# Talk:Love You To

... what about Within and Without you.... does that have McCartney or Lennon ??nishantjr (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the song's name is "Love You To" instead of "Love To You" remains a mystery to this day.
I thought it might be conversational shorthand: "[Yes, I would] love you to [do that]." Whether that was the intended meaning or not, it is a meaning, so I don't see the title as nonsense needing to be unscrambled.
Nor do I see "Love to You" as more worthy of being singled out than other possible ways of reading the title ("To Love You," "Love You Too," etc.). Richard K. Carson (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I realize now that my latter statement was sort of silly, since "love to you" actually appears in the lyrics. I've added that fact to the sentence to make it explicit.
I still think the title makes sense even in light of the actual lyrics, but I hadn't intended to pursue that. Richard K. Carson (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought this track was mis-spelt when I first saw it: surely it should be "too" as-in "also" not "to" as in "somewhere".  "Love You Too" is a fairly common phrase, after-all.
86.148.103.1 (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved the page to "Love You to" and edited the article accordingly. Prepositions in song titles aren't capitalised. See also: Got to Get You into My Life. The actual song title has a "to", whether it's a misspelling of "too" or not. Gershake (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone undid my edit and left no explanation, so I reverted back to mine...? Gershake (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
They undid your edit because you are wrong.  The last word in a title is always capitalized.  See here, here (rule 8), and here.  Vidor (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting. Still would have been nice of them to reason thus before moving it back without comment. :) Gershake (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Paul is CLEARLY heard harmonizing in the chorus "Meeeeee", "Seeeeeee".  He was not removed from the mix.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.30.211 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC) 

The source cited for "raga rock" does not verify it. Looked it up through GoogleBooks' preview of the book source: "raga rock". It shows up on the page where the song's recording is discussed, but is being used out of context here as original research: "the Byrds and the Kinks claimed to play 'raga-rock,' and by the summer..." is the exact quote, which leads to a paragraph on this song's recording. Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Found source verifying "raga" with {{cite book|last1=Brackett|first1=Nathan|authorlink1=Nathan Brackett|last2=Hoard|first2=Christian|date=2 November 2004|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=t9eocwUfoSoC&pg=PA53#v=onepage&q&f=false|title=The New Rolling Stone Album Guide|publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]]|page=53|isbn=0743201698|edition=4th}} Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Self-published sources such as this should not be used, although it doesnt call the song "Indian classical". The Pollack article calls the song's form "neo-classical" and "Indian-styled", and the song with "the influence of, the so-called Classical Music of India." The song's Indian influence is noted in this article's body, but this source I cited clearly calls it a certain genre and is the most reliable (published collection of music journalists' essays on artists' discographies, published by Rolling Stone, etc.) Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on raga calls it a melodic mode (not a genre) of Indian classical music, which is a genre. --John of Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and citing Wikipedia articles is not a guideline. Verifiability is. Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to clear up this issue, because I'm hoping to nominate the article for GA quite soon. The song's genre is "raga rock" per two sources cited in the article – Schaffner's book The Beatles Forever and the song review at AllMusic. (Other sources include Unterberger/AllMusic's article for "I Want to Tell You", and Treble's review of Revolver, where it's "trippy raga-rock".) Btw, I think it's important to retain "Indian music", per Lavezzoli and Leng, and to give it precedence in the genre field, because pretty much every commentator I've read highlights it in some way as an Indian song/recording, way more anyway than the number who label it raga rock. JG66 (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Love You To/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi JG66, I'll be reviewing this. On my first read-through, I only noticed one issue: In the "Retrospective assessment and legacy" section, it quotes Kot as saying calling the song "a boldly experimental track that Harrison records without his band mates as he makes the first full-scale incorporation of Eastern instruments on a Beatles album". But, even if it is a direct quote of Kot, "without his band mates" seems incorrect, as McCartney and Starr also played on it. Could I suggest "a boldly experimental track that Harrison records ... as he makes the first full-scale incorporation of Eastern instruments on a Beatles album". That way you can keep the direct quote but omit the incorrect and potentially misleading info.
I'll do a next level of check, including looking at the references, soon. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Moisejp, great to hear from you, and I'm so pleased you've picked this one up. Your point about the Kot quote is a good one – I guess I'd thought that, while not strictly accurate, his statement had a ring of truth to it, in that the song's hardly a Beatles band performance. I'll make the change you suggest, though. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi JG66. I'm still working through spot-checking the references, but so far so good. One other minor comment I had about the main text is: I wonder whether it would be worthwhile to mention explicitly in the Recording section that Lennon didn't play on the track. I know he's not included in the Personnel section, so it should be obvious. But, possibly, some people might read through the Recording section and think, "What about Lennon?" Some people might not know that all four Beatles did not necessarily play on every single one of their songs. (And if it's documented somewhere why he wasn't he didn't happen to be on the song, that could be interesting too.) Anyway, it's just an idea. Feel free to ignore if you have a good reason to. Moisejp (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, could be worth a mention. I've often been intrigued by Lennon's non-appearance, but then there are quite a few Beatles songs from the 1965–67 period where he seems to have sat out the session for the basic track or been relegated to a percussive instrument (which may or may not have been retained in the subsequent mix down) – Drive My Car, You Won't See Me, Michelle, Taxman, Sgt. Pepper come to mind … I can't find anything on this issue regarding Love You To, aside from the fact that authors such as Ian MacDonald simply don't list Lennon as a contributor. I've just added this, although it's tucked away in an end note. JG66 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It all looks good, JG66! I'm passing the article. Moisejp (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Prose, grammar, spelling is all good. No MoS problems.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
Well sourced. I spot-checked several and they were accurately reflected; no copyright problems.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Broad and coverage and well focused.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
No biases; written neutrally.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Stable; no edit wars.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
one free image is appropriately captioned; one non-free image has proper rationale.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Congratulations and great work!
Thanks for the review, Moisejp. I'm ultra pleased about this one making GA! Best, JG66 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In Kevin Howlett's liner notes accompanying the 2022 Special Edition of Revolver, he writes that Paul was the one playing tambura, since a previously unknown rehearsal tape features him and George playing tambura and sitar together. He provides the following personnel listing:

George Harrison – lead vocal, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, sitar
Paul McCartney – harmony vocal, tamboura
Ringo Starr – tambourine
Anil Bhagwat – tabla
He also writes this: There is an invoice in the EMI archive listing an £18 fee payable to the Asian Music Circle for "tabla and sitar players", which has caused confusion about who may have played sitar in the session. "I can tell you here and now – 100 per cent it was George on sitar throughout," Anil Bhagwat confirmed to author Steve Turner. "There were no other musicians involved. It was just me and him." The surviving recordings also verify this. Tkbrett (✉) 18:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)