrazik p 92 for the date of recording by the way; Clayson p 290 re the live debut: "Digging the vibes backstage on the June night of Clapton's debut at the Strand Lyceum, George was among those whose brains had been picked for a name for the group ... Finally and facetiously, Derek And The Dominoes sauntered on ...") JG66 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The Concert for Bangladesh: need to mention concerts' standing as precursor/inspiration for Live Aid and many other benefit concerts; "Bangla Desh" was rock's first charity single (Leng); biggest audience (via concert film) for Hindustani classical music internationally (Lavezzoli book). I think you need to mention Harrison's standing as a result of this 1971–72 charity project – certainly the most respected Beatle, and a statesman for rock altruism (in the eyes of Rolling Stone and others; loads of refs in concert, live album and BD single articles to support this). Also, album's commercial success? mention Grammy win in 1973? George and Ravi receive UNICEF award for "pioneering" charity work? (or perhaps the latter belongs in later Legacy section.) All of these points are more important than mentioning Clapton's drug problem, I suggest. Can't help thinking your final sentence puts a bit of a negative spin on things: "While the concert was seen as a success at the time, tax troubles and questionable expenses later tied up many of the proceeds." It's all true of course, but having researched the event recently for all the relevant articles (single, concert, album, film), I wonder if a suitable conclusion shouldn't be: "While tax troubles and questionable expenses later tied up many of the proceeds, the concerts are seen as a pioneering humanitarian aid project that provided valuable lessons for projects that followed." (Having said that, I'm not trying to put too positive a spin on it – the RS Encyclopedia of Rock&Roll should serve as a good source, from memory – and maybe your original wording wouldn't seem negative if those missing points of notability were included.)
Done. Though I think the level of detail you seem to be requesting above would be much more appropriate at the topical article dedicated to the concerts. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely – as I've said regarding Preston/Troy influence, significance of WYWY, particular examples of Harrison's Indian instrumentation, and more: where I've dug up a ton of things to say about any given song, album or other point, it's never to suggest that every item should be included; it was/is simply to state the case that more could and should be said than you had originally, imo. So I've given you everything that comes to mind, to demonstrate the possibilities, that's all. JG66 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Right on, I understand. Then please let us know if we missed any of your above points that you think are especially worthy of mention. Thanks again for the comments! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Loads more to say about this Solo Work section, but I'll have to come back to it later.

Looking ahead in the article to "Interest in Indian culture", your mention under Hinduism that "During a pilgrimage to Bombay with his wife Pattie, Harrison studied sitar, met several gurus and visited various holy places" is actually half-repeating information given above, about George studying with Ravi in Sept–Oct '66, without acknowledging as much; they appear to be presented as separate events. Your sentence "In 1968, Harrison travelled to Rishikesh in northern India with the other Beatles ..." seems to underplay Harrison's role here – I'm thinking of George Martin's line in the Scorsese documentary on Harrison ("George had influence") about leading the other Beatles on this spiritual journey. Also, I suggest you need to mention the trip to Bangor in Aug '67 and perhaps Harrison's appearances on TV at this time (David Frost, I think), where he takes part in a debate with religious leaders, scholars and philosophers; this was all quite front-line, countercultural stuff at the time. (I think it's Clayson's book that covers this quite well.) Harrison was never an ISKCON devotee as such, he made that clear in interviews (there's a quote in the Clayson book), and Olivia stresses the point in her introduction to either I Me Mine or Rolling Stone Press's Harrison. This section feels very undercooked, in my opinion – it really doesn't get across how influential Harrison's adoption of the Vaishnava Hindu faith and attachment to Indian music was (something the lead-in doesn't achieve either). I've read Shankar crediting his international fame to George Harrison, Philip Glass saying there can't be a musician alive today who has not been touched or influenced in some way by the Shankar–Harrison partnership, even the popularity of yoga in the western world has been credited to Harrison. A large percentage of the western world know the Hare Krishna mantra as a result of Harrison (through his production of the Radha Krsna Temple single). None of this comes out in the article.

Also, surely there has to be more – a sub-section – on his slide guitar playing? So many things have been said and written about Harrison's slide work, I wouldn't know where to begin right now. The "Songwriting and singing" section is lacking also: no discussion on Harrison's incorporation of dissonance in his melodies, the influence of Indian microtones? Guitar section also needs to include mention of him using what he learnt from sitar period ('66–68) when he returned to guitar – he often pointed out how much he developed as a guitarist as a result of learning the sitar.

Arb break
edit
I've gone through some of the later sections (so again, I'll have come to back to the Solo work section). I'll try to keep these to short, sharp points as much as possible. Just to be absolutely clear, I am not suggesting that the section should contain all these quotes – in many cases, I'm giving you the exact wording in the hope that you'll combine and paraphrase a couple to get a significant point across.
The Beatles Anthology
  • Harrison had a hard time of it with Anthology – somewhere I've got an old Mojo or Q mag from 1996 where he says he feels he's got to adopt Lennon's former role in the band dynamic, to debunk all the myth and b/s about Anthology. (In his Harrison biography, Elliot Huntley states that it was only the Anthology book in 2000 that "exorcised" any lingering bitterness – p. 305.) That needs stating, in some form, I'd say, as does the point that Harrison apparently called a halt to any further collaboration, on a third Lennon demo. "George soon pulled the plug" from a Peter Doggett article. In his essay in the Rolling Stone Press book Harrison (p. 48), Mikal Gilmore writes that "Harrison would later somewhat disdain the new tracks"; there's a Harrison quote (somewhere) where he says he thought Lennon's writing "went off a bit at the end". (Is it in Anthology? In my head I can just hear diplomatic Paul replying "I think that's a bit presumptuous ...") This is relevant to the point below about relationships with other Beatles, because, from what I've read, Harrison had a hard time working with McCartney again in '94–95. There's a fantastic Harrison quote from the period: "I hope somebody does this to all my crap demos when I'm dead, make them into hit songs." (Huntley p 259)
Relationship with the other Beatles
  • In the paragraph about Lennon, I think it might be an idea to state how close they were in the 1965–68 period, pre Yoko. (Particularly as we hear quite a bit about them falling out in 1980.) Harrison and Lennon shared some important experiences during that time – LSD, meditation and spirituality generally – and the before and after re Ono's arrival is quite marked, in that Harrison didn't hold back his resentment towards her and that always bugged Lennon. I'd imagine that every Beatle book covers this point. I'm sure Leng has something on it, about that bond in 1965–68, because it's played out in the music.
  • I gotta say, I had to wonder whether it was Paul McCartney being discussed at the end of this section(!). They had a huge bust-up in New York in December 1970, just before Mac launched the lawsuit to dissolve the partnership (Badman). In 1974, when all four Beatles had joined forces against Klein, Harrison was the one flatly refusing to re-form – in that he'd "join a band with John Lennon anyday" but never one with McCartney. ('74 tour press conference – probably in Schaffner, definitely in Badman.) In a 1974 radio interview with Alan Freeman, Harrison states that McCartney "ruined me as a guitar player" (Badman pp 138–39). As that Doggett article states: "George spent years sniping at Paul in public". This is from Gilmore's piece in Harrison, talking about any possible Beatles reunion in the late 1980s: "a larger barrier [than the death of Lennon] was the relationship between Harrison and McCartney ... Plus, both men freely admitted, they could simply grate on each other's nerves." (p. 48) Robert Rodriguez, Fab Four FAQ 2.0, p. 24, discussing Hari and Mac: "even to the end of George's days, theirs was a volatile relationship". (Rodriguez p. 196 also paraphrases George's 1974 press conference comment.) As I understand things, it really bugged Harrison, and Lennon, the way McCartney would time announcements to his benefit, apparently looking to gain commercially – the April 1970 announcement about the break-up was an obvious one, and McCartney's advances to Harrison via the media, about writing songs together, in the late '80s was seen as another (that Gilmore piece again). I'm not suggesting you make too big a deal out of this – and there were certainly times when Harrison would face the media with "Look, we're mates, me and Paul, okay?" – but right now the text regarding the relationship with McCartney seems only half right.
Guitar work
The absence of anything post-Beatles in this subsection and the next is baffling. I mean, slide guitar – perhaps the George Harrison sound – no discussion at all (okay, allowing for that mention early in the piece, which seems out chronologically and doesn't belong there). I'm just going to give you a list of short, sharp points – things that immediately jumped to mind as important when I looked at the subsection. And these are all issues relating to what I understand by "guitar work", whereas much of what's currently on the page seems to be about guitars. Loads of quotes here, some might stand out as usable in their own right (loads of endorsements of his playing obviously); to me, they each make a point about his playing (innovative; serving the song; instantly recognisable, etc), so they could easily be paraphrased.
  • Eric Clapton discussing Harrison's Beatles-era guitar playing: "He was clearly an innovator: George, to me, was taking certain elements of R&B and rock and rockabilly and creating something unique." – quoted in Olivia Harrison, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, p. 194
  • Leng's point about GH's musicianship on Abbey Road could go here maybe (mentioned above: "In Leng's Abbey Road discussion (pp 41–45), he also mentions it being a "key moment" in Harrison's "guitar journey" ...")?
  • really need to mention "Something"'s guitar solo, incorporation of Indian gamaks (Leng p 84) for a start, but there are so many things happening in that solo ...
  • Jann Wenner describes Harrison as "a guitarist who was never showy but who had an innate, eloquent melodic sense. He played exquisitely in the service of the song ..." – The Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison, p. 15
  • Phil Spector: "George was one of the most commercial musicians and songwriters and quintessential players I've ever known in my entire career." – quoted in Olivia Harrison, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, p. 282
  • Leng describes Harrison's slide playing: "as instantly recognizable as Dylan's harmonica playing or Stevie Wonder's." – Leng p 102
  • introduction of dobro in 1971 (well, it's actually on If Not for You in 1970). This is very important, I think (plenty in Leng, of course). I recently removed the listing of the five Imagine tracks that George played on – quite an extravagance, including them, bearing in mind how little is afforded to his solo albums (nothing on songs like Isn't It a Pity, Wah-Wah, All Things, etc). This might be a place to mention "Crippled Inside", Preston's "I Wrote a Simple Song" and others from '71 to '73. Leng's big on his "dobro commentary".
  • Elton John: "the trademark of a great guitarist is that you can always identify their sound, and with George you can always tell it's George Harrison playing. All his solos are very melodic – you can almost sing his solos." – quoted in The Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison, p. 233
  • absolutely vital, this one: Leng on Indian influence in Harrison's slide guitar playing, allowing Harrison to imitate instruments like sarangi and dilruba (Leng pp 84–85)
  • Added this to a paragraph at the end of Guitar work, also highlighting Hawaiian influences. I hope that's a reasonable combination of topics for the paragraph. If it seems kind of non sequitur-y, just let me know. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • The above-mentioned paragraph has been cleaned up and hopefully made a little more coherent. The "tells a story" quote has been included, as I thought it fit in really well, and I made mention of his imitation of the sarangi and the dilruba. His use of the ukulele is also noted. If you have any more thoughts on that section, just say the word. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Harrison's guitar solos on Living in the Material World album considered by many to be the best of his career – Leng, p. 132; Clayson, pp 323–24; Bruce Eder's Allmusic album review; could be more: Rodriguez?
  • huge fan of Ry Cooder's playing – Clayson p 280; Leng p 256; Jim Keltner, quoted in The Editors of Rolling Stone, p. 231
  • Hawaiian influence becomes noticeable in Harrison's slide playing (Gone Troppo) – Clayson p 391; check out Leng's discussion of Brainwashed perhaps
  • slide playing on Grammy-winning instrumental "Marwa Blues": "Along with its Hawaiian flavor, the melody sounds as though it could have been played by a sarod or vina, and is yet another demonstration of Harrison's unique slide approach ..." – Lavezzoli p 198
Another thought, and again it seems to be reflective of the Beatles-only focus here, with little exploration of Harrison's solo work: do the two guitar samples have to be from Lennon songs? why can't one be, say, that slide break in the middle of "Give Me Love"? (Reviewers and biographers go crazy over that one. His solo in "Old Brown Shoe" is pretty amazing too, imo ...)
  • If no one objects, I can upload a brief sample of that song, and I do agree that "Old Brown Shoe" is a highly underrated piece. Probably should keep it to just one more sample to avoid running afoul of fair use policy, though, so I'll wait to see if others have comments on which they would prefer. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I've swapped out the "Hard Day's Night" sample for the "OBS" solo. I' pretty sure that the "HDN" solo was artificially double-tracked and double-timed, so its not a very good example of guitar playing anyway. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Songwriting and singing
  • important point to mention, I think: George Martin's admission and regret that he and Lennon & McCartney gave Harrison very little help or support, and stating how unfortunate it was that Harrison had no collaborator in the band as Len & Mac did. I've heard Sir George say this so many times, I can only think the one that covers both issues (regret that they didn't help out; lack of any collaborator for George) is from the Scorsese doc.
  • Harrison supplied some lyrics for Lennon–McCartney songs, such as "Eleanor Rigby" and "Come Together", and helped Lennon finish "She Said, She Said". (Clayson p 202 states that Lennon "would avow" that Harrison had helped "put together" Eleanor Rigby, but there's a quote – somewhere – stating that Harrison came up with "Ah – look at all the lonely people"; Anthology book? I just can't think where that Come Together claim comes from, unfortunately. Leng p 21 discusses She Said collaboration.)
  • That all sounds like detail more suitable for the respective song article pages. Lots of "lyrics" or lines were thrown around over the years by the Beatles and their friends, but this overview summary article should not go into such detail about songs not even credited to Harrison. As for "Eleanor Rigby", both John and Paul claimed they wrote the lyrics for the song, I don't ever remember either of them suggesting Harrison also helped. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Mikal Gilmore on Indian music's influence on Harrison's songwriting, aside from his obvious Indian compositions: "Harrison's openness to new sounds and textures cleared new paths for his rock&roll compositions. His use of dissonance on such tracks as 'Taxman' and 'I Want to Tell You' was revolutionary in popular music – and perhaps more originally creative than the avant-garde mannerisms that Lennon and McCartney borrowed from the music of Karlheinz Stockhausen, Luciano Berio, Edgar Varese and Igor Stravinsky in the same period." – The Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison, p. 37
  • I'd put that Farrell quote about "Within You, Without You" down here perhaps, to establish his compositions in the Indian music genre here, in the songwriting section, before going on to discuss Indian music in the next subsection.
  • "it was difficult for him to get the group to record his material, one of the problems that led to the Beatles' breakup" – The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock&Roll (1995), p 419 (significant, I think, because it mentions that this contributed to break-up – perhaps the point belongs earlier on at start of Solo work section?)
  • If it's not to be included in the Beatles section, this could be a place to include that point I suggested: "His two Abbey Road tracks invite another quote or further comment ... there's the commonly held view that Harrison had at last matched Len-Mac in his songwriting (Schaffner, Clayson, Lavezzoli, etc.)
  • "Although Abbey Road documents seismic developments in his songwriting and instrumental skills, Harrison's goal was not to be regarded as the equal of John Lennon or Paul McCartney, or as a great guitar hero."(Leng, 2006, p.44) Do you have a specific quote (and hopefully a source and page number) in mind from which we could source the assertion that Harrison had "matched" Len-Mac by 1970? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I think I've now resolved this issue via some explication from Spitz and Womack. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
* I disagree that you've resolved it, to be honest – it's a commonly held view, not just by the likes of Lennon, McCartney (and Martin). So, to my way of thinking, the point loses impact when it's presented in Spitz's words. Not just that, but you seem to have gone a bit quote-crazy elsewhere in the article, I suggest. Things that can hardly be contested are presented as quotes: for instance, the actual words – and those of a Beatles biographer – are used to get across the point about Concert for BD inspiring/serving as template for Live Aid etc, which somewhat reduces credibility in the claim; and it does end up becoming a claim, whereas the point is something that's actually beyond doubt (Geldof has acknowledged it, so have journalists in all areas of the media, Harrison's obituary writers, McCartney as organiser of Concert for New York in 2001). Not only that, but the quote comes straight after another unnecessary one, from Harrison himself, when all that was needed in that particular situation was to address the wording in the sentence before that, ""While the concert was seen as a success at the time, tax troubles and questionable expenses later tied up many of the proceeds", as suggested above. (Instead of that happening, two ineffective quotes have appeared.) As another example, Leng's comment about the solo in "Something" could easily be paraphrased. Same with a statement as innocuous as "it was difficult for him to get the group to record his material, one of the problems that led to the Beatles' breakup." With the point I made above about "the commonly held view that Harrison had at last matched Len-Mac in his songwriting", it would be much more effective, and more encyclopaedic surely, to state the point generally, and add that Lennon and McCartney felt the same way, no? – without resorting to any direct quotes at all, I think. It just seems as if you're using direct quotes like bandaids almost, when the issues I've been raising are much more to do with the scope of the article's various sections (and yes, the details that make up the scope), so the raw info I've been supplying often in quote form is there to give you something to work with, to get the relevant message across. (And some do present themselves as instantly usable as quotes, I know, which is no doubt why they'd stuck in my mind.)
I hadn't seen your earlier message, "Do you have a specific quote (and hopefully a source and page number) from which we could source the assertion that Harrison had "matched" Len-Mac by 1970?", but I'd be surprised if you've got to look too far to find refs to support the point. "Something" won an Ivor Novello, it's the second most covered song in the Beatles' songbook – hardly an "assertion". There's Lavezzoli p 185: "Harrison would finally achieve equal songwriting status alongside Lennon and McCartney with his two classic contributions to the final Beatles' LP ..." Clayson p 285: "That George's Abbey Road songs were subjected to the most widespread syndication reflected both his commercial peak as a composer per se and his ascendancy over both Lennon and McCartney." (And Clayson's hardly one for singing Harrison's praises in that bio.) Schaffner discussion on pp 124–25 starts "George Harrison at last hit the jackpot" but it doesn't quite get the point across, although that's not to say that the point's not implied there. There's a mention elsewhere in Schaffner's book that nails it (I just can't remember whether it's at some point earlier in the book, looking forward to when the moment comes in 1969, or later on, referring back to the '69 period ...) McCartney says it in that quote "Until this year, our songs have been better than George's. Now this year his songs are at least as good as ours"; it's in that Spitz quote; I know it's in Rodriguez (but I'm afraid there's 25 pages numbers listed against Abbey Road in the index, 10 more for the two Harrison songs, and I'm never going to get through this article's solo years sections if I keep spending my time hunting around for pages numbers); and I won't even bother looking in Leng ... That site The Beatles Bible takes text directly from any Beatles-related book (much of it's instantly recognisable, I find), and not just the acknowledged quotes: the intro there states "George Harrison's finest moment on the Abbey Road album ... showed him finally leaving the songwriting shadow of Lennon and McCartney", and Geoff Emerick's comment: "he knew it was absolutely brilliant. And for the first time, John and Paul knew that George had risen to their level." I'm sure that Beatles Bible isn't an acceptable source here; I only mention it as another example of a view that seems so widespread – that on the Beatles' final recordings, Harrison had finally matched Lennon and McCartney as a songwriter – and therefore hardly merits yet another "according to" qualification followed by a direct quote, as if the point needs to be distanced from other statements. Another (I think) gratuitous quote has appeared while I've been thinking how the heck to word all this; on the other hand, this, I think, is quite inspired – specifically the way that Lavezzoli's point about Concert for BD attracting the biggest audience yet for Indian music can just be stated, flowing on from a relevant point, without any need for quarantine-like quote treatment. It's just gone quote crazy now ... And, as with that Bangladesh issue, multiple quotes end up being added regarding this Abbey Road songwriting point just to avoid stating the #^@& obvious in regular text! JG66 (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm at least partially responsible for the quote-craziness, and I do agree that some of them could be trimmed. The McCartney quote is currently in the "Songwriting" section, where I believe it belongs, so I'm not sure making that point clear is any longer an issue. Apart from Leng's comments on "Something", which other quotes do you think could be trimmed? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have trimmed the Leng quote regarding "Something", and am curious as to whether or not you would still like the song's "presaging" of his slide guitar work to be mentioned. To be honest, I can't think of a good way to phrase it, probably because it's a value judgement type of thing, the wording of which really is dependent on Leng's opinion that it sounds a lot like what Harrison later did on slide guitar. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That looks great. I agree with Leng – it's the veena effect, he's referring to. But no, I don't think any presaging, pre-empting, of Harrison's slide work needs a comment, it's the gamak mention that I think's vital. Other quotes, all as mentioned: "According to Rolling Stone, "it was difficult for him to get the group to record his material, one of the problems that led to the Beatles' breakup." I'm sure the first half of that statement was there before, and the point's still repeated in Songwriting section (last time I looked), but there's no "according to" and no quote treatment, just as there wasn't at this point beforehand. So, is it the "one of the problems that led to the Beatles' breakup" part that seems contentious somehow? I can't see how that can be – those list of authored works I gave, regarding Harrison post-Woodstock, no longer prepared to play 2nd/3rd fiddle to Len-Mac, immediately comes to mind. Particularly, Leng's "final nail in the Beatles' coffin" statement. Those Bangladesh quotes, obviously. Particularly in that last sentence, regarding the concerts' influence and legacy. There are no end of impressive, non-Beatle-author quotes on this, and there's no need to give anything more than the statement, straight, unquoted. Personally, I think the Womack one on "Something"'s a bit too long – or maybe it's seeing McCartney get a mention that bothers me(!). I'd suggest starting it at "'Something' meanders toward the most unforgettable of Harrison's guitar solos" or even at that final sentence "A masterpiece in simplicity". I'm not sure it adds much, personally. Obviously, that whole double dose "In Lennon's opinion, Harrison's songwriting "wasn't in the same league ..." and "According Womack: "Harrison comes into his own ..." is a problem. Aside from what I've said above, they come straight after we've heard from two other authors. I'd suggest losing the Spitz "an intensely stirring romantic ballad that would challenge 'Yesterday' and 'Michelle'" quote, because what's needed ideally is some sort of brief discussion of Harrison's most famous song, within the bounds of this songwriting subsection. (The Peddler-type approach I mentioned; that point about it serving as a model for a Harrison ballad – but obviously some identification of the elements and musical structure of this model.) Thanks, JG66 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've paraphrased the RS quote and am currently digging up sources on your "ballad model" thought, which I think is a good one and worthy of inclusion; I'll let Gabe address the Womack quote, since he added it. Beyond that, I think either I or Gabe have addressed most of your recent batch of comments, but if anything important has been overlooked, it may be a good idea to drop by my talk page and let me know. This review page is now longer than the article itself, and to be honest I am having a hard time sifting through the comments; particularly discerning which have been resolved and which haven't, so if I've missed anything, I apologize. I would prefer we either archive some of the addressed content to the talk page or hat it for ease of navigation and to encourage others to comment. Thanks for your help! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm currently adding some stuff related to his songwriting. I just added a paragraph on "Cry for a Shadow", for instance, which may be superfluous. I think it's interesting to note his first recorded composition with the Beatles, but if anyone thinks that it doesn't belong, feel free to overrule me. I'll get around to some more songwriting information later. More to come on the "ballad model" as well, once I've addressed Tim Riley's comments (I haven't forgotten!). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Also on "Something", could mention that it's the most covered Beatles song after "Yesterday"? (Mark Lewisohn, "Something Else", Mojo: The Beatles' Final Years Special Edition, February 2003, p. 118; plenty more general refs out there); George wins Ivor Novello award in July 1970 for "Something", as "The Best Song Musically and Lyrically of the Year" (Badman, 2001, p 12)
  • There's a definite Something "model" of Harrison ballad – Leng talks about it quite a bit (check under songs like I'll Still Love You, The Light That Has Lighted the World, Learning How to Love You (maybe), Unknown Delight – or "Something" in the index to be sure); songs like Who Can See It, on the other hand, he identifies as a definite departure from a traditional Harrison ballad
  • combining gospel tradition with Hindu bhajan in his compositions: "My Sweet Lord", "Give Me Love", "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" – Leng once again
  • could mention Harrison's moving towards soul music in 1974–76 (Far East Man, Ooh Baby, Pure Smokey) – plenty in Leng; Ian Inglis's book also
  • I don't know if between you, you've got Dominic Pedler's book The Songwriting Secrets of the Beatles, or something similar. Seems to me a work like that (I believe it covers solo compositions too) would be very useful for a discussion on George Harrison's songwriting. Leng goes into some discussion about Indian/raga microtones (but it's a bit "lite"). Wilfrid Mellers wrote some interesting things about Harrison's melodies – I've never read the book but I've seen quotes somewhere ... saying that the chord changes in "Beware of Darkness" just shouldn't work (could be in Leng, could be in the wikipedia article, I don't know).
  • I'd add also that he wrote songs with Dylan, Clapton, Preston, Troy, Starr, Bromberg, Ron Wood, Gary Wright, Mick Ralphs, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty etc.
I'll give you comments on Sitar & Indian music through to Humanitarian work in the next batch. JG66 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sitar and Indian music
Here's a list of points containing details or quotes that have informed my understanding of Harrison's achievements in this particular field, and by extension, lead me to think that the section needs more work. As mentioned, the additions you've made regarding Harrison's use of Indian instruments and his Indian compositions during the Beatles years do take the weight off this subsection to some extent. But the impact of Harrison’s involvement with Indian music and his post-Beatles work in the genre are two important areas that are ignored right now.
  • The second sentence carries a Lavezzoli reference, but I suggest your wording underplays the situation, and certainly underplays that particular author's statement: that Harrison's introduction of sitar on "Norwegian Wood" "opened the floodgates for Indian instrumentation in rock music, triggering what Ravi Shankar would call 'The Great Sitar Explosion' of 1966–67." (p. 171); also that George Harrison was "the man most responsible for this phenomenon" – i.e. "the tidal wave of Western infatuation with Indian music" – Lavezzoli pp 171–72
  • another impartial (non-Harrison or -Beatle bio) source to support a more generous credit: "the guitarist introduced the instrument (which dates to the middle ages) into the Beatles, and rock music, with "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)," off 1965's Rubber Soul." – Rolling Stone online Harrison bio
  • there's another comment from Gerry Farrell's book (in Leng p 316) that is worth considering, either here or under Songwriting: "It is a mark of Harrison's sincere involvement ... that, nearly thirty years on, the Beatles' 'Indian' songs remain the most imaginative and successful examples of this type of fusion – for example, 'Blue Jay Way' and 'The Inner Light.'" Probably appears as though I'm really pushing these opinions/quotes from Farrell, Lavezzoli and Reck – I guess I am, because they come from authors who only arrive at any discussion on Harrison and the Beatles via a written work dedicated to Indian or Asian music. Big credibility factor obviously, and the more one turns to that type of book, the more notable Harrison's activities in the Indian music genre become. (I'd search out a Rough Guides book on world music if I were you; I've had my eye on this one for a while, to help expand the wikipedia article on Ravi Shankar's Music Festival from India and put together a new one on the 1974 Harrison–Shankar tour.)
  • As mentioned, Shankar's fame is widely identified as having resulted from the association with George Harrison. There are way stronger statements than this, but here's Shankar on Harrison's role in establishing his international popularity: "I was known very well and quite famous in the classical sense, you know, but meeting George ... that created such a tremendous [interest] all over the world, especially among the young generation ... Which helped me to become like a pop star almost, you know, a super star and all that. And that was because of George." – Shankar, quoted in booklet accompanying Ravi Shankar–George Harrison Collaborations box set, 2010 (produced by Olivia Harrison)
  • Clayson on same: "Ravi Shankar's association with The Beatles had done him a lot of good. Ticket sales for his concerts were guaranteed to pick up if there was a hint that George might be attending ... Although he owed his commercial bonanza to Harrison's patronage, Ravi admitted to disquiet when he and his Hindu musicians were placed on the same bill as loud rock bands ..." – Clayson p 210
  • Worth noting this Billboard ad from 1974, which states the case quite succinctly for how Harrison's championing of Indian music had brought Shankar into the mainstream from 1966 onwards: Dark Horse Records print ad (this could be the place to add that detail I suggested under Concert for Bangladesh – Lavezzoli's point that, via the live album and film, this was the biggest Western audience that Indian classical music had ever enjoyed ?)
  • Added Lavezzoli's point to the same paragraph I mentioned above ("Sitar and Indian music" section), as well as a mention of Shankar attending Woodstock and Monterey. I am uncertain about using the Billboard ad as a source, it being most likely considered primary, so left it out. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • from Rolling Stone: "Shankar, who he'd made world famous, had become a close friend, and would remain so for life." – Rolling Stone online Harrison bio
  • Philip Glass, May 2010, referring to the significance of the personal and musical friendship between Shankar and Harrison: "I would go as far as to say that today there can scarcely be a musician or composer virtually anywhere in the world that is not aware of, nor been touched by, the fruits of the remarkable encounter between these two." – foreword by Philip Glass, booklet accompanying Ravi Shankar–George Harrison Collaborations box set, 2010 (produced by Olivia Harrison)
  • Along with his involvement with Shankar, Harrison worked with some of the best-known and most respected Indian classical musicians of the late twentieth century, starting with the sessions for Wonderwall in January '68; Shivkumar Sharma, Hariprasad Chaurasia, Aashish Khan appear on that album. He stepped in to save the Shankar documentary Raga in 1970, co-produced a highly rated double live album by Shankar and Ali Akbar Khan in 1972–73. The cast assembled for the Music Festival from India in September 1974 and the later North American tour was just extraordinary: Shankar, Alla Rakha, Chaurasia, Sharma, Sultan Khan, L. Subramaniam, Lakshmi Shankar, T.V. Gopalkrishnan, Gopal Krishan ... Harrison served as editor on Shankar's second autobiography and compiled a career- and genre-spanning Shankar boxset before they returned to active collaboration with Chants of India in 1996. The point is, as far as this article goes, all these activities were and are widely associated with George Harrison – they're all part of what he brought to western culture. The absence of any mention in the article of Harrison being identified as a pioneer, for his work as far back back as 1965–66, in what became the world music genre is very noticeable. As one would imagine, Leng's not slow in crediting Harrison; "world music" on pp 19 & 23, for a start, and 166–77 regarding the "groundbreaking" '74 tour, but I suggest there'd be way more than that throughout his book. Clear acknowledgement from Rodriguez re '74 tour being a precursor to world music (p. 60), and elsewhere Rodriguez notes the same for the Shankar–Harrison collaboration SF&F. Clayson and others use the pre-"world music" term, East meets West, to describe Harrison and Shankar's work together. Goes without saying that something from a suitable world music authority would also be very welcome. It's one of those issues regarding George Harrison that one gets so used to seeing, his world-music credentials, that it's easy to read over without a second thought – I'm sure some obits from 2001 might be a place to start, a 2011 Guardian (UK) piece on Scorsese's movie comes to mind (but perhaps it's not there).
  • Not only does this issue of Harrison's non-Beatle work in Indian music deserve coverage here, but it contributes to the need, I think, for a section in the article – or subsection within Solo career: 1968–1987 perhaps (although it extends way beyond that timeframe) – dealing with Harrison's production and session work. It's become more and more apparent, Evanh, as we've been discussing criteria regarding the Associated acts field, that this facet of Harrison's career doesn't come across in the article. (Even with the occasional mention of session work, as at the end of the text discussing 1972–79.) He did so much work with Apple Records acts, nurturing the careers of Lomax, Preston and to a lesser extent Badfinger, and then with Dark Horse through to the mid '70s, his solo career is only half the story. (This is what makes Simon Leng's book so essential, because it becomes obvious how much time and effort Harrison put into these acts, and Splinter especially.) Working with Ronnie Spector, Badfinger and Shankar (the Raga soundtrack) all took precedence over any need to follow up All Things Must Pass in early 1971, just as helping Ringo on "Back off Boogaloo" and promoting Raga and Gary Wright's Footprint did at the end of the year while Harrison was dealing with hassles associated with the Bangladesh live album and film. Big gap again between Material World and Dark Horse while Harrison gave priority to Shankar Family & Friends, Ringo, establishing Splinter and overseeing the Music Festival from India. As so many writers have observed (with varying degrees of compassion), he indirectly sabotaged his solo career in the process. Aside from what I think is a need to discuss these extracurricular projects briefly in the article, a Production and session work section would allow for a bit more detail on Dark Horse Records, which I think I'm right in saying currently gets a mention with Harrison's Thirty Three & 1/3 album but nothing more. Also a chance to mention FPSHOT (for a while the best home studio in the world – Clayson or Madinger & Easter, I don't know).
Hinduism
  • Hallucinogenic drugs were Harrison's doorway to meditation and Hinduism. This would definitely be the place to mention Harrison's abhorrence of fame and Beatlemania, leading to his search for a profound truth. (I'm sure there's plenty in the Anthology book, I Me Mine, the interviews reproduced in RS Press' Harrison, the Gilmore piece at the start of that book, and elsewhere.)
  • Harrison on first taking LSD: "LSD was just like opening the door – and before, you didn't even know that there was a door there ... I had this lingering thought that just stayed with me after that, and that thought was 'Yogis of the Himalayas'." – Olivia Harrison, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, p. 190 (this quote appears in Anthology p 233, but it's been edited, like a number of the Beatles' earlier comments; the original, from 1987 I think, is what he actually said in interview, and it's got that great "opening the door" phrase.)
  • As with Harrison's championing of Indian music, he became synonymous with the surge of Western interest in meditation and Eastern spirituality, including Hinduism – pls note: you definitely need to mention TM. Anthology, IMM? Also, on that point about Harrison's influence, in Leng's words, he became the "single-handed catalyst for a generation's interest in Indian culture. It's a rarely mentioned truism that there would have been no New Age books, shops, courses of study, and other products around the cities of the globe without the strong influence of Harrison's intensely personal, but paradoxically public, quest for spiritual truth." – Leng p. 44
  • I mentioned above about Harrison's role in leading the Beatles into meditation with the Maharishi, first at Bangor and then Rishikesh. Also, that he appeared on David Frost's TV show (with Lennon) promoting meditation. This show caused so much interest that they were invited back to take part in a debate with a number of scholars, religious leaders and others (one of whom was Juan Mascaró). I gather that this was a big deal, especially as Harrison and Lennon renounced drugs on the first show and suggested that meditation was the high that Western youth were really after. I'm sure Greene handles this, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's not a full page dedicated to it in Anthology; any book discussing the Beatles' career in any detail should provide a reference. If nothing else, it might be an idea to state that Harrison turned his back on the acid scene – which happened after he made a visit to Haight-Ashbury in August 1967 (Gilmore, p. 37).
  • Gilmore on the influence among fellow artists: "In the hotbed of late 1960s hippie culture, Harrison's spiritual interest spread like wildfire – to other musicians and groups (including the Beach Boys, Mick Jagger and Donovan) and to much of American and British youth." – Mikal Gilmore's essay in The Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison, p. 36
  • Autobiography of a Yogi was a particularly important book to Harrison (Clayson p 206). I've read so much comment on this ... I know he presented Henry Kissinger with a copy in 1976 (that's in a '76 piece in Harrison.)
  • Please note also that comment I made above, with details now added: Harrison was never an ISKCON devotee as such, he made that clear in interviews (Clayson p 267), and Olivia stresses the point, that many claimed him but he did not belong to any one spiritual organisation, in her introduction to Rolling Stone Press's Harrison (pp 10–11).
Arb break 2
edit
Family and friends
  • I think it was one of you two (or was it Tim Riley?) who pointed out that the lead-in's mention of Harrison's friendship with Eric Clapton should go. It's gone now, and that's good, but this subsection also appears to put that friendship up on a pedestal. (Again, as with the songwriting, guitar and Indian music sections that contain[ed] no reference to anything post-1970, this seems to add to the feeling that much of this article is coming from a purely Beatles focus – Eric played with the Beatles, it must be important.) If you agree that the suggested Production and session work section is needed, everything about "Badge", guesting on Goodbye, "L'Angelo Misterioso", can move there. That'll certainly lessen the attention the (undoubtedly important) friendship gets here.
Some other notable friendships – and honestly, there is so much that could go in a subsection dedicated to family & friends. Leng repeatedly points out the importance of friendship in Harrison's activities and notes how those he interviewed were aware that friendship drove all his career choices. Assembling the Bangladesh cast at such short notice, all driven by friendship, for instance – both in Hari's response to Shankar's plea, and in Dylan and Clapton pulling themselves out of whatever state of ennui they were in, out of their friendship with Harrison; and they all had the opportunity to pull out of the album and film if things turned out badly, because Harrison didn't want to sacrifice good friendships. (That's in Madinger & Easter, Clayson, I Me Mine, and any book discussing Concert for BD in any detail.) So many other examples of this: the 1974 tour, the whole HandMade ethos, the Traveling Wilburys. I'm thinking too of Olivia Harrison's comments towards the end of the Scorsese doc, about how "quite unabashed" George was about expressing his love for his friends; also Terry Gilliam's point in the same film about how Harrison had so many friends via his different interests – Gilliam talks about musicians, comedians, film people, motor-racing people – and how they'd all get together at Friar Park and pretend they were "grown-ups". To me, that's a side of Harrison that's quite well known and much discussed.
JG66, please try to keep in mind that this is only an overview article with which we have about 20–25 pages to cover everything, it's not a book in which we could use several hundred pages. The article is currently over 11,000 words long, which is really starting to push the limit to where Evan and I will likely end up spending time down the road trimming it back to please future reviewers who complain that it's too long. I urge you to consider starting some Harrison sub-articles for all these excellent excess details, such as George Harrison and Hinduism and Musical career of George Harrison, which could have a "Studio sessions" and a "Musical collaborations" subsection where you could go into extensive detail. Also, TMK, Clapton was Harrison's best friend, is that an inaccurate assumption IYO? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Response to recent parts of JG66's review

Hi, JG. I'll be bolding the above heading so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. First, thanks for all the comments you've given during the duration of the FAC. While we haven't implemented all of them, I think they've each given us different things to think about in the improvement of the article. It would not be as good as it is now without your input. At this point, though, I am going to make the judgement call that the article is exactly as long as it needs to be. The others here can feel free to overrule me if they think that's not the case, but that's my opinion right now. With the exception of a handful of your suggestions above that relate to clarity and prose quality, I think the content and coverage itself is in the condition in which it ought to be. There are a plethora of other facts about Harrison's life that we could include, but as some have mentioned below, the article is already at a length greater than that with which many people are comfortable.

I have read all the comments on this page, even those I haven't responded to directly. The vital aspects of a biography are covered here, and with respect I think some of your more recent comments are mainly extraneous material that would be better suited to be showcased at sub-articles, as Gabe has mentioned, where in-depth material can take center stage, as opposed to this article, which needs to comply with WP:SUMMARY. I still intend to add a brief mention of the "Henley mafia" factoid, as well as a short statement regarding his friendship with Bob Dylan in the appropriate sub-section, and I will go through all your recent comments once more to see if I've missed anything that would fit in well. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • First up, Ravi Shankar surely. Harrison on meeting Ravi in June 1966: "I could meet anybody [during the Beatles years]. I could go in all the film stars' houses and meet Elvis and everybody ... but I never met one person who really impressed me. The first person who ever impressed me in my life was Ravi Shankar, and he was the only person who didn't try to impress me." – quoted in Olivia Harrison, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, p. 216
  • "Ravi Shankar is probably the person who has influenced my life the most." – Harrison, quoted in booklet accompanying Ravi Shankar–George Harrison Collaborations
  • From all I've read, Jim Keltner and Klaus Voormann really stand out for their decades-long friendships with Harrison. Through his interviews with Leng, and more recently in the Scorsese doc (and others less well known), Voormann has come to be seen as something of a GH spokesman, I think. Keltner has been very vocal about his and Harrison's friendship: "With George there was a closeness, like really, truly, a brother." (quoted in The Editors of Rolling Stone, p. 231); a lovely quote in that Lavezzoli interview with Keltner, but I just can't find it now – something about "George cherished our friendship – and I cherished that he cherished our friendship." So I'd include a general comment, supported by a Leng ref (because I know he does discuss Harrison's many friendships and particularly these two), that Harrison amassed many friends in the music business and give Keltner and Voormann as examples.
  • As with the ukulele connection (George Formby Society, etc), I don't know if this point registers much in America, but Harrison became quite well known as a member of the so-called "Henley music mafia" – a group of Oxfordshire-based semi-retired rock stars. Joe Brown, Alvin Lee, Jon Lord, Mick Ralphs, Ian Paice were in the mafia too (Clayson, pp 299, 390; Leng, pp 229, 239). Harrison would occasionally play unannounced pub gigs with them, starting in the late 1970s. (I think it was the Giuliano book that first introduced the mafia, but I must admit I haven't bothered to read that bio.) I think the Henley mafia warrants a mention, because these friendships thrived, I gather, while Harrison was living out of the public eye, gardening at Friar Park, so it would seem to fit a Family & friends theme. I'd suggest introducing the term, but only naming Joe Brown and perhaps Alvin Lee.
  • This is a good point. I seem to remember reading something on the "Henley mafia" point in Leng at some point in the past, but I can't find it at the moment. I'll keep looking, and if you can find a ref on the Henley mafia before I do, let me know and I'll be glad to add a brief mention to the article. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd mention Bob Dylan also. Their friendship was out of the public eye, save for some obvious exceptions, but Harrison really was Bob's cheerleader squad for decades, and by others' reports (Keltner, Petty, Olivia), it was definitely a close bond. (I'm thinking especially of a great quote from Tom Petty in his tribute towards the end of the Harrison book – something about Petty saying to Harrison, "I can't believe you just said that to Bob", and Harrison replying "Well, I can say those things to Bob – but you can't!" I would just mention that Harrison and Dylan shared a friendship and give an example of how much George admired his work – a well-known quote from 1987 interview with Anthony DeCurtis: "There's not a lot of people in the world who I see from a historical point of view. Five hundred years from now, looking back in history, I think he will still be the man." (The Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison, p. 146)
Interests
  • If, only if, you wanted a quote to go with discussion about Friar Park, there's quite an effective one from Harrison's later years: "Sometimes I feel like I'm actually on the wrong planet, and it's great when I'm in my garden, but the minute I go out the gate I think: 'What the hell am I doing here?'" – quoted in Olivia Harrison, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, p. 357. (I certainly wouldn't suggest you add it if you're worried that there might be too many quotes now; there are others that are far more important to include.)
  • I'd add that Harrison's other friends in the racing fraternity included former F1 champions Niki Lauda and Emerson Fittipaldi, and designer Gordon Murray. (Clayson p 367 quotes George describing Lauda and Fittipaldi (along with Jody Scheckter) as "the gang" – actually taken from I Me Mine perhaps). As far as a reference for Murray goes, there's a picture of Harrison and Murray hugging in between two pages of text where Murray talks about Harrison's interest in racing cars (Olivia Harrison, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, pp 338–40), but it's friendship by implication, as for all those that offer their recollections in the book – nowhere does it actually state the obvious: "George and Gordon were good friends." Is that a problem?
  • Also mention, I suggest, that Harrison financed 1996 world champion Damon Hill at the start of his career. – Hill quoted in Olivia Harrison, George Harrison: Living in the Material World, p. 336
  • For this topic, I'd like to echo what Gabe said earlier: These are all great and interesting facets of Harrison's life, but I'm not entirely certain mentioning the particulars of his involvement with the Formula One sport makes the article more complete. There are other articles where such info could belong, and articles that probably should be created, as Gabe mentioned, but for this article I think the information is surplus to requirements. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Humanitarian work
  • Have you put that UNICEF award in somewhere? "Child Is the Father of Man" or something – look under June 1972 in Badman.
I haven't re-read before saving, so I hope it all makes sense ... JG66 (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here's the rest – solo-work sections and anything else I might've missed earlier on.
Early solo work: 1968–1970
  • Minor issue: Wonderwall "[r]eleased on 1 November 1968" – might it need clarifying that this date is for UK release only?
  • I might try to tighten up the text re Harrison's work with Preston and Troy, if that's okay. It's simply GH's immersion in gospel and soul that I thought needed pointing out. I think the two sentences that are there currently can be condensed into one.
All Things Must Pass
  • With text at the end of the Beatles section mentioning "Harrison's increased productivity ... the Beatles' reluctance to include his songs on their albums ... a considerable stockpile of unreleased compositions" and then the opening phrase here, "After years of being restricted in his songwriting contributions to the Beatles ... such a large outpouring of Harrison's songs" (plus "Harrison often had difficulty getting the band to record his songs" in the Songwriting section), I'm still surprised that specifics aren't given at any point regarding these rejected compositions. Again, "Isn't It a Pity" and "All Things Must Pass" come to mind as examples of major Harrison compositions that are not only interpreted as comments on the demise of the band, but (along with the likes of "Let It Down") they're also viewed as being superior to much of what was deemed acceptable for inclusion on the White Album or Let It Be – I'm thinking especially of comments from Sulpy & Schweighardt in their Get Back book, aside from Harrison biographers. It's just seeing those repeated general references to songs of Harrison's being overlooked that adds a new take on this.
  • Repetition again, with "a critical and commercial success" here after "the commercially successful and critically acclaimed All Things Must Pass" at end of Early solo work. Seeing this overlap, again I'd suggest some specifics here instead – mention the album's status as the best selling of all Beatle solo albums and, to some reviewers, the best?
  • The MSL plagiarism suit is certainly handled better than before. Might give some thought to further streamlining, though, along with the Preston–Troy issue.
The Concert for Bangladesh
  • Please note I've changed this heading to reflect the charity-project nature of this venture. The term "the Concert for Bangladesh" is widely viewed as not only the two August 1971 shows, but the delayed live album (1972 release in UK, and everywhere in fact bar US and perhaps Canada) and the spring '72 (summer in Europe) release for Saul Swimmer's concert film; not to mention Harrison's negotiations with record companies and involvement with government departments during this period. If you think the addition of a second year in the heading might cause confusion, perhaps change to The Concert for Bangladesh aid project: 1971–1972, but I can't see that there's a problem, the way it looks now.
  • "The aim of the event was to raise money to aid the starving refugees" – as the Harrison quote states below (and supported by no end of books on the subject), the main aim was to draw attention to the situation, to raise awareness. The live album and 1972 film were always going to be the money spinners, the way I understand it, so this sentence needs rewording.
  • "Ravi Shankar opened the proceedings" – might be an idea to include Ali Akbar Khan here. Leng mentions the "supergroup" nature of the Shankar/Khan/Allah Rakha combination, as did some concert reviewers at the time.
  • "Clapton, who made his first public appearance in months (his long absence being due to a heroin addiction which began when Derek and the Dominos broke up)" – I still find this whole mention unnecessary, in a George Harrison article, especially in light of what doesn't appear to merit inclusion (as mentioned in my initial comments above). And "first public appearance in months" is hardly a "long absence" – Derek & the Dominos toured the US in November and December 1970 (might've returned in early months of 1971, I don't know) and did a brief UK tour in 1971, ending in March, I believe. If there is a long absence, it's Starr making his first genuine concert performance since August 1966, but again, I think that's trivial compared to what could be said of this event.
  • "While the concert was seen as a success at the time" – aside from the fact that the reference provided doesn't actually support anything in this sentence, the concerts are still seen as a success. Ever more so, I suggest: [5], [6] and [7]. Of course the tax issues and other obstacles should be mentioned, but the current wording is reflective of the situation pre-1981, before the IRS audit of Apple was completed. (I half expected to see a Schaffner pp 147–48 reference for this sentence or some other viewpoint from later in the 1970s.) I suggested reworking the sentence (in my 5 January comments on The Concert for Bangladesh, above these) to show that: yes, unforeseen business issues clouded the project, but it was still a huge success. Comments from Kofi Annan and Charles J. Lyons in the documentary accompanying the 2005 DVD release bring it home how pioneering the project was – Harrison and Shankar went in blind, with no blueprint to follow, and the business and tax problems were symptomatic of that. (This is what makes the point about inspiration/model/blueprint for Live Aid and other events so straightforward, especially as Bob Geldof consulted Harrison about the financial side in 1985.) Lyons mentions the practical benefits that immediately resulted in 1971, long before the full $12 million was released by the US government, because the effect on youth culture around the world automatically put governments on the spot. As Jann Wenner observes in an interview on the DVD, the success of the concerts was making people believe that good things were possible (that "brief incandescent revival" of the 1960s quote I think I mentioned above); and even in 1981, before the cheque for all proceeds was presented to UNICEF the following year, Bob Woffinden wrote "The subsequent duplicity and financial shenanigans never detracted from the mythic qualities of the event itself." (Woffinder, The Beatles Apart, 1981, p. 51.)
  • This point, tied in with the unnecessary mention of Clapton's heroin habit, makes it more apparent that Harrison's standing as a result of this project deserves some comment. Schaffner writes "aside from enhancing George's reputation as the real hero to emerge from the wreckage of the Beatles" and further comments on this situation in 1973 (pp 147–48, 159); similar praise come at the end of that 1971 Village Voice concert review. Way more important than the inter-Beatle comparisons, though, Harrison was lauded for organising the event. Rolling Stone referred to the concerts as "rock reaching for its manhood" (much to Keith Richards' amusement, according to that Chris O'Dell memoir(!)), and the album review concludes: "As much as the music contained within the package, the spirit he creates through his own demeanor is inspirational. From the personal point of view, Concert for Bangla Desh was George's moment. He put it together; and he pulled it off, and for that he deserves the admiration of all of us." As Easy-with-the-quotes-Eugene as I've been recently, I think that one might be worth including – but, as always, a general statement covering the point would be much more preferable. (Another possibility, but it's another quote, might be Woffinden's comment that, with disillusion growing with each post-Woodstock event, the concerts served as a "rediscovery of faith" and that "Harrison had put rock music back on course." (Woffinden, p. 51.)) There was so much said in praise of this event, and not just the concert but the whole project, which Harrison later said took "two years solid" of his life (Clayson, pp 315−16) – hence the long delay until Material World.
  • The Bill Harry quote should be replaced with a general statement, I suggest, stating a point that I don't think can possibly be questioned. My suggested wording would be: "The Concert for Bangladesh is acknowledged as having provided the inspiration and model for subsequent benefit concerts such as Live Aid and Farm Aid in 1985, as well as similar events in the twenty-first century including Concert for New York City and Live 8." As for references, Gilmore serves for Live Aid, Farm Aid and Concert for NYC (Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison, p. 43); this Gadfly Online piece credits Harrison with providing the blueprint for "Live Aid, Farm Aid, the Concert for Kampuchea, Neil Young's charity shows, and the recent Concert for New York"; a 2011 Guardian piece directly credits the concert for having been a model for Live Aid, while going on to discuss Live 8; on that Concert for Bangladesh official website, there's: "The groundbreaking Concert for Bangladesh and its award-winning double album and feature film releases have since inspired other major, entertainment-led charitable initiatives, including Bob Geldof’s LIVE AID and LIVE8, Willie Nelson’s Farm Aid, and Hope For Haiti Now." To repeat, there is nothing contentious about this issue.
Living in the Material World to George Harrison
  • That opening statement "Harrison would not again release an album that came close to the critical and commercial achievements of All Things Must Pass" is pretty sweeping – "came close" invites interpretation as to whether critical reaction or sales have approached those of ATMP. On one level (a non-encyclopaedic tone), I can see it's not inaccurate, but taken literally (this being an encyclopaedia), the issue's open to debate. The qualification of Material World 's commercial success in the next sentence – "Although 1973's Living in the Material World initially did well" – accentuates the problem, I think. Living in the Material World sales would only have had to total a third of All Things Must Pass in the main market of America to match the 1970 album commercially (i.e., allowing for RIAA policy of tripling number of copies of a 3-disc album sold to create a figure for sales "units"). It's a difficult thing to measure because the only sales figures that I've come across for the two albums aren't really comparable; but even then, it can be seen as a close-run thing. All Things Must Pass was said to have sold 6 million (6x platinum) in the US alone, in March 2001, following its successful 30th anniversary reissue [8]; LITMW had sold 3 million worldwide by 2003, before its reissue three years later (ie, according to Bill Harry's 2003 Harrison Encyclopaedia, quoted in Tillery p 112). LITMW hasn't been certified platinum, and I'm surprised by that (although I realise the certification is/was artist-driven; from what I've read, in the 1970s a request had to be made to the RIAA to carry out an audit, but a gold disc was the big deal anyway). LITMW sold extremely well in the US, number 1 for five weeks, but fell out of the Billboard 200 relatively quickly compared to ATMP and Concert for BD (Japanese site for Billboard albums trajectories: [9]). Chart trajectory in the other main market, Britain, did peter off very quickly after a few weeks in the top 5; this site(Link redirected to OCC website) used to provide full chart stats until recently (the lawyers moved in). Anyway, sales were disappointing in the UK (according to Woffinden, for one) and while it's nothing more than supposition, my guess would be that at least half – I'm tempted to think two-thirds given the brief chart run in the UK, the only other main market – of any international sales total for the album would be American sales. Which would seem to make it 1.5 million (pre reissue) versus an equivalent 2 million for All Things Must Pass (but after reissue, of course). Huntley makes the point that the success of ATMP in 2001 surprised everyone – the record company had seriously underestimated demand and all stock sold out immediately. I think there's an argument there that sales of at least one subsequent album did come close to matching All Things Must Pass. (Cloud Nine didn't do too badly either.) Here are some comments on the success of the 1973 album: "George continued his status as the most commercially successful ex-Beatle with his follow-up to All Things Must Pass ... In terms of its sales, it was an enormous success" (Madinger & Easter p 439); "with Living in the Material World doing as well as its bulkier predecessor, he was still on much of a winning streak" (Clayson p 328); "Material World chalked up another massive commercial success for George" (Schaffner p 160). I think its reputation as anything less than a commercial success is all part of that "forgotten blockbuster" status Leng refers to (p 124), Bruce Eder seems to imply the same thing – it's simply that Harrison didn't repackage it and promote it in the '90s, so it was never "sold" to the CD generation the way McCartney's and Lennon's back catalogues were during that decade. Another thing to mention, going back to that "came close to" statement that referred also to critical success, Rolling Stone gave Living in the Material World the best on-release review I think I've ever seen for an ex-Beatle: "miraculous in its radiance". (By the way, if anyone's got an alternative take on that RIAA sales calculation, I'd welcome hearing it. I admit I could well have missed something.)
  • The other thing to say about LITMW is that it's covered very quickly here. Biographers and some critics rate it very highly – for the high standard of the compositions, Harrison's singing, and his guitar playing. (If his superior slide work can be mentioned under Guitar work, then fine, no need for anything here on that point.) I do think an extra sentence or two would be justified. The album has these twin themes, roughly speaking: life in the material world (represented most obviously by his Beatle past) vs his spiritual goals. Perhaps just a brief mention of the song "Living in the Material World" will do the trick on that score, because it's provides such obvious lyrical and musical contrast in the rocky vs blissed-out sections. (Plenty in Leng, of course.) The other thing I'd add is that Harrison was producing alone.
  • I've reworded (disgust to dismay) for "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" – biographers note a lot of comedy in the song. I know Rolling Stone called it a "Lennonist diatribe" or something, but more accurately, Harrison was ridiculing the situation, he wasn't out to crucify anyone.
  • With Dark Horse, it would be good to mention its more American sound. Seems that sentence "The tour's backing band was fronted by Tom Scott ..." belongs down with discussion of the tour, under Live performances, no? (I definitely think that tour needs a bit more discussion, so I'd cut the text here.) Also, "Ding Dong" made the top 40 in both the UK and the US. The mention that both "Dark Horse" and the album failed to chart in the UK is not incorrect but it doesn't state the true situation exactly. Lead single in the UK and much of Europe was "Ding Dong", which did chart, while the album did not. In the UK "Dark Horse" was a follow-up single, in early 1975, the first time a second single had been taken from a Harrison album there; in other words, the song "Dark Horse" not charting there wasn't quite the disaster that is implied in the text. As far as stating the situation in the UK, comparable with the US one, Ding Dong made the top 40 and the Dark Horse album did not chart (which yes, was a big disaster).
  • Extra Texture: It would be good if you could squeeze in (in the first sentence) a mention of it incorporating soul music influences.
  • Thirty Three & 1/3: Good to see this one gets a bit more attention. I'd add that it featured Tom Scott in an assistant producer's role. (The more I think about it, it's good that Scott's now included among Associated acts. Like Barham, Preston, Spector, Lynne, Scott's involvement with Harrison was more musical collaboration than a case of hired hand or session musician.) Also, I suggest you qualify that "most favourable critical notices" point by saying "in America"; UK critics were besotted with punk at the time and I don't think the album drew the same praise there.
  • George Harrison: I'd mention that this was another highly rated album, especially in the UK – I'm sure Leng talks about it being warmly received. (Funnily enough, that Allmusic review in your reference is the worst write-up I've ever seen for the GH album; the reviewer's got it wrong about "LA-made" that's for sure.) I've got a comment from a Rolling Stone journalist on its warm reception in the UK, but it's from a subscriber site, Rock's Back Pages.
  • No mention of Olivia yet, I think I'm right in saying, which is suddenly obvious when Dhani's mentioned.
  • The final paragraph belongs in the Production and session work section I've suggested above. I can't remember if I said it before, but the new section would give you a chance to mention Dark Horse Records, and FPSHOT also.
Somewhere in England to Cloud Nine
  • I suppose the division within the Solo work section is based on the new decade. Does make for a short subsection here, though, especially with cuts I'm suggesting below. Not only that, but a truer division would be to begin with the George Harrison album (1978, Dhani born, all calm domestically); perhaps that would be too difficult to achieve, I don't know. Actually, another (better) choice for a Harrison "era" would be 1976 onwards, the start of his time on Dark Horse Records and a period that clearly contrasts with the full-on, front-line 1970–75 years; he described himself as "semi-retired" from 1976 onwards (Clapton said that of him also). The picture I have of Harrison with regards to eras after the Beatles' break-up is: 1970–75 (it's '74 maybe, but there's a logic in tagging the final Apple album on as well); 1976–82 (Dark Horse artist and, being his own label boss, he can make an album as and when, albeit subject to Warner Bros. quality control); 1987–92 (the comeback years; okay, there's only one studio solo album within that period, but the Wilburys are viewed as a quasi Harrison solo project to a great extent). This issue, regarding division into distinct eras, becomes more relevant because of the Live performances subsection, which covers the years 1971 until 1992, yet that subsection is sitting within a section covering 1968 to only 1987. More on this below.
  • This first paragraph is a problem, I think. Way too much detail, particularly as the perceived IMM slight is covered again under Relationships with the other Beatles. After "Harrison had had little contact with Lennon in the years before the murder", I'd move straight on to what is currently the second para, into discussion of the song. In fact, it might be an idea to move the sentence "Originally slated for release in late 1980, Dark Horse distributor Warner Bros. had rejected the album" up to the very start of this subsection, and then approach Lennon's death from there (ie closer to a chronological order of events). I'd remove mention of Somewhere's cover also – that's definitely one for the album article.
  • Remove that sentence "In 1981, Harrison played guitar on one track of Mick Fleetwood's record The Visitor ...", I suggest. Because, either session work is to be discussed chronologically in the Solo work section or it's not – that's how I see it. Plus, there are way more significant collaborations than these two (in the '70s) that don't get a mention at all right now.
  • Instead, how about saying that he busied himself with HandMade film projects around this time (minimal detail obviously, to avoid making later section redundant), and he provided soundtrack scores for Time Bandits (1981) and Shanghai Surprise (1986)? This would mean that the mention of Harrison's contributions to Time Bandits and Shanghai Surprise soundtracks needs to be removed from the HandMade Films section, of course.
  • Suggest you rework the order of that sentence "Aside from a song on the Porky's Revenge soundtrack in 1985 ...", because it reads like Gone Troppo's been forgotten about. (I spent the first two-thirds/three-quarters of the sentence going "Yes, he did! He did Gone Tr–– oh okay, there it is ..." !)
  • Reducing this subsection even further, it seems all discussion on the Carl Perkins TV special belongs under Live Performances, surely, consistent with inclusion there of the 1971 Dick Cavett guest spot.
Live performances: 1971–1992
  • Further to earlier comment, the dates in this subsection heading mean that it doesn't work within the section hierarchy right now, under a main heading of "Solo career: 1968–1987". I can see it's difficult to juggle everything into its correct category, and the subject of live performances does merit a separate discussion, especially as Harrison performed live so rarely (a point that's not stated in the text right now, incidentally). I don't want to create major problems here, but noting how the dates don't correspond, and yet how the years 1991–92 were the most significant period for his live work, in terms of him making semi-regular concert appearances as opposed to a dedicated two months of concerts on the 1974 tour, I can't help looking for a solution within the whole structure of "Solo career: 1968–1987" and "Later life: 1988–2001". A way to make everything work, I suggest, would be to have that first section heading as "Solo career: 1968–1992", with the Wilburys 1988–90 as one of the subsections and "Live performances: 1971–1992" as another. The other section heading would be "Later life: 1993–2001" obviously, which would cover a much shorter timeframe than is currently the case and allow for that general mop-up of his activities – Beatles Anthology subsection; TV appearance and Chants collaboration with Shankar; ATMP reissue and recording Brainwashed, etc – through to his death in 2001. In other words, it would allow for a different approach from the one adopted in the Solo career section, where a TV appearance (Dick Cavett Show 1971) is included within a standalone subsection on Live performances. The suggested Production and session work piece could be a subsection within "Solo career: 1968–1992", so (again) allowing for post-'92 session work to be handled differently in the "Later life" section. Alternatively, Production and session work, and Live performances could be pulled right out of any chronological setting, like Guitar work and Songwriting. It seems that the start of Wilburys activity in 1988 has dictated the current "Solo career" cut-off after 1987, would that be right? Personally, I wouldn't worry about that – there's plenty to suggest that for Harrison, and only Harrison of all the band members, the TWs was closer to a solo-career activity than a distinct extracurricular project, as for Dylan or Petty. For what it's worth, I think 1992 is a perfect place/time to close a section, certainly better than 1987 – all those activities and projects through 1989 ("Cheer Down"/Best of Dark Horse; guesting on albums by Petty, Clapton, Carlisle and others) and perhaps to 1991–92 are definitely part of a sustained comeback period that began in 1987. Whereas recording with Carl Perkins and guesting on Ringo's 1998 album are examples of a period that's defined by sporadic music activity, from 1993 onwards, which then gets noticeably more busy in the final year or more of Harrison's life. Quite a bit to consider with this timeframe/heading hierarchy issue, but whichever route appeals most to you, it seems something has to be done.
  • I would state at the start of this section that after the two Concert for Bangladesh shows in August 1971, Harrison's live performances were relatively rare. (Seems odd not to have mentioned Concert for BD at all, in passing, given the title "Live performances: 1971–1992".)
  • In first sentence discussing 1974 tour, perhaps "only tour of the United States and Canada as a solo artist"?
  • "Critics and fans panned the shows ..." This is a tricky point, although I do have Greene's book so I know he says this, and I'm sure Doggett does too, along with countless other authors. This is all to do with what Leng calls the "given view" of the 1974 Harrison–Shankar tour, in that in the years since, commentators have consistently been over-influenced by the widely syndicated Rolling Stone pieces by the likes of Ben Fong-Torres (both in print and on US radio), Larry Sloman and Jim Miller. On the other hand, absolutely glowing reviews (as reproduced in Leng pp 160–65) don't appear to have had any bearing on the tour's legacy. That's not to say that the concerts didn't receive a fair number of other harsh reviews besides the higher-profile critiques of Fong-Torres and others, notably at the start until Long Beach, I gather, and again towards the end, for some of the New York shows, when Harrison was obviously exhausted and completely over the whole thing. Leng worked with what I understand is an international collective of Harrison fans, the Harrison Alliance, who presumably have collected each and every print article on Harrison over the years, good or bad. Leng includes plenty of the really nasty reviews also, and it's not as if his view of the tour is all rosy, it should be said, but his conclusion (pp 170–75) is that "the majority of reviews were positive, in some cases ecstatic". Robert Rodriguez seems to pick up on this in his 2010 book Fab Four FAQ 2.0: "Smaller press outlets without axes to grind tended to review the shows the best, whereas rock establishment coverage, such as Rolling Stone 's, tended to spin the the tour as something close to an unmitigated disaster" (p 59). As with so many facts or myths connected to the Beatles, I'd put this '74 tour issue in with those that one has to be discerning about when it comes to which source to use as a reference, or you could say, which version of the truth to go with. As examples, it's still possible to find books crediting Harrison with the guitar solo on "Taxman" or Preston with the organ part on "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"; in the otherwise excellent Lavezzoli book, the author mentions "My Sweet Lord"'s "exquisite Eric Clapton[!] slide solo", just as the old myth regarding Boyd and Clapton appearing on "Bye Bye Love" continues to be recycled by the likes of Badman, Harrison biographers Greene and Dale Allison, and Allmusic's Richard Ginell. As an example of this Rolling Stone view of the tour being adopted and providing a distorted picture, Ian Inglis states that (similar to Greene, and Doggett's conclusion, I would imagine): "Although it received some positive reviews, the majority of reaction to the tour was negative." The problem with this statement is that Inglis provides as a source Feng-Torres' "Lumbering in the Material World" (as reproduced in edited form in The Editors of Rolling Stone, Harrison) – it's a "problem" because Feng-Torres' article only covered the early portion of the tour, up to and including Los Angeles (that is, show 10 of 45), so it can't possibly serve as a picture of critical reception tour-wide. To save cluttering up the discussion here, perhaps we could take this to one of our talk pages if necessary. The point is that only Leng has researched the subject enough to come up with a reliable conclusion. There's way more one could add on this issue, but right now I wanted to flag that wording – certainly, "fans panned the shows" is not correct. (I'm thinking of that sentence in Schaffner's book: "Strawberry Fields Joe Pope was deluged with letters protesting the nasty reviews." (p 178))
  • As mentioned re Dark Horse, text on Tom Scott as band leader belongs here, and I'd say also that Preston was a featured performer. Relevant to a point I made a couple of days back, under "Sitar and Indian music", this tour has received some recognition as a precursor to the world music genre; perhaps some Beatles books don't get this point across, but Harrison gave Ravi Shankar equal billing and the shows were revolutionary in combining Indian music, jazz, funk and rock during the Shankar segments (on which Harrison, Scott, Emil Richards and others played also). Leng (p 167 onwards) discusses this in some detail. Could be another subject for discussion on talk pages; the music and musicianship on the tour is generally recognised as having been excellent – and the combination of this being the first US tour by a Beatle since 1966 and also Harrison's refusal to play ball and be Beatle George ("the anti-Paul", Rodriguez calls him) shouldn't be underestimated.
  • It appears as if the aim of this Live performances subsection is to list each and every Harrison live appearance during this period, is that right? It needn't of course, but then there's nothing stating that any of these occurred "among other guest spots" – it's easy to assume that the text here is providing a history of Harrison's live work during 1971–92. There's a few gigs I can think of that are missing, and some of them are more notable and more typical of Harrison's musical associations than that December 1992 benefit for Jeff Porcaro's family. Regardless of completeness, Harrison's appearance on stage with Dylan, John Fogerty and Jesse Ed Davis at a Taj Mahal LA club gig in early 1987 might be worth mentioning instead; same with playing with Deep Purple in Sydney (or somewhere in Australia) in 1984 (the Henley Music Mafia link: Jon Lord and Ian Paice) – or how about guesting along with Roger McGuinn at a couple of Bob Dylan/Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers' UK shows in October 1987?
Later life: 1988–2001
  • "Starr did not actually play on the track; Harrison played slide guitar." Harrison played acoustic guitar, as credited on the album. The "excellent slide guitar work" that the Allmusic reviewer mentions is by Mike Campbell.
Fixed. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Traveling Wilburys: 1988–1990
  • It would be good to add that Jim Keltner, Jim Horn and Ray Cooper all contributed as "Sideburys" (or whatever the term was), and state that all three were musical associates of Harrison's from previous projects/solo albums. This is partly to establish/introduce Keltner; also because Horn and Ray Cooper were definitely personnel that Harrison brought to the collective.
HandMade Films
  • I think you could state that Harrison got Ray Cooper to be HandMade's head of development and production, or "to be me in the office" as Cooper recalled recently of Harrison's job offer (Olivia Harrison's book, p. 324). I had thought of suggesting that Cooper be added with Keltner and Voormann under Friends & family; I'm still thinking he should perhaps ... But this addition along with the one under the Wilburys ensures that Cooper's got a presence in the article (which is only right, as they had a long association/friendship through music and film).
Article lead-in
  • In second para, I'd reword first sentence to end "from 1965's Help!, their albums contained an average of two Harrison compositions". I think that's a truer picture of the situation than looking across the Beatles' work from early 1963, because it's clear he didn't start writing with any seriousness until two years (and four albums) later.
  • In the examples of Harrison-written Beatle songs, I'd make the list: "Taxman", "Within You Without You", "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun". Taxman because it's an example of a well-known Harrison song from the Beatles' classic mid period; Within You Without You because of its originality and legacy (as reflected in the attention it's now given in the article).
  • Instead of naming "What Is Life", I think delete it here but add more regarding My Sweet Lord. It's easily Harrison's most successful single, having sold 5 million copies by 1978. Probably an idea to remove the double A-side mention and "Isn't It a Pity", because although that was true of the single in most countries internationally, it's wasn't the case in Britain, where sales would've contributed significantly to that 5 mill total (it was the biggest-selling single of 1971 there). The reason for suggesting these changes is that inclusion of What Is Life automatically makes one wonder why bigger hits like Give Me Love, All Those Years Ago and Got My Mind Set on You don't rate a mention.
  • "Later, he wrote two hit singles for former Beatle Ringo Starr, as well as songs for the Traveling Wilburys." It's widely acknowledged now (by Ringo also) that George wrote or co-wrote three, with It Don't Come Easy; and Bruce Spizer and others suggest a fourth (Back Off Boogaloo). Perhaps make the point without giving a specific number? And rather than say "as well as songs for the Traveling Wilburys", I would mention his range of production and session work, highlighting as examples Cream, Billy Preston, Plastic Ono Band, Badfinger and Ravi Shankar.
  • I agree with another comment made on this FAC page that Concert for Bangladesh wasn't the first-ever benefit concert, but the change to "an innovative precursor" implies that there was more than one innovative precursor to Live Aid. In fact, as stated in those examples given above, and many other sources, the Concert for BD is recognised as the model, the blueprint, for all subsequent rock charity concerts; I think "an innovative precursor" downplays the situation. Also, I suggest adding a more modern example: "Live Aid and Concert for New York".
  • Perhaps my suggested rewording to mention production and session work will make this point redundant, but as mentioned before, the separate fields (music producer and film producer) need acknowledging instead of the combined "music and film producer". In the infobox also: "Musician, singer, songwriter, music producer, film producer". The two fields/professions are poles apart.
  • Talking of the infobox, if experimental music is included among musical genres (presumably for Electronic Sound), then why isn't synthesizer listed under instruments? There's even more of a case for including synth because he introduced it to the Beatles sound and played some form of synth (Moog, ARP, Prophet or later types) on all of his solo albums except Material World and perhaps Brainwashed.
  • It's good to see world music included in that infobox. But I think the lead-in definitely needs to mention Harrison's achievement in popularising Indian classical music in the West – this and the legacy and influence of the Bangladesh concerts have got to be his biggest achievements, surely – and acknowledge his role in combining musical cultures long before world music arrived in the early '80s. (And no, the mention in this lead-in's second sentence, "... became an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism, introducing it to the other Beatles and to their Western audience", really doesn't get the first of these two points across.)

Okay, I think that's it at last ... JG66 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Finally, in the infobox:

  • why has Hari Georgeson been removed? It was probably a better-known and more widely used GH pseudonym than L'Angelo Misterioso. (Just because you're not aware of this, you delete it? I don't know what happened to the Schaffner ref I added.)
Nicknames and professional akas are not the same thing. Did Harrison ever record under the name Hari Gorgeson? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You could say so, yes. Schaffner p 179; Castleman & Podrazik pp 200–08, 377 for credits for Shankar Family & Friends, first two Splinter albums, Billy Preston's It's My Pleasure; Dark Horse Records press release. JG66 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
"George was delighted to assist his friends, often appearing on their albums under a weak pseudonym, such as 'Hari Georgeson' or just 'George H'" – Clayson p 289. JG66 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • And why no uke and synth under Instruments? They're definitely both instruments with which he's identified. (Again, there's such inconsistency between this and the McCartney article, where drums are listed.)
Please see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Harrison played ukulele on a handful of released compositions ("Devil and the Deep Blue Sea" and...?). McCartney played drums on entire albums (Band on the Run, Memory Almost Full, Flaming Pie, to name a few). There is no comparison there, as I see it, but if others concur that it should be added I am willing to give it further thought. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Under occupations, and also in the article's lead-in, I suggest "record producer and film producer" – as they're totally separate from one another, something that "music and film producer" doesn't get across.
"Record producer" is an archaic term. Most people alive today do not listen to "records", they listen to albums or singles. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Fair point, yes. Aside from that, what I was trying to say was that "music and film" looked wrong, imo. How about "music producer, film producer", as they're such different fields? JG66 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Why has Gnome Records been deleted?
Why should it be included? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Leng p 284: label launched by Harrison specifically for ATMP 2001 reissue. Gnome theme was featured heavily in promotion for album: in graphics on official website (it might still be there) and in press kit, mixed in with Jools Holland's interview. It's there on the back of the album, of course. JG66 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I removed it from the infobox since it wasn't cited in the article body or elsewhere. We can put it back in if it can be sourced and if it was a noteworthy facet of Harrison's career. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Suggest Badfinger, Tom Scott, Ringo Starr, Gary Wright, Alvin Lee, Leon Russell, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty all need to be included under Associated acts. It makes for a long list, I know, but like Eric Clapton, Harrison got around.
This is one of those infobox issues that could go on forever. We don't list everyone the artist ever played with. I added Badfinger and Wright per your suggestion, but Petty and Lynne are covered by the Wilburys. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Gabe on this one. The number of people we could put in the associated acts field is really endless, and we have to draw the line somewhere. Where we can encapsulate band members under an umbrella act (Petty in the Wilburys, Ringo in the Beatles, etc.), we should. Thanks for your comments! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, I can see your point to some extent, and in that Clapton infobox, I can see a few names that could be lost. But when coming up with those additions I suggested here, it wasn't as if I hadn't already been discerning about possible inclusions: one could add Jackie Lomax, Ronnie Spector, Jack Bruce, Cream, Bobby Whitlock, Bobby Keys, Jesse Ed Davis, Harry Nilsson, Ali Akbar Khan, Cilla Black, Ron Wood, Stevie Winwood, Gary Brooker, Bill Wyman, Hall & Oates, Belinda Carlyle, Roy Orbison ... you get the drift, I'm sure! Great to see Badfinger and Wright now added, of course, but I can't help thinking those other names should be included, even though the likes of Starr, Lynne and Petty are covered by other acts listed. Harrison's association with each of those musicians, those "acts", was notable, and not seeing Lynne included just looks wrong, don't you think? And it's not as if, with such a long contents list before the start of the article proper, and plenty of white space directly below the infobox currently (on my screen at least), that the addition of more names would interfere with the layout of the article. Oh dear – adding to this issue, I've just thought: what about Carl Perkins, the Radha Krishna Temple (London)? JG66 (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
According to the infobox documentation, we should only list "groups of which he or she has been a member" and "other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together". Some of the artists you listed may meet those criteria, but I'm not certain of it, so if someone else could look into it I wouldn't necessarily object, as long as we're not bloating it out too much. Radha Krsna Temple is not an "act", as far as I can tell. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Scott, Starr, Lee, Russell, Lynne and Petty all meet the requirement of "other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album". I'm surprised you even need to think about this, Evanh2008, as co-nom on a Harrison FAC, and a bit dismayed that if "someone else" investigates this, you wouldn't be averse to making the inclusions (what's your point?). In the relevant period, 1969–71, the Radha Krishna Temple was ISKCON's UK branch, based mainly in Bury Place, London. "Radha Krsna [or Krishna] Temple (London)" was the name for the act who released the "Hare Krishna Mantra" and "Govinda" singles and an eponymous album – I sort of know what you mean, but if someone or a group of people make a recording and it's released, then they automatically become the "act", much like anyone who's credited with authorship of a published book becomes an author. Looking now at the long list of acts I added as example of other possible (but not suggested) inclusions, I guess I'd remove Cilla Black, as the 1972 single project came to nothing, whereas at least Ronnie Spector got a single out of the abandoned 1971 Apple album; but for every one I pulled out, I bet there'd be one or two more to add – Eric Idle/the Rutles; Monty Python; Gary Moore; Jim Capaldi; Mick Fleetwood; Cheech & Chong; Jools Holland; David Bromberg; Lon & Derrek Van Eaton; John Lennon ... These acts and the ones I've mentioned previously are listed in Greg Kot's "The Other Recordings" piece in Harrison (pp 192–95) and/or in the more thorough All Together Now by Castleman & Podrazik (up to 1975, his busiest period). I wish "someone else" would look into this as well; I wish someone – anyone – would look into all the omissions I've mentioned here, you know? As I said at the very start, I wish you both good luck with this, and I'd way prefer to be saying "Good job, guys, it's perfect – just that one typo in the intro." But I'm pretty well read on this subject. And I'd be pretty alarmed if someone was raising this amount of issues with anything I might take to FAC – but then, I'd be investigating frantically, not manning the defences with talk of OR and being sent on wild goose chases or a preference for someone else to look into an issue. Although I wish it wasn't the case, comparison with that Paul McCartney FA is relevant, and in more ways than one: back then, I kept banging on about an important point that was missing (McCartney's rise to a dominant position over Lennon in 1965–66, in the eyes of many writers); after some to-ing and fro-ing, and once I'd given a precise page number in MacDonald (a book that otherwise seemed very familiar to the nominator), the point was added, the relevant section grew exponentially and I later received a Brilliant Idea barnstar. I don't mean to sound ungrateful for that, just as I'm not insensitive to the fact that comments like this one make me sound like a right big-headed so-and-so. JG66 (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, don't be dismayed; I do know what I'm doing, and have spent a large part of my free time for the past several months tracking down sources for the article, so I am confident I and Gabe will be able to figure something out. I just take exception to loading the infobox up with dozens of acts without input from others. If other reviewers mention it, then I am willing to consider it, but, having had past experience with the FAC process, I find it more likely that we will be asked to trim than to add. That's all. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm confident you both will too. And I hear you, Evanh, on the overloading infobox point – I think I've demonstrated a discerning attitude rather than a list-crazy one. It does seem that Tom Scott, Ringo Starr, Alvin Lee, Leon Russell, Jeff Lynne and Tom Petty belong there, imo – there's quite a connection beyond the he-played-on-my-album-so-I-played-on-his. The fact is, and most of his biographers don't cover this (which limits their understanding of Harrison, imo – he always wanted to be in a band, playing with others, not leading them as a solo artist), Harrison played on and/or produced an amazing number of sessions, while still a Beatle, and then later outside of his solo work. (Heck, the names just keep on comin': Dave Mason.) But the amount of text dedicated to this issue, in messages between you and me (but particularly from me, I admit), rather flatters its importance, I think. There are way more important points to address, and in fact I don't think I'd even have given Associated acts a mention at this early stage if it hadn't been for the removal of Hari Georgeson and Gnome Records from the infobox. (I hope you agree they could now be reinstated? There were GH pseudonyms such as L'Angelo Mysterioso, George O'Hara, George H., George Harrysong, Jai Raj Harisein, P. Roducer, but Hari Georgeson probably got as much use as all of them put together, which is why it was adopted by the press.) JG66 (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I support reinstating any pseudonyms to the infobox that are also worthy of mention within the article itself, yes. Thanks again for your comments, and I do apologize if I come across as difficult or ungrateful for your input. I really am glad that we have someone as knowledgeable as you to critique our work, and I'm sure the article will be much improved for it! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's sweet of you, Evanh. Look, for my part, perhaps I came in a little too all-guns-blazing with my initial comments. I think it's great that you and GabeMc have taken this article on. I remember looking at it a year ago ... and then looking away again! An article like this on George Harrison is so difficult. There are interesting fields such as Indian music and Hindu spirituality that are very difficult to get right unless one's quite well versed in those topics anyway. It's tough! I'm happy to help where I can; the Beatle George, solo artist George, collaborator/producer/record-label boss George, F1-fan George, I think I'm quite strong on. But I do hope someone – you guys or someone out there – can give both Hinduism and Indian music the attention they deserve. JG66 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree that Gnome Records should be reinstated, and if you happen to have a cite on hand for it I can add it right now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hey, great. As above: Leng p 284. JG66 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've added Leon Russell to the Associated acts field and will be checking the article for others mentioned who would also fit there. Lomax is something I would also like to address, so I will look into it. If there are any of your suggestions I and Gabe haven't commented on, let me know and I'll do my best to address it. In particular, if you have any specific ideas as to how Hinduism could be better covered in the article, I'd love to have your input there. I've spent a good portion of my life studying the Abrahamics, but regrettably have little expertise in the Karmic religions. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure, with what I've dug up re Harrison's Indian music contributions for the Beatles section, it's a natural progression to now go on to the later section covering Indian culture, in fact. Just back to an earlier suggestion: I will look into the ukulele issue, because while you're right that its inclusion on his released work is minimal, Harrison was and is strongly identified with the instrument. (I'm thinking of text that Clayson dedicates to this point for the late '80s/early '90s period, Harrison being an ambassador for the uke, involvement with the George Formby Society in the UK, appearance on Jools Holland's TV show in 1991 or '92. I think I've seen a mention in the article of Harrison's time in Hawaii – any discussion of the ukulele would belong there perhaps. The influence of Hawaiian music on Harrison came out most strongly in his slide playing, but his adoption of the ukulele was another result, I believe.) With the Associated acts, it's probably best if I take further discussion to your talk page ("walls of text from JG66", as someone observed in this page's edit history!). I could try to come up with points beside each artist maybe, showing the longevity and significance of the association with Harrison. JG66 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've added Lynne, Petty, and Perkins to the Associated acts field. If you wouldn't mind, I might need a refresher as to how much work he did with Tom Scott and Alvin Lee (I remember a collaboration with Lee on On the Road to Freedom, and with Scott on an LP whose title I can't recall, but beyond that I'm drawing a blank). My talk page is a perfectly fine location, if you'd rather post it there. Thanks again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Was the Scott album Desire? He isn't listed in the credits, but that was my best guess. I'm also wondering about adding Ringo. While I can sympathise with Gabe's desire to cover as many artists as possible under umbrella acts, I do feel that George's collaborations with Lynne and, to a lesser extent, with Petty warrant an infobox mention. The problem I see with adding Ringo is that he did almost as much work with Lennon (playing guitar on the Imagine album, performing with the Plastic Ono Band live and on "Cold Turkey" "Instant Karma!", and anything I might be forgetting). You didn't mention Lennon, though, so I'm wondering if there's a credible argument for including Ringo but not John. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'll answer the Alvin Lee point above. The Tom Scott album was New York Connection; Harrison's on "Appolonia", and I think he played on another Scott album, in the '80s. They first worked together in spring 1973 on Shankar Family & Friends, Scott was heavily involved in that, and then both appeared on Cheech & Chong's album that year. Scott then did all the horn arrangements on Dark Horse and was Hari's band leader on the 1974 tour – which probably makes him sound like a hired hand, but he wasn't. Scott had a couple of numbers in the shows, and he's very prominent (interview comments etc) in the two tour features I've seen. Scott did horns again on Extra Texture (that must've been fun) and on Thirty Three & 1/3. Scott's presence is really felt on that 1976 album; besides his musical contributions, he's credited as assistant producer (the first outsider since Spector in '71 on a Harrison release) and he brought along his keyboard player from NY Connection. Bit of a gap, then Scott was back for 1980–81 Somewhere in England sessions, and I think that's around the time George reciprocated the gesture by guesting on another Scott album. I've probably missed a few collaborations with other artists along the way – Splinter's third album, in 1977, they co-produced that. Lynne really should be in, I suggest. I'll have a think about Petty. I don't agree that there's any comparison between the level of work George and Ringo did together and the few times George played with John outside the Beatles. As far as Lennon solo goes, it's just those three projects, yes. With Ringo, though: "It Don't Come Easy" and "Back off Boogaloo" (both produced by Harrison, and both co-written by Harrison, according to Bruce Spizer); all those tracks George writes for the Ringo album as well as guesting on "I'm the Greatest"; George produces two or three tracks on Stop and Smell the Roses and writes the single "Wrack My Brain"; guests on a couple of songs on Vertical Man. Ringo's likewise on loads of George's stuff of course. And that's not even talking about other projects of George's that Ringo's on, or things that Ringo was doing that George helped on, like the 1978 Ringo TV special. JG66 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I just added Ringo. What I would prefer to do with Scott and Lee is to either include them in the article body, somewhere under solo work, and add them to the infobox, or to add them to neither. As I see it, those collaborations are probably noteworthy enough for inclusion, and thus I prefer the first option if it's citable (I'm certain it is, and should have the relevant books available again in the next day or two). Added Leng quotes on Something, plus information on Hawaiian influences in Harrison's music. More to address above, I think, so be patient. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've added a sentence on Tom Scott to the paragraph on the Dark Horse tour, and may add more later in the article if appropriate. Thanks for the suggestion! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, we could probably do without listing Petty in the Associated acts field. He meets the criteria without question, but like you said, a lot of people do and we don't want to be overdoing it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Tom Scott has been added to the infobox. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hope this helps. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

To keep my comments in one place I have added the first batch of mine at the top of this page along with my preliminary comments of a few days ago. If you would sooner have further batches from me nearer the bottom of the page, don't hesitate to shift my earlier stuff downwards and I'll follow your lead. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was wondering about that too. Hopefully there'll be many more voices joining the discussion, and it's quite possible that we'll each be adding comments on particular sections in the article, but in stages. Those comments will be influenced by wording in the article at a given point, so should we adding to our original comments each time, or coming back in with a separate message to maintain some idea of chronology? JG66 (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ideally, at least for noms and delegates IMO, reviewers will strike comments once the issue detailed therein is fully resolved, though I admit that this is rarely if ever done anymore, at least IME. Those resolved comments (especially the really long ones) can then be moved to talk for ease of future reviews. Also, you could consider using a semi-colon or a level 5 header to set-aside section headings within your review, so that any "new" comments from you about a section you already reviewed can be added there. Further, generally speaking, comments as long as this one or this one, would be more helpful and appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Harrison/archive1. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Real quick comment here: Apologies to everyone for my absence over the past week. I was knocked out by the flu for several days, but I'm back now and hope to be able to address any further comments from here on out. Thanks for your patience and input, everyone, and thanks to Gabe for holding down the fort while I was gone. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC) GabeMc, I would ask that you reinstate my comments rather than removing all trace of my input from this discussion. (Can you not add hide/show tags, to at least demonstrate that I submitted a review, while sparing other contributors – heck, all of us – the need to scroll down the long swathes of text?) I thought I'd find something else to do for a while instead of monitoring this FAC – but I was only a talk message away, you know.Reply

Absence makes the heart grow fonder, of course, and I think this article is looking better. Much of the detail's gone, but at least the scope's more consistent across all the sections. (At the risk of self-justification, my view previously was, if you're going to say this, then how can you not say that ... ?) I can see that an all-round culling was needed, but at the same time it does seem very lightweight – I think you've missed a lot of opportunities, even within the confines of an article providing an overview of George Harrison's life. Points that are easily condensed given a good editor's eye and a will to cover the subject thoroughly, however briefly.

Anyway, a few, pretty minor things I noticed from skimming through the article:

  • Under Early solo work there's "Band leader Delaney Bramlett introduced Harrison to slide guitar, significantly influencing his subsequent music" and then, under Family, friends, and interests, there's "Through Clapton, Harrison met Delaney Bramlett, who introduced Harrison to slide guitar." – repetition was quite noticeable.
  • Because the heading's Later life: 1988–2001, it seems incongruous that text discusses 2002 Brainwashed and related points for 2003 and '04. Might be an idea to add the word "posthumous" somewhere early on in the discussion.
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but the only thing I see mentioned in the section after his death is his funeral and the Concert for George, which hardly require a "posthumous" sub-section. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • Not for the first time, I'm amazed at the conclusions you come to when there's little room for ambiguity. I'm not talking about a new subsection, I mean adding the word – something like "Harrison's final album, the posthumously released Brainwashed, was completed by his son Dhani and Jeff Lynne and issued on 18 November 2002" – because it's sitting under a heading covering 1988–2001. JG66 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • I can see you've had to cut mention of "If I Needed Someone" early in the piece, but to then see "I Need You" and "You Like Me" named (under Songwriting) instead of either of his Rubber Soul tracks seems very odd. That's how it strikes me.
  • Still under Songwriting, I think you need to reword "After the Beatles broke up in 1970, Harrison co-wrote songs and music with ...", because Harrison only wrote songs with Preston and Troy while still in the Beatles. (And ditto with Clapton perhaps, I'm not sure off the top of my head.)
  • Songwriting again: because Farrell's quote contains a reference to time having elapsed ("nearly thirty years on"), it feels like the carrier expression (Author Gerry Farrell commented) needs to include a year.
  • With that second mention of Bramlett introducing Harrison to slide (under Family, friends, and interests), I was surprised to read "Through Clapton, Harrison met Delaney Bramlett". I don't know how good that source is (actually I've tried the link and it's dead ...), but my understanding is that it was the other way around. Harrison met Bramlett in LA in late '68 and later recommended to Clapton that D&B were the sort of band he should join, that it was just what he was looking for post-Cream. Just a thought.
  • I didn't notice any mention of I Me Mine just now when skimming though the article, so maybe it's gone. A few days back I remember seeing text stating that IMM contained comments on all his songs up to the date of publication (cited to Tillery or Inglis). Perhaps you have removed all mention of the autobiography, which would be a surprise actually, but if that text is still there, the claim is incorrect. I Dig Love, Apple Scruffs, Don't Let Me Wait, Can't Stop Thinking About You, there's quite a few he doesn't discuss, and while Badge and The Pirate Song get a page or two, most of his other collaborations don't. Maybe you did decide to delete it?
  • Even though I referred to it in my review, I never heard back regarding British (Oxford) English. And seeing that unnecessary second comma in "Family, friends, and interests" reminded me. I can't help thinking, why use an antiquated version of British English – is because it's close(r) to American English? As stated in that talk page message, I think the style here has to be modern British English, and without those redundant commas that haven't been in common usage for decades. Put it this way, if I was working on a Bob Dylan or Elvis Presley article, I wouldn't dream of imposing a more anglicised editorial style.

Cheers, JG66 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Unterberger 2002, pp. 180–181.
  2. ^ Higgins 1978, pp. 34–36.
  3. ^ a b c Leng 2006, p. 19.
  4. ^ Everett 2001, pp. 313–315.
  5. ^ Womack 2007, pp. 124–125.
  6. ^ a b Schaffner 1980, pp. 75–78.
  7. ^ Everett 1999, pp. 40–42.
  8. ^ D.B. Reck, "Beatles Orientalis: Influences from Asia in a Popular Song Form", Asian Music XVI (1985), pp. 83–150.
  9. ^ Everett 1999, pp. 49–51: Backwards guitar.
  10. ^ Everett 1999, pp. 103–105: Harrison's tambura part on "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"; Winn 2009, p. 74
  11. ^ Clayson 2003, p. 212.
  12. ^ Everett 1999, pp. 111–112.
  13. ^ Leng 2006, pp. 29–30.
  14. ^ Lavezzoli 2006, pp. 178–179.
  15. ^ a b Harrison 2002, p. 118.
  16. ^ The Beatles 2000, p. 243.
  17. ^ Lavezzoli 2006, pp. 179–180.
  18. ^ Clayson 2003, pp. 214–215.
  19. ^ a b MacDonald 1998, p. 240.
  20. ^ Tillery 2011, p. 87.
  21. ^ Lavezzoli 2006, p. 183.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/George_Harrison/archive1&oldid=1086390582"