Talk:Simply Shady

Ex "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" article section

Must say, I'm surprised this has been turned into a separate article. I'd included discussion of "Simply Shady" in a section within "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" because "SS" didn't seem notable enough to merit its own piece; and combining the song with "It Is He" was a tidy way to handle George's 1974 trip to India, not to mention providing a perfect example of the duality of his life at this point (spiritual vs "naughty") − a natural aside from the parent, Dark Horse album article, in other words. Seems a pity that this has happened: I felt It Is He was good enough to be a B on the quality scale with just a little more work, which probably won't be the case now with a chunk of its content removed; and this SS article, I'd imagine, is highly unlikely to ever graduate beyond a C either. The strength was in the unity, in my opinion. Apart from that issue, it would've been nice to see something left on It Is He's talk page, explaining the change. (As the edit history shows, the It Is He article didn't exist until just over two weeks ago and it was pretty much the work of just one contributor (me!).) I've done the same combination trick with "Behind That Locked Door" in the article for "I'd Have You Anytime", simply to make sure that BTLD got some coverage, and that article was then reassessed as a B − so it appears that this approach does result in an improvement in quality. A bit of consideration when carving up articles, especially such a new one and/or where it's clear that only one or two have had anything to do with its creation, would be much appreciated. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, when I made the move, I wasn't aware that it was something that had been done by only a few editors. Admittedly, I probably should have checked the article history or started a discussion before doing so. Certainly, per WP:BRD, you're welcome to follow up my "B" with your own "R", if you so choose. I only made the move because it seemed odd to me that info on one song would be located within an article on another. I've never seen that done before and assumed that it was very much nonstandard to do that. I'm not familiar with the "Behind That Locked Door" example. If we're going to have info on one song embedded in another article, it should probably be located at the Dark Horse album page. This is something that is routinely done for songs that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. However, in this case, I think we unquestionably have enough notability--established by the sources cited--and certainly enough content to warrant its own article. Of course, neither you nor anyone else is under any obligation to agree with me, and we can get some outside input if you think it would help. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your rationale got me thinking about adding to the article. But I've just realised, when looking to add a couple of refs for what's there already, that I'd misunderstood a point made by Gary Tillery. So statements relating to Ringo's wife have to go; minor point, but that does reduce notability slightly. Anyway, its origins as a section within "It Is 'He'" mean that the other article is now missing some important details, so if you don't mind I'd prefer to revert. JG66 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit of a u-turn on this issue: bought a few more books recently and I've found more points to add. JG66 (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa (big time): The healthy thing about Wikipedia is that our actions, good and bad, remain on record in the article and talk-page edit histories. So, as hard as some editors try to hide their tracks (say, by doctoring their article talk page comments after the event, or removing anything unflattering from their user talk page), there's nowhere to hide really … Here's an example where I was completely in the wrong four years back – because now I'm nominating the article for GA. A humbling experience, and welcomely so. Hats off & kudos to Evanh2008. JG66 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha, thank you for the shoutout, JG66! I was just thinking recently about all the hard work you've put into these articles. Glad to see you're still working them up to GA status. I haven't been very active here for a couple years, but if no one else grabs the GA review by the weekned (unlikely, I guess) I'll start the process myself. Always enjoy working with you. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Evanh2008, blimey, I didn't expect to catch you! I'd not seen you around for some time – I was just shooting in the dark really. Ditto from me, and I'd be delighted if you took the review … No worries if you can't, of course. Best, JG66 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Simply Shady/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Evanh2008 (talk · contribs)17:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello JG66 (talk · contribs). It's been quite a while since I did one of these, so bear with me. Comments coming in the next hour or so. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede:

• Wikilink Bombay, particularly since that's no longer the common name.

• Thanks, done. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would merge the sentence beginning "Harrison recorded the track" with the one immediately following it. Something like "...home studio, backed by the L.A. Express, who were touring..." Efficiency with words is especially important in ledes.

• Have to say, I often get told to cut down the long sentences, which is why I probably divided these points over two. I'm fine with what you're saying, though(!), and have changed it. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, long sentences are bad! I don't think this one is particularly egregious, though, and it looks to me like it flows better. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Background and inspiration:

• This would seem to be undisputed info, so I don't think you need to attribute the description of the India trip's circumstances to IMM in-text. The footnotes you already have will do.

• Well, you're right that it seems to be undisputed, but that's because I've been remiss perhaps in not including mention that Leng, Rodriguez and one or two others (I think) discuss an early 1972 visit Harrison supposedly made with Gary Wright. In fact, Harrison's recollections in IMM are correct – this is apparent from Olivia Harrison's book and Wright's 2014 autobiography. I suspect Leng was basing the '72 date on a description Wright gave on his website, when he was talking about the trip with Harrison but gave the wrong year (after which, Rodriguez etc simply copied Leng). I was thinking of clarifying/qualifying the point in an end note after the first sentence, but a) I didn't want to sidetrack things so early on, and b) I was reluctant to introduce Wright there and then have to do so again, in the main text a sentence or two later. (i.e. We should account for readers perhaps not bothering to read an end note.) Either way, I figured that the in-text reference to IMM – to identify the source and just leave it at that – would get around the problem. Do you think I should add that end note after all, maybe? JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting; that's actually pretty much the only situation I could have imagined justifying in-text attribution like that, so good call! And I wouldn't go into detail on the (probably inadvertent) disagreement on dates. Too much here, and probably even at Harrison's (or Wright's) main article. An academic point, more or less. I'm striking this one. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Over this period, he immersed himself in his work" ---> "Over this period, he had immersed himself in his work", to clarify that you're referring to the later Friar Park period, and not to the period of the song's composition.

• Okay, although I do think the meaning is clear from the start of the paragraph: we're no longer in India. Also, I was wary of overdoing it with the "had"s in that sentence. Have to say, I had a real problem with that second para, and it still doesn't sit right with me somehow. I'm half-thinking of ditching the opening sentence there ("In a 1994 interview held at Shankar's home in California" etc) and reworking the rest … What do you think, Ev, are you okay with it? JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Not in India, but still past-in-the-past: beginning of "decadent rock star" period reflected upon during the time of the song's composition. As to rewriting it, you know the source material better than I do, so I'll leave that up to you. I have no objections to the prose as it currently stands, but if you think you can improve it, by all means go for it! I'll leave this un-struck in case you want to come back to it. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

re the "had"s, reading it afresh(ish) now, I can't see what I was worried about! Same with some of the rewording you suggested under Composition, btw (e.g. "affect" instead of "impact"): all good – an improvement. Lovely. As far as possibly reworking the second paragraph goes, no, I'll leave it as is. That also seems better 24 hours later. I was only thinking that perhaps the discussion there went on too long, which was a hangover from the difficulties I experienced just before nominating the article – specifically, trying to wedge in the mention that Harrison was returning to these vices, which it seemed important to clarify. JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• I think this could go either way, but do you think it's worth mentioning Clapton here? I feel like Pattie's relationship with him is generally regarded as a contributor to their split at least as significanct as the "decadent" lifestyle Harrison had fallen into. I ask especially since under "Production" you later mention Pattie absconding with Clapton, while it had been "a thing" for four or five years at this point (and IIRC George became aware of it some time before she finally left).

• Yeah, I know what you mean. From Boyd's autobio, Chris O'Dell's memoir and EC's book, I can't see that he's really a factor in late '73/early '74. He and Pattie had no contact at all over '71 and '72, it seems; by EC's account, he made his Rainbow comeback in January '73 and then sunk back even further than before, withdrawing from everyone. He talks about making a renewed effort to win Boyd in what I take to be March 1974, at the earliest. But the thing is, "Simply Shady"'s not about Harrison's failing marriage per se, more about his errant ways that were partly in response to the situation and partly the cause. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, and thanks for clarifying regarding Clapton. I think the only thing that tripped me up on first read was the mention of her leaving later in the article, and also the "There was a bad domestic year" quote (and admittedly "domestic" needn't necessarily be synonymous with "marital"). Looks fine to me. Your point on it not being a song about the marriage is well taken. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Do make sure you wikilink the first appearance of I, Me, Mine again if you do decide to follow my advice above.

Composition:

• "is in 4/4 time throughout" - Sticking to a single time signature is the norm, obviously. The fact that it's "throughout" is implied by you not mentioning a change.

• Yep, done. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• "confessional" ---> "confession" - A "confessional" song, perhaps, but that word as a noun typically refers to the booth used to administer the Sacrament of Penance in Roman Catholic and high-church Anglican churches.

• True, but it's also used as an alternative to "confession": [1]. I guess I'm familiar with it in this slightly poetic context – the suffering artist and all – and it seems (to me) to be the correct word to use. Does it strike you as especially odd? Happy to change if you insist. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. My background is primarily in religion and literature, so when I hear either word I think first of Augustine and then of Rousseau. The OED oddly does not have the meaning used here listed under its definition of confessional, n., though I agree with you that it is sometimes used that way. On the whole, maybe I'm being a pedant, but I'm inclined to see such usage as an error, if an increasingly prominent one. I edit for journalism outlets, and if the NYT excerpt cited by Wiktionary passed by me I would correct it without a second thought. Any word ending in -ional I immediately take as an adjective. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, "confession" it is. I don't have an issue with -ional as a noun, actually, but I hear you because so-called nouns like "disconnect" and "assist" drive me crazy. ("Oi, you've left a syllable behind, you lazy bugger …" etc.) JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• If you're going to attribute to Inglis in-text, I feel like more quoting is in order. As-is, I can't tell if "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll" is a quote, or if you're only including the quotation marks to indicate that you're referencing a common phrase.

• It is his phrase, yes. I see what you mean, but given that the sentence begins "Ian Inglis describes", wouldn't you say it's correct as is? JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct, certainly, just a bit unclear, I think. Were that not such a common phrase I obviously wouldn't have been confused. Is it possible for you to quote a larger phrase? It's a close paraphrase already, so why not change the whole sentence to:

Author Ian Inglis describes "Simply Shady" as an autobiographical account of a musician "who succumbs to the temptations of 'sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll' that are stereotypically linked with the mythology of rock".

I also note (again pedantically) that the current quote is technically incorrect, as Inglis uses two linking "and"s rather than one. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I hadn't quite understood what you meant by "more quoting" – add something around the phrase. Done, thanks. My bad with the omitted "and". (Who says "sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll"?) JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, totally awkward phrasing! But thanks for fixing. Looks good. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• "impact on the world" - This is partly my personal hatred of nouns-as-verbs manifesting, but I think "affect the world" is a more graceful way of stating this thought.

• It is, but "impact" has a nice punch to it! Never mind, I've changed it to "affect". JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Again my pedantry! Were it a poem or even a novel it likely wouldn't bother me; I'm a stickler for certain things in non-fiction writing, however. It can make me difficult from time to time. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Love the NB on Maharishi. Did the Mojo article specifically relate it to this song, or did you make that connection yourself? Nice touch, either way.

• Ah, I confess it was me … I think Dale Allison picks up on the familiar imagery in Harrison's lyric and its significance – the thing that bugged me was Dale didn't go a half-step further and attribute it to the Maharishi! JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You're impressively well read on Harrison. I know his bio is currently an FA (half my fault) but I imagine it could benefit in at least a few places from your touch. I do like that you're going to the length of fleshing out these (sometimes obscure) song articles with background and biographical information, however. I have a chronic overwriting problem, so were I bringing that much knowledge to bear on a person's main article I probably wouldn't be able to restrain myself from turning it into a 100,000-word monstrosity. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, that bio article was and is such a tough one. What makes a Harrison song article so interesting (to me) – and really, the more controversial, ill-starred and/or critically maligned the better, as far as I'm concerned – is the very thing that makes it so difficult to condense his life in a single piece: he just didn't lead a musical career in a way that invites a standard overview. He wasn't a careerist in any shape or form; he was a life-ist! There's plenty I've thought of doing there at GH (more about his slide guitar playing, his influence on modern culture and his productions/collaborations; a short section on his keyboard playing …), but I always end up putting it on the back burner. Heck, I know I'd end up down that chronic overwriting path too. JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Recognising his part" ---> "Recognising his culpability" - More straightforward.

• Done. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• >"Harrison is alluding to a casual sexual partner in the present" - I don't have Inglis in front of me at the moment, but is the claim that Harrison is talking about someone he's actually been sleeping with?

• Well yes, that seems to be it. In the first of his three interpretations of the "Sexy Sadie" quote, Inglis describes this character as "a woman who offers him casual sex". Admittedly, I'm also reading it in the wider context of Inglis' discussion, in which it's quite clear he thinks that Harrison has surrendered to all the temptations and vices he's singing about. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; interesting. And presumably not Olivia (particularly given that it was "casual"). Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No no, Olivia's some way down the line. They only met in October '74, in LA. JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Unlike on his" ---> "Unlike his"

• Done. (I keep re-reading it, though, and thinking, "No, it really needs 'on' there too." I'm trusting you, Evan!) JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hard to explain, but you don't need to worry so much about parallel structure in a case like this. Grammatically the "unlike" is comparing the albums themselves rather than the process of creating them. Dark Horse differs from ATMP and LITMW in that... Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Production:

• "one-year period" ---> "year-long period"

• Done. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm an arbitrary SOB, aren't I? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No way – bring it on! JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Harrison's compromised approach" - I'm unsure what exactly you mean here. I don't think "compromised" in this context is synonymous with "undermined," but I also wonder in what other sense he is "compromising." If anything, an impromptu session with someone else's band who happen to be present seems mildly... opportunistic, though that word has cynical overtones I don't quite intend. What exactly does Leng say?

• I suppose "an example of Harrison having compromised his approach" might be clearer? In the introduction to his chapter on Dark Horse, Leng talks about the lack of a coherent sound on the album (relative to ATMP, Material World, Splinter's The Place I Love) because of the different sets of musicians Harrison worked with over this period, and says that the album showed the effects of his dedication to the Dark Horse projects. He then highlights this session with the L.A. Express as an example of how Harrison, given his fame and the availability of his Friar Park studio, could "act on whims and fancies" regardless of whether he had any material to record. Citing Max Bennett's recollections, Leng views the session as Harrison having "completely ditched his meticulous approach" at this time. He concludes the section with: "George Harrison was generally a painstaking craftsman; spontaneity was not his musical gift. The results on Dark Horse prove that." Does that help? Looking at the article now, it seems true to Leng's argument, but I guess the question, as you say, is about the term "compromised approach". JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that all makes sense; I just didn't get that from the article itself. I would tweak a bit, and specifically address the idea of collaboration being a compromise/departure from Harrison's past efforts. (Although ATMP drafted a fairly wide range of musicians as well, Spector's thick production successfully papers over any discontinuity in sound that might have otherwise resulted.) Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Just had a rethink: [2]. It struck me from your last comment that perhaps I'd still not properly explained the link I'm trying to make (that Leng makes) between sentences 1 & 2 in that paragraph and Leng's point about the Shady session. It's not collaboration per se that was such a departure from Harrison's previous MO; it's his focussing on other projects and resorting to ad-hoc recording dates for his own album – that's a major contrast from the intensive recording (with some occasional extracurricular activities, admittedly) that had been his approach on ATMP and LITMW. So I've ditched "compromised approach" for "the unpredictable approach that Harrison adopted" – any good? JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Much clearer now, thanks! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• "the musicians were entertained by Boyd" ---> "Boyd entertained the musicians" - Avoid passive voice.

• I'd agree but that seems to create bigger problems, because it suggests that Boyd arrived at 1 pm. Rewording it into the active voice would give us: "Lead guitarist Robben Ford recalls that upon their arrival at Friar Park, at 1 pm, Boyd entertained the musicians until Harrison woke up, at which point the couple 'didn't interact and she just disappeared'." The word "upon" always makes me shudder, but I'll get over it. Do you want to go with that rewording, then? JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. I didn't think that through grammatically (making Boyd a main subject, I mean). My bad. I'm fine with it as-is. (Some uses are had by the passive voice. Rarely, one is even allowed by the passive voice to be less ambiguous than the active voice would allow one to be.) Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Question that just occurred to me: I know she did when marrying Clapton, but did Pattie keep her last name when marrying George? If not, MoS might prefer you call her "Pattie" instead.

• I was looking at this recently. In contemporary writing, I've seen examples of Boyd, Harrison, and occasionally Boyd Harrison. Modern-day writers would always refer to her as Boyd (or just Pattie), from what I can see. The thing that decided it for me is reading a piece from the early '80s that discussed her contribution to 1960s culture and paired her with Jean Shrimpton as the two UK models that had an international reputation: the name "Pattie Boyd" was well established. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." So I'd say you're correct here, since "Boyd" is used far more commonly by biographers, journalists, et al., no matter what the marriage certificate says. This was an issue when Gabe and I were working on Paul McCartney; Linda, of course, was and is known far less often as "Eastman" than as "McCartney." We had to use her first name quite a lot in that article, as I recall. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• "August 1974" ---> "August", since we've established this all took place in a single year.

• I'm surprised at this. It's the start of a new subsection and we've not given anything in the way of real time since the start of the previous subsection – March 1974 for Harrison's return from India. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The subsection division doesn't make much difference, at least as I read it. It seems to flow quite smoothly from the discussion of recording sessions immediately above. I'm not suggesting you remove the subsection division, but imagine it's not there and it all seems of a piece. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the year. JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing to change, just noting that the Tom Waits mention took me aback, as I think this is actually one of the few Dark Horse tracks where Harrison's voice problems aren't the first thing you notice. Not at all like "Far East Man," for instance, where they did all they could to bury his vocals.

• Ah, don't get me started on that … I agree; in fact, I think his tortured singing is perfect for this sort of song, and that track "So Sad" also. Don't have a problem with "Far East Man" – it's "Dark Horse" that makes me want to reach out for the throat lozenges! JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Release and reception:

• "the more optimistic themes in side two's" ---> "the more optimistic themes on side two"

• Done. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• The rest looks good.

Retrospective...:

• I like all the content in this section and have no suggested changes, though I do think it would make more sense to consolidate this with the above section in some way. The structure you followed at "Ding Dong, Ding Dong" seems ideal to me, though I don't see the point in separating "Release" and "Reception" here.

• Well, it would be such an incredibly long section if they were combined. "Ding Dong" works partly because Release is split off to allow for discussion of the song's standing as a single. I think (I hope?) there's enough reflection here, particularly in the opening para, to allow for these retrospective comments to serve as a new discussion. I admit that later in the section, it becomes another collection of reviewers' opinions, but in many cases (certainly in para 3) they are looking back at the song with a perspective that no reviewer could have had in 1974–75. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps "Retrospective..." could be made a subsection? I agree it's a different kind of reception, and a different perspective altogether, but it is still reception, and I suppose seeing it listed differently strikes me as counter-intuitive, no matter the exact content. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but it just doesn't tally in my head! How about this, clearly signposting contemporary vs retrospective? JG66 (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not at all! After taking a look at some articles for various cult films, which often have similar differences between their immediate and later reception, I see this is actually a common way of dividing the info. While it isn't quite what I would have done had I written the article, I think it's fully MoS-compliant and flows just fine. We're calling this a pass! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, very very good work! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Big thanks, Evan! You raise some very good points here. I'm juggling a couple of other things but will start addressing this as soon as I can. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for all your comments here, Evanh2008. It takes me hours to write replies to them, but I really appreciate your engagement with the article. You truly get in the trenches with the text! Magic. JG66 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (n/a) b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• A PD image and/or quote box may help break up the text.

2. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: