Talk:Here Comes the Sun

Untitled

An infobox is requested for the Richie Havens version of "Here Comes the Sun" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/List_of_notable_songs/6

Lennon's contribution

Although your comment about Lennon's absence from this recording is correct, Lennon definitely did play on the final version of ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’ which is evidenced in The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn. Just thought you should know so that you can delete the inaccuracy in current text.

Cheers,

"Pepperstool 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)"

A note about the song’s composition

Thought you might like to mention that George employs a common guitarist’s compositional tool in the writing of this song known as the ‘D-nut’ chord technique. By playing the chord of D in the “nut” shape the guitarist is able to create subtle harmonic embellishments or melodic ideas by removing the 2nd finger or adding the 3rd and/or 4th finger. This is how George wrote the melody to ‘Here Comes the Sun’. He capoed his guitar on the 7th fret resulting the final key of A major.

He also used the same technique on his 1965 song ‘If I Needed Someone’ which shares a similar melodic pattern as a result.

"Pepperstool 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)"

Do we need to mention every cover?

User:SocraticronicAnarchaic added the following (at the very bottom of the article): "Also performed by the Voodoo Glow Skulls on the 1993 CD Who Is This Is?". Somehow I doubt that we need to list every band that has ever covered this widely-covered song, but just in case, I'm leaving the info here. If someone really thinks it should be re-added, it should, of course, be properly formatted and wikified this time, and added in with the already-listed notable covers. Xtifr _tälk 20:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Cover Version

Concerning cover versions maybe it should be said that there is another cover from Steve Harley & Cockney Rebels (just to help to complete the list). This cover is very different from the original (a bit more "rocking"-style). 89.12.3.170 10:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A Beatle classic

I believe the entry `...one of Harrison's best-known Beatle contributions...' should be changed. Here Comes The Sun in not only one of Harrison's best known with the group, it is one of the best known,and beloved, BEATLE songs. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lux dixon (talk • contribs) 18:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover version by George Benson

For those who might want to add this information and have better sources for quoting than me:

There is also a cover version of Here comes the sun by George Benson which appeared on the album "The George Benson Collection" in 1981.

As this is a compilation album, it might already have been released genuinely and earlier, but I don't know how to research that. Discogs is quite a good music database, but nevertheless it is hard to search by song, and see within what releases it appeared. At best you can make a Google search through Discogs.

--PutzfetzenORG (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lennon's Voice

Does anyone else hear Lennon's voice on this? Perhaps added after he recovered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.204.243 (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Most Popular Beatles Song

In recent years, this song seems to have emerged as the most popular Beatles song. It got highest on the iTunes chart after the Beatles release, it's been their most popular song for a while according to the top 5 list on their iTunes page, and it has the most views on YouTube. Should this be mentioned in the article?

Is Lennon on the song?

I believe I hear him (as I said last year); the references used for the 'Abbey Road' album wiki entry claims Lennon contributed backing vocals, handclaps & acoustic guitar. Can't have it both was Wiki - either he was on the record or he wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.204.243 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Voyager probe

This article has been cited as a source claiming that EMI refused to allow the song to be included on the Voyager Golden Record. However, the source provided in this article does not support this claim, so I have modified the article accordingly.

"We wanted to send "Here Comes the Sun" by the Beatles, and all four Beatles gave their approval. But the Beatles did not own the copyright, and the legal status of the piece seemed too murky to risk. " -Carl Sagan. Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record

72.67.53.56 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel version

It seems any further edits I try to make to this section of the article is going to be reverted. I initially added a 'Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel version' section to this article on 23 July. It has since been trimmed back greatly, and I respect that the original edit may have been particularly comprehensive and therefore unnecessary in comparison to the Beatles' original. However, my edit today on 25 July was nothing more than adding a short paragraph worth of information that was limited, relevant and satisfactorily referenced. This has been reverted for seemingly no reason at all. Seeing that I am being asked to get consensus, perhaps some other editors could have a look at the recent edit [1] and help reach an agreement. The cover version may not be 'more notable' than the original, however as a Top Ten UK chart hit (the highest charting for the song out of all recorded versions), I don't agree that this section cannot be slightly expanded upon from its current state. Ajsmith141 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Seemingly no reason"?? Your original edit increased the size of the article by 50% I considered reducing it to a couple of sentences and putting it with the other covers (and I'm not certain I won't eventually do that, but it's appropriate at this point to see if there are other opinions). On my talk page you described my reverts as "assertive". Is your giving the Harley cover more emphasis than all of the other covers combined not "assertive". You also suggested that I have not provided a policy or guideline to support my revert. Did you read the edit summary in my first revert here? I noted WP:WEIGHT, which is part of one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. After I first reverted with a legitimate rationale, you should have brought it to the talk page here immediately if you wanted to restore some of the information. So I really didn't need an additional policy to back me up at that point because it was then your responsibility to get consensus before adding to the section. It's a matter of opinion that this cover is more notable than all of the other covers, and my opinion is that it is not. "Trimmed back greatly" also is a matter of opinion. I'm sure some of the other covers could be expanded immensely in this article, but that doesn't mean it should happen. There is a cover by Nina Simone that is probably the most notable cover. If someone added as much content about that cover as you did with the Harley version, I would be making the same argument to reduce it. I personally think the Harley cover should be reduced even further. I realize you have devoted a lot of effort in working on Harley-related material, and I appreciate that. But sometimes we can be too close to a subject and lose a sense of relative perspective. I think that my be what's happened here, but it's really up to the Wikipedia community to resolve this issue, not just you and me. Sundayclose (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to repond Sundayclose. As I've noted beforehand, I admit the original edit was too much for the existing article, though my edit was in good faith. WP:WEIGHT was a fair reason for reverting. However, in my opinion, that policy doesn't seem to justify the reversion of the latest edit, which was materially smaller. Furthermore, I can not see where Wikipedia suggests that it is an editor's responsibility to gain consensus to add a small amount of relevant, sourced information to an article. As noted before, you originally suggested that I seek consensus if I wanted to add such a large amount of information as per the original edit. However, my latest edit is not attempting to add anywhere near that level of information, and so I did not think gaining a consensus was necessary for what was largely a few extra sentences. I have not claimed that the cover version was "more notable than all of the other covers". I simply pointed out that it was a UK chart hit, and the most successful version in terms of UK chart position. Meeting notability requirements for cover versions, I felt the version warranted its own section in the main article. My original edit was the wrong way to go about achieving this, but I do feel a subsection on the version is warranted (and I'm sure other notable cover versions should have their own coverage too). Ajsmith141 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It is always an editor's responsibility to get consensus for anything that has been challenged before adding it to an article, as is the case here; again, read WP:BRD. "Relevant and sourced" does not mean anything can be added without regard to relative importance, again per WP:WEIGHT. You may not have directly stated that the Harley version is more notable than other covers, but by giving more coverage in the article to that cover than all others combined, that is effectively what your edit said. Achieving "most successful version in terms of UK chart position" is noteworthy, but that alone does not justify giving such huge emphasis to one cover. Some of the other covers may merit a bit of expansion, specifically the Simone and Havens versions, but in my opinion none of them should have a separate subsection. Again, this is all a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that the Harley version is less notable than those of Simone and Havens. Sundayclose (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Thanks for raising it here for discussion. Your original additions, on 23 July, were way over the top(!), as you concede, and perhaps that has contributed to the situation now, I don't know. I think there is some scope to include much of that second paragraph. But the track listing you wanted, the chart performance box, and especially the personnel lists – they're all unnecessary in my opinion. Because we're dealing with only two nations' charts, mention of the Irish chart peak can easily be incorporated into the main text. And if the lineup of musicians is so important (which I somehow doubt?), that can also be discussed in the text. But overall, I think the section heading should be Cover versions, with a subsection titled "Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel", followed by another, titled "Other artists". That's consistent with the way I've done it at articles such as "Something", which has attracted a huge number of covers and in a wide range of styles, and have made a start doing at "Ticket to Ride". This article, "Here Comes the Sun", is one I'd love to return to and take to GA status, so that's the sort of approach I'd be adopting. JG66 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the importance of Nina's version, and Richie Havens' recording is highly notable also, and not just because it was a big hit in the US. I'd imagine there may be good reason to give those two artists similar coverage (the short subsection, as for Bassey and Sinatra at "Something"). JG66 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input JG66. I also agree that other versions such as Nina Simone's and Richie Havens' would deserve a similar subsection to make the article more rounded. Ajsmith141 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Here Comes the Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.harleyfanzone.com/70/Scrapbook/1976/Empire_Pool/Empire_Pool76.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu?url=http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224113701/http://www.fretbase.com:80/songs/393-here-comes-the-sun to http://www.fretbase.com/songs/393-here-comes-the-sun

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Obbligato?

Why is the Moog part being called an obbligato? I don't see how that's correct. Can someone offer some insight? Or a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.195.210.29 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Peter Tosh

The single, issued on Tuff Gong, is listed at discogs. Plenty of videos at YouTube. More details of its recording here Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That's great, Martin, thanks. The John Masouri text – drawing parallels between Tosh and Harrison, and mentioning the song being part of Tosh's celebration of Manley's election win – is perfect! JG66 (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't you watch my size, I'm dangerous (allegedly), lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Discogs suggests this track was recorded and released in 1971, which in turn suggests that the assertion that it was recorded "to celebrate" Manley's election success is incorrect. It seems more likely that it was both recorded and released in 1971, but may well have had an additional repressing in 1972 to support Manley's election, campaign or both. --Danimations (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I see 45Cat has it only as a 1971 Promo: [2]. The original Shock label seems to have no date: [3] (But Discogs has it only on Tuff Gong) Martinevans123 (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem is, it's John Masouri's commentary that allows us to mention the Tosh cover (by that I mean with regard to notability and WP:SONGCOVER); the existence of a cover recording by a famous musician is not itself sufficient. Masouri says: "Peter celebrated Manley's victory with 'Lion' and 'Here Comes the Sun' ..." I suppose we could say something along the lines of "Peter Tosh released the song as a single and it became his way of celebrating Michael Manley's win in the 1972 Jamaican general election" – just worry we might be getting too creative with the source material, though. JG66 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm yes, the phrase "Peter celebrated" suggests the victory was the reason the song was recorded in the first place. I'm guessing then it was used, a year later, Peter certainly "joined in", perhaps by playing that song or getting the record played. But without any source, that's just my guess, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Have to say, a common thing I find even in the best biographies or musical reference works is an author getting things half right. Most of the books I own on the Stones, Beatles, etc, just like, say, Richard Williams' biography of Phil Spector (from what I've seen in online previews, anyway), contain examples of this, and even though the rest of a paragraph is right, there are instances where you just have to ignore a statement that's, well ... complete rubbish – historically impossible, misquoted, superseded by later sources, or simply an author's wishful thinking/PoV being presented as fact. I wonder whether John Masouri's joined two threads together, both of which might be true, but come up with a conclusion that doesn't appear to stand up to scrutiny.

I'd like to keep the reference to "Here Comes the Sun" serving as Tosh's celebration of Manley's victory if we can. This idea is further to points about the song's impact, touched on at the start of the Critical reception and Cultural references and legacy sections. Perhaps he performed it live at concerts celebrating Manley's win and/or radio picked up on the record then; perhaps he recorded it (in 1971) as a message of support for the People's National Party in the run-up to the election (along the lines of: "During the campaign, Manley and his opponent, Edward Seaga, appealed to the Rastafarians and Jamaican black power voter movement using reggae artists and adopting Rasta tenets and symbols to gamer votes"); perhaps he happened to record it again soon after the win ... JG66 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. A good suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC) (I had a Rasta tent once, but it blew away.)

I've reworded it, steering clear of the chronology-related problem and – I hope? – still staying true to the source. JG66 (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's good. JG66 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"the song established Harrison as a composer to match Lennon and McCartney" ? really ?

This statement should be tempered. Lennon and McCartney are recognized as one of the greatest songwriting duos of all time. Harrison wrote a few memorable tunes, but he certainly could not match anywhere near the volume of tunes penned by L&M, nor the number of #1 hits. If George is in a league with L&M it would have to be in a narrow sense. 96.225.99.135 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)kolef96.225.99.135 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

One Billion Spotify Streams

As of May, it has hit a billion Spotify streams. It is the first Beatles song to do so and the oldest one on Spotify if I'm correct. I feel like this should be added. 190.233.207.190 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

... in the summer of 1969

This is USA-talk. The British don't measure years in seasons this way. Give the date, or at least something like 'mid-1969'. 2001:8003:3020:1C00:489C:9075:9247:482E (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. And if I were an Aussie, who experiences summer in the USA's winter months, I would take offense at that Americocentric wording. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

help i fucked some shit up by accident

and idk how to fix it im sorry Ded Meem (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)