Talk:Within You Without You

[[Category: good articles|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)

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)

Template:Ping 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)

Template:Ping 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:Ambox warning pn.svg

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)