Talk:Within You Without You

Sitar

The personnel section should say who played the sitar on the recording. Ian MacDonald's book say it was George Harrison, but MacDonald says that a lot of sitar that was originally considered George is now thought to be other people like on Love You To. So I'm gonna put it was George based on MacDonald but any dissenters please make yourselves known. Tripswithtiresias (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you add it but not cite MacDonald? If you have MacDonald, why not update the whole section to what he wrote? As it is, it's uncited and not formatted properly. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, added reference. I don't know how it was improperly formatted before but hopefully it's ok now. Tripswithtiresias (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being harsh above. I fixed some of the formatting, trying to get it closer to the conventional WP format. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

I think the lyrics are slightly wrong for the line "when you've seen beyond yourself", the article has "when you see beyond yourself"

I suggest that the hindu interpretation should be played down. It is opinion, afterall, and only one of many possible interpretations of the song.

How is it possible to add a comment here without one's WP name or IP address appearing? It's almost as though a divine entity did it. Just saying. 😯 – AndyFielding (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion on genre

I was thinking about adding this next to the genre in the infobox: <!--Please do not add psychedelic rock to this infobox, without a reliable source, or it will be deleted.--!>

Should I? SchfiftyThree 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, despite that I remember it, I was there. The psychedelic generation gathered all sorts of influences, but that didn't make them psychedelic. This track is about as far from the mainstream of psych as can be imagined, however, so I'd say go ahead and add it. Sadly, that may not stop people putting it in if they think it is. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. Before, I removed that genre because I've listened to it a lot, and it really didn't sound like that to me. For the reliable source part, I put it down because, if a user provides a source with the genre, then others will notice that there is at least one source (either book, magazine, website, etc.) that claims the song as psychedelic rock. I reckon that on a variety of the Beatles songs on the Sgt. Pepper album, some users may have changed the genres to other songs like Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds to psychedelic rock because they may be confused about the real definition, but I'm guaranteed that this may work the situation out. SchfiftyThree 22:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of genre, shouldn't this be listed as raga rather than raga rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.10.26 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This song is not really indian classical music, just rock with an INFLUENCE of indian classical music. unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.89.194 (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not rock either, so "raga rock" should be removed. Helpsloose 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Recording paragraph

Can't see any justification for Radiopathy deleting the entire referenced recording paragraph. The point of shifting the info about the canned laughter is that it comes at the end of the song. It logically should be discussed at the end of the music structure section where there is already a discussion of the canned laughter203.129.43.122 (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Further this sentence you have inserted is unreferenced: "The laughter at the end was Harrison's idea, placed at the end of the song in order to lighten the mood and follow the theme of the album." This sentence is also unreferenced and relates directly to the recording: "The recording released on the album was sped up enough to raise the key from C to C#; an instrumental version of the song at the original speed and in the original key appears on the Anthology 2 album."203.129.43.122 (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

30 minutes?

There's no evidence Goerge Harrison wrote it as a 30 minute piece, then shortened for the album. Some forums say that the song is based on a more than 30 min piece by Ravi Shankar (so the long version is by Ravi Shankar, not by George Harrison). Anyway I am not able to find the title of the original composition by Ravi Shankar. Urgeshipoflove (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on a Longer Piece by Ravi Shankar?

The claim made here that this composition was based on a longer piece by Ravi Shankar appears to be unsupported original research. I have not come across it before in the standard references and the reference given is hardly an authoritative source--more an unreferenced blog site. A better reference should be found or it should be deleted.NimbusWeb (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) OK. In the absence of a better source it is now deleted.NimbusWeb (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Longest track

The page says that at just over 5 minutes, it's the longest track. But its apparently a second shorter than "A Day in the Life".--TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statement for now because it contradicts our own article Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band which is a well-sourced Featured article. It's confusing though, because if you look at certain sources (Discogs, for example), "Within You Without You" is listed at 4:57 and "A Day In The Life" is listed at 4:55. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Within You Without You/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this on, FunkMonk. Looking forward to working with you. JG66 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps add a sample of the song?

• I have to confess there was a sample here previously – it didn't work, though (for me anyway, trying on various devices), so I removed the file. Evidence of a degree of technophobia on my part, but it's not a requirement for GA to include one. At least, that's what I've been told by reviewers in the past … JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a requirement, just thought it could be cool. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Mexican EP cover seems a bit of an odd choice for the infobox, but I guess it is the only release where this was the main track?

• Yes, that's right. Given that the artwork is taken from the Sgt. Pepper cover, which the song's Indian influence carried over to, I thought it was quite appropriate. JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• "George Harrison began writing" Perhaps present his role in the band at this early point in the article? Now it seems like a given that the reader knows he was the guitarist and occasional writer etc…

• A tough one, and I don't know that it's entirely necessary – anymore than having to say that this entity "the Beatles" were an extremely popular group and their 1966 Revolver album was seen by many as a groundbreaking release, etc (?). I take your point to some extent, although I can't see that the reader's stranded without it. I think it would be too complicated to introduce at the start, so I added something in the 2nd para: "Harrison had continued to look outside of his role as the band's lead guitarist, further immersing himself in studying the sitar …" It's subtle but it is relevant to the song, at least. What do you think now? JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine to me, as long as it is mentioned he was the guitarist. Considering a recent event[1], we can't be sure this is necessarily common knowledge anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess there's just no accounting for some of the whippersnappers, is there? Mind you, I read it that everyone there knew full well it was Paul McCartney & co. – no? Actually, this episode reminds me of McCartney at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix in about 2012, walking among the cars and VIPs on the starting grid. F1 being an activity with which Harrison was long associated, Eddie Jordan, a TV commentator, goes up to McCartney to get a quick interview but keeps calling him George the whole time. The look of embarrassment/confusion on McCartney's face (he's there with a small entourage, after all, and, you'd think, out to be recognised). Loses a lot in my translation, no doubt, but it was just priceless … JG66 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• "friend Klaus Voormann" Perhaps present him as "German artist" or some such.

• I've introduced him as "musician and artist". JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• "of Ravi Shankar." Present him.

• Yep. I went for "master sitarist". JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• "He later said that" Last person mentioned before was Shankar, so perhaps start with "Harrison" instead of "he", for clarity.

• Done. JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• If this song inspired many later Eastern inspired tracks by other groups, perhaps mention some of the most notable ones under "Cultural influence and legacy"?

• Okay. But the point's not one that is made at this early stage in the article, is that right? (Aside from making the additions you're suggesting for later on, just want to make sure there's not another area of the text that needs qualification on this.) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've been taking a look at this. I don't think it's a matter of his fellow musicians taking up sitar or other Indian musical influences because of the track, necessarily. That's more "Norwegian Wood" and "Love You To" – although the Simmons/Mojo quote is correct, I'd say, in that it refers to fans, students: the zeitgeist. It's more about other musicians, and their Western rock audience, picking up on the spiritual/philosophical aspect of the song. I've tried to keep to this line in the article: in the box quote under Release, Kenneth Womack effectively credits the song with the birth of the Summer of Love; as an album, Sgt. Pepper is certainly credited with launching the Summer of Love (e.g., this Consequence of Sound piece; and commentators such as MacDonald, Hertsgaard, Womack and Langager (particularly the latter) highlight "Within You Without You" as the track on the album that most clearly presents the countercultural ideal behind the Summer of Love. So I'm thinking the solution might be to remove mention of "musical [direction]" from the sentence in the Lead, currently: "It also influenced the musical and philosophical direction of many of Harrison's peers during an era of utopian idealism marked by the Summer of Love." Maybe?
• I have found mention of Eric Burdon dedicating his late 1967 album Winds of Change to Harrison and acknowledging the latter's spiritual inspiration; I've got sources who cite the Box Tops' 1968 single "Cry Like a Baby" as an example of the Harrison-inspired Indian influence permeating Western rock/pop; also, I've got Dave Mason of Traffic, who released the sitar-driven "Hole in My Shoe" in August 1967, praising "Within You Without You" while talking about practising on the instrument at Harrison's house (when he was gifted the latter's original Indiacraft sitar) and Harrison's development within the Beatles through Indian music. Mason, along with Big Jim Sullivan, Brian Jones, Peter Tork and others, btw, were among the guitarists who experimented with the sitar and turned to Harrison for some degree of guidance. That probably sounds somewhat aggrandising, but the impression I get is that all these musicians looked to him partly as a Beatle, but also because they recognised the authenticity in what he was doing – he was Ravi Shankar's student, and he'd been to India and could convey more than just the musical aspect of the genre. I hope I'm not muddying the issue with all this background. What I'm trying to say is, the influence of this song on other musicians who embraced (or continued to embrace) Indian classical music was recognition of the philosophical/spiritual, which happened to be in keeping with the principles of Summer of Love. Aside from that – and it's what Mikal Gilmore comments on – there were musicians like Mick Jagger, Donovan, Mike Love, not to mention the other Beatles, who then joined Harrison on his exploration of Transcendental Meditation. JG66 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, as you figured, I was not suggesting mentioning such early in the article, just under "Cultural influence and legacy". FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So, to clarify, you don't agree with that suggestion in my second reply, that the way to go might be to remove the mention/implication that WYWY influenced songs by other artists (i.e., from the Lead: "It also influenced the musical and philosophical direction of many of Harrison's peers during an era of utopian idealism marked by the Summer of Love.") ? To me, that makes sense rather than adding, later on, any mention of the Burdon, Box Tops and Traffic songs, because the "cultural influence" of this track was primarily a spiritual/philosophical one … JG66 (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I might have lost what exactly your proposition was, the comments were a bit convoluted, but what you suggest there seems reasonable. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just edited that sentence in the Lead, removing mention of the song's musical influence on Harrison's peers. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "he also gained a philosophical truth" Which was what?

• Reworded to "he also gained a philosophical perspective on the effects of the band's international fame". I see why you queried it before – does this rephrasing take away the need to instantly define what it is he "gained"? (The message being that he gained a philosophical perspective where he didn't have one before.) JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "and together stating a tihai to close" You briefly explain other terms, but not this one.

• Added mention of "rhythmic cadence". That is another musical term, but I'd hope that, after we've had "melodic unison", mention of "rhythmic cadence" is partly self-explanatory to the average reader. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Inspired by a musical piece that Shankar had written for All India Radio," The Harrison quote states he based it directly on it, so the wording you use seems a bit ambiguous.

• With "inspired by" I was just trying to avoid repeating the wording from the source. Changed now to "based on". JG66 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• " with Eastern monism" Link? Not a common term.

• I've linked monism. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "reference to the concept of may" Which is what?

• I guess I figured that it becomes obvious in the lyrics that are then cited, also in Greene's paraphrasing of the song's message. (I mean, some explanation is useful for readers, generally, but if a term is linked and its context provides something in the way of explanation, I think that should be sufficient.) Anyway – I've added a loose definition. JG66 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't obvious which specific part of the lyrics it was linked to, so the clarification helps. FunkMonk (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "and admitted that, following his return from India" When was this admission?

• Added "later" – I'm thinking you mean something (anything) is need to avoid the idea that Harrison said this at the time, perhaps to McCartney(?). JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking a date? FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "to reduce it in length from an original 6:25" You could mention here what the resulting length is, as it is otherwise only mentioned in the info box.

• Yes, thanks – added the official track length. JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "although he conceded that he had enjoyed working on the record's iconic cover." Why is this written as if the first part of the sentence was somehow in opposition to something, which it doesn't seem to be?

• Well, I thought there was an element of contrast, if not quite contradiction. Have reworked this, trying to clarify the point – what do you think now? JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Better, I saw little contradiction before. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Harrison described it as "a milestone and a millstone in music history"" What is the first milestone for?

• Not quite sure I follow you. He described it as "a milestone [in music history]", as well as (less favourably) "a millstone in music history". JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my bad, I misread it as milestone twice... FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay! JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why did they release an EP only in Mexico?

• Erm, I don't know what to say to that! I mean, EMI/Capitol's international equivalents were able to release their own compilations following the group's break-up, and many countries did (e.g. Spain and Argentina in 1971 with Por Siempre Beatles). But I'm afraid I can't really add anything about this apart from the fact that they (Capitol's Mexican licensee) did release this and other EPs. JG66 (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it would be nice to give dates for the retrospective critical reviews.

• I've done so where the comments clearly come from a review or similar piece, published on a certain date, in a certain issue of a publication. But I've not done it for the biographers' comments because, being sourced to books that may well have been revised over the years, those views "live on" in the present – much as a song's lyrics and music still convey something (present tense) decades after its release. The one exception I've made is for Riley's book, reason being that he draws attention to the song being "the most dated" on Pepper, which then provides some context for note 6's comment from MacDonald, comparing the 1967 ethos to "the materialistic '80s". So I've added years for the critics/reviewers in the last two paras of "Retrospective assessment", but I think it would be a mistake to attribute each and every biographer's view to a particular year in the first half of this subsection. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "notes the potential for offence" Offence to what?

• Sorry but I think this is obvious: Unterberger "notes the potential for offence in this, 'the first Beatles song where [Harrison's] Indian religious beliefs affected the lyrics with full force'." I mean, "religious beliefs" being presented in the lyrics "with full force"? JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Stephen Stills was so taken" Present.

• Okay what I've done (to cover Crosby also) is add "Among other contemporary rock musicians", so the reader expects to hear from Harrison's fellow musicians, including Lennon. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "David Crosby" present.
• "as "the annus mirabilis" Link, perhaps explain.

• Added link. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Gary Wright recalls" Present.

• Done. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• "some of whom find it sanctimonious in tone" Where is this mentioned outside the intro? Seems it was rather considered pretentious?

• Yes, good point. I've reword the Lead to say "lacklustre and pretentious", adding "lacklustre" to touch on opinions from Riley and McCormick/Daily Telegraph. JG66 (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, with these things done, I'll now pass the article, looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Speed change

The article states: "Before Harrison recorded his vocals the previous day, the track had been edited and sped up sufficiently to reduce it in length from an original 6:25 to 5:05.[81] In the process, the song's key was raised a semitone, to C♯.[82]" I was curious, and accordingly stretched it back to its supposed original length. The result is ridiculous: no such magnitude of speed change could have occurred. I suggest the original length was 5:25, not 6:25 - since 5:25 gives the required pitch shift. The Fontenot source in fn 82 seems to have disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carusus (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I did wonder about that when writing the article, a year or more back. I agree (if this is what you're saying) that in order to lop off a minute 20 in duration, the backing would have to sound absurdly sped-up. I've fixed the Fontenot ref with an archived version, but it's the pages in Everett I'll have to check for that mention of 6:25. I wonder if maybe the track was first edited (from 6+ mins), and then the pitch shift carried out. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Carusus: Further to the above, I've just looked at the text (and realised you've quoted it above anyway), and it says: "Before Harrison recorded his vocals the previous day, the track had been edited and sped up sufficiently to reduce it in length from an original 6:25 to 5:05." – edited and sped up. You seem to have read it as just "sped up", no? JG66 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just rephrased the sentence: here. JG66 (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@JG66: Good point. Apologies. A semitone change requires a 10% cut (10:9), which with a final length of 5:05 gives an original of 5:39. Unless of course it was speeded up before it was cut, in which case it's anyone's guess.

Fair use rationale for File:"Within You Without You" by the Beatles, written by George Harrison, 1967.ogg

File:"Within You Without You" by the Beatles, written by George Harrison, 1967.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't "credited to" English rock band… be far far better for the very first sentence?

The song was written by George and performed by him and the other musicians who weren’t themselves band members. So to state "*by* English rock band The Beatles" is most definitely wrong or misleading or a lie. One of those, because it’s most definitely not true. Boscaswell talk 02:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)