# Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll review this. The article looks pretty close to the GA criteria already and I see the "usual suspects" of Norman, Everett, MacDonald and Lewisohn in the sources, so this should be a pretty straightforward affair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


### Lead
Should we mention the song is primarily Lennon's work (or at least that is what the majority of the sources seem to lean towards), or is that too controversial?
not the first song to feature an Eastern-inspired sound in a rock composition, or even the first Beatles track ... the first Beatles track to do what? I can't think of another Beatles raga rock track before Rubber Soul, and I don't think the string quartet in "Yesterday" counts.


### Composition
it was Lennon who began writing the song in February 1965, while on vacation at St. Moritz in the Swiss Alps with his wife, Cynthia Lennon - this needs rewording, as at the moment it implies John began writing the song with Cynthia, which obviously wasn't the case.
while filming the second Beatles movie, Help!, at Twickenham Film Studios, George Harrison first encountered the sitar, a prominent feature in the song - I don't recall any sitar on the song "Help!", this needs clarifying
On 25 August 1965, during the Beatles' American tour, Harrison's friend David Crosby of the Byrds discussed in detail his thoughts about Indian classical music - (personal opinion) David Crosby has a tendency to let his ego run away and take credit for anything he possibly can, are we sure Roger McGuinn didn't have a hand in this?
Can we mention the time signature here? (6/8 I think) Most Beatles songs before this (and, indeed, most rock 'n' roll) were straight 4/4 after all.


### Recording
Though the group completely reshaped "Norwegian Wood", it was far from the album version. I don't understand what this means
Afterwards, the Beatles skipped the rhythm section, and decided to jump to the master take. What does this mean?


### Summary
That's pretty much it as far as I can see, I'll put the review on hold pending resolution of the above issues. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Ritchie333 Since there are various accounts by John and Paul, I think it is best to just leave it at Lennon-McCartney, and explain the context in the body as is. I clarified the points made and included the time signature. The first point for "Recording" simply means a lot of changes were made to the song, but it did not yet resemble the final version.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The citation to Howlett's book you added needs a page number. I've made some other fixes and once that issue is resolved, we should be there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333, done. That was a quick one!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
In that case, it's a pass. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, I'd like to make some changes here but thought I'd run them by you first, seeing as you're the one who got this article to GA.
Seems to me, from all I've read about "Norwegian Wood", that we're overstating the song's Indian qualities. Okay, its principal musical feature is the sitar part, and Harrison's acquisition of the instrument came about through his and Lennon's discussion of Indian classical music and Ravi Shankar, with Crosby and McGuinn in LA. But the sitar overdub was just an afterthought during the recording process – certainly not a key element in, or in any way relevant to, the writing of the song.
Instead of focusing on sitar and Indian music in the Composition section, I'm surprised there's not something about the melody. Although it's far from the first example in the Beatles' work, "Norwegian Wood" is one of the most notable songs of theirs where the key changes to a parallel minor (over the bridge sections).
I remember removing some text covering Harrison's early sitar lessons and absorption in all things Indian, since that applied to later on in the chronology, but I think there's still an element of that in the article. I'm referring to the paragraph beginning "Harrison shared his enthusiasm with the other Beatles …" Firstly, that's more applicable to early 1966. Also, the choice of statements/quotes is a bit surprising and, I'd argue, not necessarily indicative of Lennon's and McCartney's response to Indian music. I'm sure McCartney might have said he found it "boring", but more often than not he's enthused about the Indian influence that Harrison introduced into the Beatles' work. [In fact, McCartney himself adds some important Indian styling to a few Revolver tracks (vocal melisma on "I Want to Tell You", "raga" guitar on "Taxman").] Worth bearing in mind that McCartney has said he also found the avant-garde artists he championed at the time – Stockhausen, Berio and Ayler – a challenge to listen to, or certainly not an enjoyable listening experience. But the point is he, like all the Beatles, were open to including aspects of these new influences in their work from 1965 onwards. I suggest the whole paragraph could go; it's more of an aftermath/legacy-related point if it's relevant at all. JG66 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

JG66 I'm fine with removing the paragraph if you think it needs to go. Run it by Ritchie too if you want since he reviewed it. I focused on the sitar part, afterthought or not, because sources noted the importance of it on music during the era. It may not have been a key element of writing the song but writers still detailed it more than anything else; I just followed what they described. I have no objections to including info about the melody as long as the importance of the sitar is not understated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, TGS. And no, it's definitely not a case of me wanting to lessen the importance of the sitar part – just to ensure that the context is correct, and that we don't go too far off-topic with discussion of Indian classical music. JG66 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
No problem, in all honesty JG66, you are ten times the writer I am so I have total faith in your work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
TheGracefulSlick, you're way too generous there ... ("Graceful" indeed – or more accurately: "Gracious".) I'm sure the pertinent issue is simply that I own way too many books and other sources for my own good! JG66 (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

At the top of this article is says it's a good article, and then that it's a former good article nominee. While true, this may be a little confusing to the reader.  Should the second part be removed? —Anne Delong (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Norwegian Wood (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Does the article really merit 28 mentions of the sitar?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:180:655:9AA:72CE:A99F:9DBC (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC) 

Though this is hardly the worst article for fan conjecture about "what it means," there's still a bit of that in Sir Paul's admission that he found arson an appropriately infantile response to apparent sexual frustration. The explanation is likely much simpler (and less melodramatic):

We’ve learned over the years that if we wanted we could write anything that just felt good or sounded good and it didn’t necessarily have to have any particular meaning to us. As odd as it seemed to us, reviewers would take it upon themselves to interject their own meanings on our lyrics. Sometimes we sit and read other people’s interpretations of our lyrics and think, ‘Hey, that’s pretty good.’ If we liked it, we would keep our mouths shut and just accept the credit as if it was what we meant all along.
That'd be John Lennon, who's often considered "an insider" in these matters.Weeb Dingle (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Apologies to TheGracefulSlick, since I incorrectly credited this GA to JG66 in an edit summary. Anyway, this is regarding Norwegian Wood's time signature. Plenty of authors describe it as being arranged in a triple metre, but there seems to be disagreement about whether it's 3/4, 6/8 or 12/8. At the moment, the Rubber Soul article writes the song is in 12/8, while this page says it is 6/8. As JG mentioned in an edit summary at RS, the sheet music has the song in 12/8. Walter Everett cites the sheet music briefly in his 2001 book The Beatles as Musicians: The Quarry Men through Rubber Soul (p. 315). In his 2009 book, The Foundations of Rock, he writes the song is in compound time with triplet divisions (p. 305). I haven't been into music theory for a long time, so I couldn't tell you exactly what that means. In his contribution to the book Reading the Beatles, John Covach, a professor of music and contemporary of Everett, writes the song is in 6/8 (p. 45). Alan W. Pollack writes the time signature is "3/4 (6/8)" in his Notes on ... series. What this all means, I couldn't tell you. Perhaps calling it a "triple metre" is the most accurate description, but I'd appreciate hearing what more knowledgeable people have to say. Tkbrett (✉) 12:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

If we can find an easy, painless solution, that would be great. At Rubber Soul, I followed the sheet music and Everett's pull-out example in The Beatles as Musicians. (And I was slightly influenced by another editor changing it to 12/8, I guess.) I tend to play and think music intuitively rather than along any formal academic lines – which is to say: I often get what these learned musicologists are saying, but don't necessarily speak the language. JG66 (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I think triple metre is the simple solution, since that encompasses 3/4, 6/8 and 12/8. Tkbrett (✉) 15:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The main article mentions Bob Dylan three times, the first claiming that Norwegian Wood is "Influenced by the introspective lyrics of Bob Dylan" but there is no source or verifiability attached to that claim.  Surely The Beatles were the only people who could state what the influences for the song were and it seems more like conjecture than fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.36.21 (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 

1. "Paul McCartney explained that the term "Norwegian Wood" was an ironic reference to the cheap pine wall panelling then in vogue in London. McCartney commented on the final verse of the song: "In our world the guy had to have some sort of revenge. It could have meant I lit a fire to keep myself warm, and wasn't the decor of her house wonderful? But it didn't, it meant I burned the fucking place down as an act of revenge, and then we left it there and went into the instrumental."
Can somebody explain why revenge was necessary and how it logically ties into the context?
2. Isn't "wave form" supposed to be a single word? Spelled like that, it's two separate nouns.
ICE77 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not think he was serious about "lit a fire" meaning burning down the house instead of lighting a fire in the fireplace.
But, the whole song could not happen in real life anyway. Why would she leave for work in the morning with him being alone in her house, still sleeping in the bathtub?
Tesseract12 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The article claims the song was 
"Influenced by the introspective lyrics of Bob Dylan"
but offers no source to validate that claim. 92.26.148.79 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The article on the Dylan song 4th Time Around has an extensive section on how it's supposed to be a reaction to Norwegian Wood (which Dylan allegedly considered derivative of his own work). If that section is to be believed, it probably also warrants (limited) inclusion in this article. 2A02:A461:DB06:0:2DBC:2E06:6569:97CD (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)