# Talk:Blue Jay Way

I removed "...and features a sitar" from the article. If the song does indeed include a sitar, it is not easily discernible, much less featured. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no sitar in this song. Its actually a credit to the song writer that he can make a psychadelic and eastern feel with out actually using any Indian instruments.--64.239.176.50 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Joseph Brizzolara

The lyrics mean "be long" - the other possible meaning given in the article that of "belong" should be cited as a straight misinterpretation by the cultured people who claim that;
Please don't be long
Please don't you be very long
Please don't be long
The citing of it possibly being "belong" (the way "very" is put in the middle) in that context is clearly wrong.
i.e.
Please don't belong
Please don't you be very long
Please don't belong
(That doesn't make any sense in the context even though the Beatles did often purposely write nonsense song of course. It is like the "information" "in formation" debate over the 1967 Prisoner TV series opening narration. It is "information" and "in formation" is an incorrect overinterpretation due to the coincidental series subject matter of conformity).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC) 

Maybe it should be noted that the song is written in the mode of C Lydian #9 (the 6th mode of a Harmonic Minor scale). Not only is modal music very unusual for rock/pop, but this mode is one of the strangest choices one could make.
- I don't really agree. On the verses, the bass is heavily on G and all the notes used by the vocals or the melodic instrument (traditional or synth?) are diatonic. We're simply on a G mixolydian mode.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8429:64AD:D501:5C49:F7D1:998A:6875 (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) 

i made a mistake (I though about "Baby you're a rich man" 2A02:8429:64AD:D501:4D74:F399:49F2:BA4F (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Zakko:  First, I stand corrected on the "ins" vs. "ons" - just figured it was typos or something, and had forgotten that it's there in the song.
Second, I'm fine with splitting off the paragraph; and if you think "exceedingly" was excessive, no problem -- I've already changed it to "very".
But why on earth did you feel compelled to come back after you were all done and delete the word "actual"? The fact that it's a
REAL street in Los Angeles -- and not just a product of George's imagination -- is an essential fact. I assure you there are still lots of people out there who don't know that. (Honestly, I don't know why you made a point of deleting it -- I put the word there for a reason.)
As to all the other unnecessary changes you made: If you had actually managed to improve on what I wrote, that would be one thing. But the only plausible explanation I can come up with for all of the other things you changed -- none of which was called for -- is that you were bent out of shape because I had (mistakenly) corrected what I thought were typos, and you just felt like messing with what I had written... In the future, please do everybody a favor, and leave my writing alone -- unless there's a real and serious need to alter a word or a phrase. (It's not likely, because I don't post "first drafts", but I won't rule out the possibility.) Just be sure that it's constructive -- and not just because you happen to feel like it for some unknown reason. Cgingold 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between a street and an "actual street"? The word "actual" in an encyclopedic setting significantly risks redundancy; I can appreciate your wider intention, but if you feel it is necessary to stress the point further (even though the text gives considerable geographical information clarifying that the street exists) it would probably be best to re-word your text in an explanatory way avoiding the word "actual".
The text: "It is reached only by following a very complicated route" is clearly wrong. There are ways of reaching Blue Jay Way without taking a "very complicated route" - for example, by helicopter, hence the reasoning for removing the word "only" and adding "road" before "route" to set the appropriate context. The "very complicated route" description is POV anyway. For example, someone who has lived in the Blue Jay Way area for several years or an experienced Hollywood Hills' taxi driver may not find the route complicated in the least; and "route" implies a starting point (for the route), which you do not mention. I felt it was important to at least revise the judgement from "exceedingly complicated" to "complicated", but it may be best to express this differently in an objective way (I know that the map view shows the street layout as relatively tortuous) rather than as a subjective judgement of complexity. You, yourself, have now shown that this is essentially a subjective judgement by choosing to tone down "exceedingly" to "very"; this was after my prompting of no adjective, but if the point was objective (or a properly cited authoritative subjective assessment), there would be no discussion as to whether no adjective, "exceedingly" or "very" is appropriate. Again I appreciate your intentions, so please feel free to rewrite your text if you don't want others to do so; and please understand that others have the right to edit accordingly.
Why did you remove the date links in the text: "The song was recorded on September 6, 1967, with overdubs on September 7 and October 6"? Please note the following text from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers’ date preferences to work, displaying the reader’s chosen format. The day and the month should be linked together, and the year should be linked separately if present." So please revert the links you removed for September 6, 1967 and the three dates in the 'External links' section as they are now not displayed using the reader's chosen format.
"The name of the song derives from an actual street in the Hollywood Hills overlooking Sunset Boulevard, which affords panoramic views of Hollywood and Los Angeles" ... As written, the meaning of that text is ambiguous. It could mean that either the "street" (i.e. Blue Jay Way) or Sunset Boulevard affords panoramic views; hence the reason for re-wording for clarification.
"The name of the song derives from an actual street" ... In linguistics, "derives" means "to generate (one structure) from another or from a set of others". If the song were called, for example, "Sitting Here in Blue Jay Way" the phrase "derives from" would be more appropriate, involving a specific generational step (additional wording) away from the original street name; but in this case (i.e. the "Blue Jay Way" article) the name of the song is absolutely *identical* to the name of the street. Would you be happy if the text was re-worded to include the phrase "gave its name to" (or similar wording)? On a separate point, "due to" is encyclopedic wording rather than "thanks to", which is an idiom when used in this context.
According to the Wikipedia link, Hollywood Hills is a part of the City of Los Angeles; and Hollywood is also designated as being within the City of Los Angeles. So the current text ("panoramic views of Hollywood and Los Angeles") needs to be revised because: (a) Hollywood is within Los Angeles, and (b) the street itself is within Los Angeles. Would you be happy with views of "Hollywood and central Los Angeles" or "Hollywood and downtown Los Angeles" in the text, or can you suggest alternative wording that you feel would be appropriate and correct?
To summarise, I think the intention of your 16:23, 4 November 2006 edit was beneficial (i.e. setting the scene for the opening lines of the song), but I hope you will understand that I have acted in good faith in re-working part of the text, and inviting you to revise. I don't see any need for, or benefit from, the tone you have expressed, and I would appreciate an apology, please. - Zakko 14:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, again. Okay  -- now that you've articulated your concerns at such length (I am both impressed, and, well... appalled, by the amount of time & effort you've lavished on this -- do you realize that you wrote some 900 words, in total?), you've persuaded me that your edits actually were made in good faith. If only you had taken the time to explain some of this in the first place, I would not have found your alterations so objectionable -- which was the reason my tone was less than friendly. (If you care to take a look at any of the other discussions I've had, with other editors, you will see that I am not in the habit of engaging in rude or hostile exchanges -- quite the opposite. Also, out of respect for the other people who have worked on a particular article, I *always* make a point of giving as complete a rundown of my edits as I can fit into the edit summary. I wish more people would do that.) In any event, since you raised the subject, I would be more than happy to exchange mutual apologies.
I read your comments closely, and felt that you made some valid points, which I took account of when I rewrote the paragraph: a strategically placed comma after the word "street" took care of one issue, and the insertion of the word "high" took care of another. I think the word "rather" (replacing "very") is sufficiently flexible in terms of what it conveys to resolve your concerns on that point.
As to the word "road" -- given that streets are generally accessed via other streets (not by helicopter, for pete's sake -- that's entirely too fanciful), adding "road" would simply be redundant.
And lastly, regarding my use of the word "actual" -- The reason for this is very simple: While it is undoubtedly true that many people are now (4 decades later) aware that Blue Jay Way is a real street in Los Angeles (and don't need to be reminded of that fact), it's also the case that a great many other people -- probably the majority of readers -- will come to this article NOT knowing that Blue Jay Way is, indeed, an actual street -- and not merely an imaginary creation of George Harrison's imagination.  So it serves a very specific purpose. In a sense, it's a short-hand way of saying to those readers -- in a single word -- something along the lines of, "you may have assumed that Blue Jay Way was merely an imaginary place, but, amazingly enough -- it's REAL." In sum, I'm just not going to budge on this one. (FYI: I grew up in Los Angeles and had no idea that it was a real street until 1969/70, two years after first hearing the song. And yes, I've been there. :)
Cgingold 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Cgingold. Thank you for your response. I'll reply in full to your comments later (possibly in a few days' time as I'm rather busy now), but one aspect you didn't mention in your response is the point regarding the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates containing a month and a day: "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should almost always be linked to allow readers’ date preferences to work, displaying the reader’s chosen format." (I appreciate that you may not have been aware of this when you removed some date links from the article, but it is a very useful facility for an international encyclopedia.) Do you have any comments on this, please, with regard to reinstating the links that you removed? - Zakko 12:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, again -- I've also been tied up, and finally found the time to take a look at your reply. I was completely focused on the content-related discussion, and the date-link issue slipped my mind entirely. You are quite right: I had no idea those date-links are called for in the MoS. Matter of fact, I've often wondered why people made a point of linking so many dates that are, after all, rather trivial in the larger scheme of things. If you've ever looked at those Date Pages, they generally don't add much if any useful info which relates to the articles that are linked to them -- so I've regarded the date-links as simply unneeded visual clutter, by and large. In any event, I see now that they actually do serve an important function -- so I guess I will be adding them in myself, now, when I see that they're missing. :)
Cgingold 11:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of "date-links" -- those "Year X in music" page-links are really great for these music-related articles, much better than using a standard year-link. I wish more editors knew about them. Cgingold 11:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Cgingold. Thank you for the modified date links. (I've set the indent for this message to be the same as it is for my previous message; otherwise the messages tend to become squeezed over on the right-hand side after a long exchange of messages.)
A point specifically with respect to the 7 November modifications: the term "Los Angeles Basin" is a proper noun, so it needs to be written as "Los Angeles Basin" rather than "Los Angeles basin". See the Los Angeles Basin article and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Directions_and_regions in this regard.
I agree that the "Year X in music" links are often very useful in music-related articles.
I'm still quite busy, so I will reply in full later. At this stage I'll remove the www.thebeatlesongs.com link as this has been a dead link for a considerable time; I believe that website has now led to a commercial venture whereas it had been a freely available website. - Zakko 19:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The image Image:TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

ringo starr play drums but it have a peculiar sound, sound with a metalic sound  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.202.195.161 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Blue Jay Way/CommentsTalk:Blue Jay Way/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue Jay Way/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


### Infobox
The single cover image requires an alt description; please add one
Can you give some guidance perhaps? I believe I've followed the same style used in countless articles, and I have to say I've never had a problem with this; in fact, it's an approach I've adopted at the suggestion of other reviewers. That's not to dismiss your point, but after looking back at some of the other articles you've reviewed (trying to get some idea of what you might mean), I see you advocate having no caption at all for cover art, which is surprising. Here, are you thinking I should add mention that it's the Magical Mystery Tour EP – or something else?
Well since it is just a picture of the vinyl, it would probably be better to caption it instead. Carbrera (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Carbrera, I still don't understand what it is you're wanting to see added or changed here. The image shows the face label from the EP for the side containing the song; and it is captioned – "1967 UK EP face label" – which corresponds with information given in the second sentence of the Lead, and with the second (EP) release date in the infobox. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry; I feel as if my mind has been so pre-occupied lately. I thought I didn't see a caption for the record, but there clearly is one. My bad. Carbrera (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that's okay … I was feeling bad, thinking "What is it I'm not getting here?"! JG66 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Rest is great, but please add the correct track listing to this article. If you are looking for an example, Rare (Gwen Stefani song) includes one
Ah, well, that approach (giving the tracks before and after) has been abandoned altogether for Beatles song articles. And in fact I've been one of the most vocal about removing them – I was all in favour of retaining the full track list templates, as we still have for, say, Dylan and Rolling Stones songs, because those full lists are informative. Someone did reinstate the before-and-after's in all the Beatles song articles, quite recently … and got blocked for their efforts! (A bit harsh, I thought.) I raised the matter at the time, regarding the grey area on this issue, having also discussed the episode with another editor. So, I'm not sure what to do here when, from all the song articles I view, the track listing you're recommending does not get used. I mean, do you really think it adds anything informative in the infobox, to know which tracks immediately precede and follow a song on its parent album? It's regrettable, imo, that no one raised this whole subject at WP:Songs years ago, because it seems to me we now have three different approaches encyclopaedia-wide (heck, maybe more than three): 1) to include the before-and-after tracks, as in Gwen's "Rare"; 2) to not include them, and instead let the foot-of-article album template be the sole (but complete) source of track chronology, as in all the Beatles articles; and 3) to include full track list templates in the infobox, as in all the Stones and Dylan articles. JG66 (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather see something than nothing. You can put the full track listing if that's your preference; I have nothing against it. Carbrera (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Well no, I can't, because all the full track list templates for Beatles albums were deleted at TfD. Oh well – I've add that before & after thing, then. JG66 (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
@JG66: If you don't feel it necessary in the article, I don't see the need to include it. Would you prefer it included or left out? Carbrera (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
That's very good of you. I would rather lose it, yes. Just to add: I was all for the editors who were deleting the templates to instead start a discussion (at WP:Songs) to see if consensus could be reached for a single, standard approach on this. My thinking was, if they were putting the effort into nominating these and similar templates for deletion, individually or in groups by artist, then why not raise it instead as a project-wide issue so that everyone gets a say. That didn't happen, so we've got this mix of three styles, unfortunately. JG66 (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
#### Paragraph 1
Add "recorded" after "is a song" please
Yes, thanks – done. JG66 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


#### Paragraph 3
"many others admire its..." --> "many others admired its…"
Reworded to "have admired", consistent with "have dismissed" earlier in the sentence. Must admit I think the present tense is okay in this context, but to say "many others admired" would not work with "some reviewers have dismissed". JG66 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Background and inspiration
#### Paragraph 3
I would remove "in California" in the opening line since you have already mentioned the location several times previously
Thanks. It's gone. JG66 (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Composition
#### Music
Remove "instrument" after after "composed on a keyboard" please
Done. Slightly surprised, though, given that in the 21st century, "keyboard" would more likely suggest a computer or some other device, no? JG66 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
"had only been heard previously in popular music in the Left Banke's "Pretty Ballerina", released in December 1966.[38]" --> "had only been heard previously in popular music in the Left Banke's 1966 single "Pretty Ballerina".[38]"
That's lovely – thanks! JG66 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
In the section's final statement: "Gould views it as the Beatles repeating the wordplay first used in the chorus of Lennon's 1963 song "It Won't Be Long".[52]": shouldn't it be "in the chorus of their 1963 song "It Won't Be Long".", instead of Lennon's, since he's technically not the only artist?
I see your point but I think it's okay. It's clear to readers that Lennon is also a member of the Beatles, and with this article focusing on Harrison's song and, more widely, on Harrison's songwriting and the influences he brings to the band, I believe it's equally important to identify the (main) composer of a Beatles song that's not one of his. Does that make sense? JG66 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Production
You mention who placed the tambourine (Ringo Starr), but you don't mention who placed the cello; please add this in if the information is known and available
It's simply (and frustratingly) not available. I find this extraordinary when the same sources are able to name each and every member of the orchestra for other Beatles tracks. In the case of "Blue Jay Way", I imagine the cellist would have worked with Harrison and George Martin for hours trying to capture the requisite Indian inflections, yet no one caught his/her name … As you say below: "weird"! JG66 (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Appearance in Magical Mystery Tour film
Just pointing this out: Harrison's suit looks orange and not red to me; is it actually red? LOL
Ha, I agree! "Burnt orange" perhaps … JG66 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
"In its preview of Magical Mystery Tour in 1967," --> "In its review of the movie in 1967," (Did you mean "review", not "preview"?)
No, it is/was a preview, in fact. JG66 (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Release and reception
"In America, where Capitol Records had combined the six EP tracks with five songs issued on the band's singles throughout the year," --> "In America, where Capitol Records had combined the six EP tracks with five of the band's singles throughout the year,"
The problem with that, though, is the band only released three singles in 1967. If it's the length of the sentence that's the problem for you (i.e. with the inclusion of that "issued on"), perhaps the solution might be to add a couple of dashes, and let the reader breathe: "In America – where Capitol Records had combined the six EP tracks with five songs issued on the band's singles throughout the year, creating a full album[81][82] – the release took place on 27 November." ? JG66 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Retrospective assessment
""possibly the most unnerving of all Beatles tracks"." --> ""possibly the most unnerving of all Beatles' tracks"."
Actually "of all Beatles tracks" is correct, because "Beatles" is being used adjectivally. JG66 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Add another comma before "Indian Music and the West," please
Something weird about that, imo – in that the author could well have written more than one in 1997. The only reason for including the year of publication was to work with Farrell's mention of "nearly thirty years on", so what I've just done is add "(1997)" after the book title instead. JG66 (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Cover versions and cultural references
Add a link to the album article for Buncha Hair That Long please
Ah thanks for that. I don't know how I missed it. JG66 (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


### Personnel
So the cello play is really unknown? Weird...


### End of GA Review:
Considering the length of the article, I was hoping to give a lengthier review than this, but these are the only mistakes I found within the article; absolutely impeccable work! I will place the article on hold for seven days to allow for the very few changes I have either suggested or recommended. Sorry about the review delay, I've been incredibly busy lately. In my sincerest opinion, I would recommend nominating this article for FA status, as it is quite incredible. Definitely something to think about. Once again, great work and thanks! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC).

@Carbrera: Thanks for the review. And thank you so much for the compliments – really, that's very kind of you. I'll get down to addressing these points shortly. And please don't worry about the delay. I could see how busy you've been as a reviewer and nominator (prolific!). JG66 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@JG66: I have replied to your two questions above. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC).
I will be passing the article now. Thanks for your cooperation throughout! It was a pleasure working with you! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC).
@Carbrera: Thank you so much again, it's great to see the green symbol appear on this one! I'm pleased our paths have crossed at last, because I've seen your name attached to GA reviews and nominations so often this year. Good luck with the GA Cup – you're a tireless worker, and you make this process a very pleasant experience. Best, JG66 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)