# Talk:It's All Too Much

The image Image:TheBeatles-YellowSubmarinealbumcover.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)

I was wondering if we should include the release date of the film in the leader text?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 

This has been bothering me. What exactly did John Lennon say at the beginning of this song before a guitar chord plays? Some fans think he said "To your mother," other fans thought he said "To Jorma!" - as a dedication to Jorma Kaukonen of Jefferson Airplane.
However, the "To Jorma!" version may be debunked because: this song was recorded from May-June 1967, and while George Harrison did set foot in Jefferson Airplane's hometown of San Francisco that August, JA were actually touring Canada then. 
A month before the song was recorded, though, Paul McCartney visited San Francisco and met up with JA's other guitarists, Jack Casady and Marty Balin, but not with Kaukonen, further dispelling this version of the story.
WikiPro1981X (talk)

This review is transcluded from Talk:It's All Too Much/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 16:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this.  Since I'm working on another review, it may take a little time.  But my first impression is that IATM doesn't need much work, so once started it should go quickly. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll be working on this while not busy elsewhere. I can't find my copy of Yellow Submarine (hopefully it's just misplaced), so I've been listening to an internet long version – it begins with George(?) saying "'All Too Much' [which is?] a copy of [the ?]". —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned on your talk, my apologies – the transclusion of this review onto Talk:It's All Too Much didn't register on my watchlist. (I had no idea we were under way.) Will add my replies now.
PS: it's Geoff Emerick introducing the mixdown (according to John Winn's book), and I imagine he's referring to a "copy" of a previous master. PPS: Blimey, I asked for it, didn't I? Saying I'd welcome a thorough review … ; ) JG66 (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we're about finished.  I should get through the rest of the citations/refs today or tomorrow.  Do you want to add the screenshot before it's finalized? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
That's going to be a while coming, I'm afraid. I've got to buy the DVD, unless the clip reappears on YouTube anytime soon. I'm happy to give you a shout somewhere down the line, as and when. As I think we've agreed, there's enough critical commentary to allow for a non-free image here. (In addition to the reviewer at "Hello, Goodbye", btw, user:JMilburn was the editor I consulted about criteria for promo/film images at "H, G" and "Blue Jay".) JG66 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There are several images on Google[1] which apparently are OK to use if credited. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've just added one of the images, although, I'd like to think I'll find something better to convey the hallucinogenic/"mind-expanding environment" aspect discussed in the text. I'll splash out on the DVD soon. It will be a good excuse to show the film to my young son and friends' kids his age, being a children's classic 'n all. JG66 (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


### Infobox
 Resolved

Released
Template:Infobox single#Parameters (incorporated by Template:Infobox song#Usage) "Released" states "This field should refer to the earliest known commercial release date, using a single occurrence" —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, removed the second release date. JG66 (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


### Lead
Harrison wrote "It's All Too Much" as a celebration of his experiences
"Celebration" of an illegal substance may provoke some people.  FYI only. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Noted, thanks. I do think it's clear, though, that we're talking about the song being a celebration of its composer's LSD-induced experiences – what he termed "realisations". JG66 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


### Background and inspiration
 Resolved

Quote box: ... although it has a down side, I see
I'm used to seeing quotes that begin with what makes a complete sentence rendered: "[A]lthough it has a down side,".  Is this more typical of British writing? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Not typical of a Brit approach at all, no. In fact, it's after seeing other editors being "corrected" after imposing the bracketed capital letter you're suggesting(!). But I agree – "[A]lthough it has a down side …" is quite correct – so I've changed it now. JG66 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

By the time Harrison wrote "It's All Too Much", in 1967, the Indian sitar had replaced the guitar as his main musical instrument,
Leng certainly makes this case for Harrison's outlook, but I think he performed the vast majority of his subsequent Beatle recordings on guitar. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I've added "temporarily" to qualify the statement. It is something that Harrison talked about quite a bit – that over 1966–68, he played sitar at every opportunity, but only ever opened the guitar case for a Beatles "date". Slight exaggeration, I'd imagine, but mid '68 is considered the time when he truly re-engaged with guitar again. JG66 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


### Composition and musical structure
 Resolved

the time signature throughout is 4/4.
There is a template for meter: {{music|time|4|4}} that shows as 44.  A mention of the tempo would be useful (about 113 beats per minute or Moderato, but don't have a RS). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a source for the tempo either, I'm afraid. BPMs are not something one reads too much about in Beatles books or other commentaries on their work.
I've added the meter template – but I have to say it looks horrendous on the page. I guess it's different when the article is dedicated to musical meters, or otherwise full of musical theory and notation, but seeing how 4/4 is rendered on this page, I think it's unnecessarily fussy – an eyesore … (Sorry!) JG66 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I liked the template better before it was made bold, but I've gotten used to it.  If it bothers you, please don't use it. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks – I'll try to live with it anyway (give it a few months and see if it still bothers me then!). I agree: the bold treatment is half the problem. JG66 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

A defining characteristic of Indian classical music, such minimal harmonic movement features in many of Harrison's other Indian-style compositions, including "Within You Without You" and "Blue Jay Way".
Maybe this split up: "Such minimal harmonic movement is characteristic of Indian classical music.[24]  Many of Harrison's other Indian-style compositions feature this approach, including "Within You Without You" and "Blue Jay Way".[25]" —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I made a very minor change: "As a defining characteristic of Indian classical music,[24] such minimal harmonic movement features in many of Harrison's other Indian-style compositions …" Seems to me that otherwise, the second point come across as an aside, as if it belongs in an end note, when in fact the information to be conveyed is that the song's lack of harmonic movement is typical of Indian classical music and (unsurprisingly) a feature of Harrison's other compositions in the genre. JG66 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

and II minor
"ii" (lower case) is normally used for minor chords (Common chord (music), Degree (music)). —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed. I've changed it, although I'm tempted to remove mention of IV and ii minor altogether, and just name the actual chords. JG66 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree, I think that is better than mixing the two. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

"the love that's shining all around here", "Floating down the stream of time", etc.
Again, I'm not used to seeing italics used with quote marks.  Should MOS:NOITALQUOTE apply? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It is common for song lyrics and poetry, and I'm surprised that it's not mentioned at MOS:NOITALQUOTE. I've always favoured the italic + quote-mark treatment, for clarity, because there are paragraphs, if not individual sentences, where we can have the name of the song (and the name of songs to which it's being compared), a line or two of song lyrics, and a quote relating to those lyrics – all of which merit the use of quote marks. In this instance, Dale Allison's "emerging religious worldview" appears later in the same sentence. One or two reviewers in the past have queried this approach, but I don't recall ever having had to change it. Up to you, Rojo – I don't think that MOS:NOITALQUOTE actually addresses this issue. JG66 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
OK for now, but this usage should be taken up at MOS. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


### Production
#### Recording
 Resolved

Quote box: from "Sorrow" ... John and
This may show differently on mobile devices, etc.  Maybe add a non-breaking space (MOS:NBSP) between "Sorrow" and "..." (and other appearances of ellipses). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, done, here and throughout, I believe. JG66 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn, commenting on the relaxed and spontaneous approach to the recording
The extra commentary may be handled by adding it to the quote: "It was that sort of [relaxed and spontaneous] song." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I tried that earlier but found it too intrusive. Do you think it's a problem as is? JG66 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Not a problem – commentary in a quote box just doesn't look right to me. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Lennon on lead guitar ... they added overdubs, comprising a second lead guitar part ... Author and critic Kenneth Womack credits this guitar part to Harrison, who played his Epiphone Casino using "the instrument's Bigsby [tremolo] bar in searing, full vibrato force".[50][nb 4] ... Everett credits Lennon for this guitar intro, however.[4] Like Womack,[50] MacDonald lists both Harrison and Lennon as lead guitarists on the song.[33] In his 1999 Billboard interview, Harrison was unable to recall whether he played the opening feedback, but suggested that it might have been McCartney.[21]
I think these different views need to be addressed head-on in the article.  First of all, "lead guitar" generally refers to soloing, fills, etc.  It's hard to distinguish the earlier lead track from the overdubbed one (presumably the one with feedback, vibrato, and sustain).  So to identify "Lennon on lead guitar" might lead some to assume that he is playing the fills, etc., which I think is a minority view.  He may just be playing rhythm guitar (with some embellishments) which is buried in the mix (in the internet version it's hard to hear separate guitar parts).  Whoever played the feedback and vibrato intro probably played the rest of the similar sounding parts in the song.  So if Harrison thinks McCartney played the intro, he might have played the rest, although given the circumstances, his impression may be off.  Most sources seem to identify Harrison as the one responsible for the psychedelic parts.  Anyway, the different views should be addressed in more than a footnote. Also, Everett compares the guitar to Hendrix and Babiuk adds that it "is certainly reminicient of Hendrix's style ... [he] clearly had an effect on the Beatles."[2] —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I think we have to be slightly careful – some sources give Lennon on "lead guitar" as well as Harrison, others give only Lennon, and that's what we have to live with. (Having said that, I notice that Robert Fontenot lists Lennon on rhythm gtr – somewhat surprising, that, from all I've read on the song.) What I mean is, we can't be accounting for how a reader might attribute the various fills and the solo. I think Harrison's 1999 comment is definitely off, btw: if the interviewer happened to have a book or two handy and had asked "So was it John, maybe – didn't he play lead on the track?", I imagine George would've said, "Oh, did he? Right then, yeah, maybe it was him …"
I can imagine drive-by trivialists wanting to add "but Harrison said it was McCartney" without bothering with the footnotes (similarly with "To your mother" variations). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll come back to this separately if that's okay. I'm thinking – and perhaps it's what you're saying anyway – that what's needed is to identify Harrison as a lead guitarist on the track early on, up at "overdubs, comprising a second lead guitar part". Right now, though, I'm mindful of the structure of this section, whereby we're talking about the 25–26 May sessions and then moving on to descriptions of the finished recording (feedback, trumpets). JG66 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone isolated the tracks?  Otherwise, it is unclear what Lennon played.  Identifying George's part early on is a good way to offset the impression of "Lennon on lead guitar". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes exactly, "to offset the impression of 'Lennon on lead guitar' [throughout]". FWIW, I think Lennon plays all the guitar on the track, and it's only a single part – all recorded live except (maybe) the heavy intro, which sounds like it could have been punched in afterwards. But that's just my opinion. As we know, the majority of commentators give Harrison on guitar also … (This sort of thing frustrates me no end, when authors are so ready with an opinion on a song but often fail to actually listen to it. As another example, I've been working on "Only a Northern Song" and it seems no one notices the presence of some Farfisa doodling towards the end of that track [at least, it sound like a Farfisa organ to me – definitely not Hammond]. I hear it as clear as day, yet we can't mention it.)
Sometimes it's interesting to look at the sources chronologically – once a particular view is introduced, later ones seem to accept it and build on it. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, no one's isolated the tracks. Anyway, I'll get my head around this darn guitar issue now … JG66 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay. I'm reluctant to get my hopes up just yet, but I think the recent changes might have sorted this out: added mention of Harrison also playing lead, in para 1; removed much of the speculation from that para 3 end note; included reference to apparent Hendrix influence. As mentioned, it's just not possible to attribute fills, etc to one of the two guitarists (if indeed there are two). But this does present the majority view early on, that Harrison plays lead guitar, as well as allowing the bone of contention – who exactly supplied the opening feedback – to be dealt with separately. JG66 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you've addressed the different views well enough. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that's good to hear. Once I stopped thinking/talking about the issue, it was surprisingly easy to fix. JG66 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Author Ian MacDonald characterises the 25–26 May sessions as "chaotic" and typical of a period when, due partly to the individual member's drug intake, the group's focus was diminished following the completion of their album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band late the previous month.[45]
I think this can be spilt – "Author Ian MacDonald characterises the 25–26 May sessions as "chaotic".  The group's focus was diminished following the completion of their album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band late the previous month, partly due to the individual member's drug intake." —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I've cut down the text quite a bit, in order to retain the single-sentence coverage. What do you think now? JG66 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Better still. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Maginnis describes the opening of the song as "a burst of howling guitar feedback and jubilant, church-like organ", adding
What about John's (?) "To your Mother!" It provides quite a contrast to the Indian/Hindu flavor. Besides the intro, the song moves along steadily with the drone-like rhythm punctuated by almost chaotic guitar bursting through (reflecting the experience overload?). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Now included mention of "To your mo–!" in an end note. Not sure what you're wanting re those other comments. I think what's there is enough, plus there's plenty of subjective description to come, under Release & reception and Retrospective assessment & legacy – e.g. from International Times, AllMusic, MusicRadar. JG66 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


#### Mixing
 Resolved

The Beatles carried out final mixing on "It's All Too Much", again at De Lane Lea,[53] on 12 October 1967, while completing work on their Magical Mystery Tour EP.[54] In the months since recording the song, Harrison had sworn off acid after visiting the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in August,[55] with Pattie Boyd, Taylor and others,[56] and finding himself disillusioned at how, rather than an enlightened micro-society, Haight-Ashbury seemed to be a haven for dropouts and drug addicts.[57][58]
Perhaps "On 12 October 1967, the Beatles prepared the final mix for "It's All Too Much".  This was also carried out at De Lane Lea,[53] while completing work on their Magical Mystery Tour EP.[54] Harrison swore off acid in the months following recording the song. After visiting the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in August[55] with Pattie Boyd, Taylor and others,[56] he saw the scene as  a haven for dropouts and drug addicts,[57][58] rather than an enlightened micro-society, and  became disillusioned." —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Made some minor changes, but I was reluctant to go completely with the short-sharp approach you suggested. I created a separate sentence to cover Harrison's reasons for abandoning LSD after the Haight visit – thinking about it, that could easily sit as an end note. (The important points are that he had sworn off acid and instead embraced meditation, which is relevant to how Harrison recalls the track in his autobiography, of course, not to mention Dale Allison's observation that the lyrics convey "George's emerging religious worldview".) JG66 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Better still. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

The Beatles had considered the song for inclusion
"Had" doesn't really add anything. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Removed. JG66 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Instead, it was selected that same year for use in the Yellow Submarine animated film (1968),[65] in line with the band's contractual obligations to United Artists to supply four new songs for the project.
Maybe "Instead, they selected it later that year for the soundtrack to Yellow Submarine (1968), to meet contractual obligations to supply United Artists with four new songs for the project."
Done, with minor changes – e.g. I think it's important to introduce Yellow Sub as an animated film(?). JG66 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

reduced to 2:22
I think "shortened to 2:22" sounds better. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
changed to shortened. JG66 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Automatic double tracking was added to the vocals and handclaps, allowing for those parts to be split across the stereo image.[26]
Perhaps "The vocals and handclaps were processed using automatic double tracking, allowing for these parts to be split across the stereo image.[26]" —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. But also had a thought: isn't it more correct to say "so allowing these parts to be split across the stereo image"? JG66 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this phrasing.  Change if you want. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved
I've seen many discussions - none of which seem to agree -- on what the first words are ("Sue your mom" is one theory).  This isn't addressed here.  Should it be?  There seems to be some interest and controversy in fan circles. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Pls see above. It's now included in an endnote – it's not actually a detail that gets a lot of coverage in Beatles bios, from what I've seen. JG66 (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


### Appearance in the Yellow Submarine film
 Resolved

Referring to London's UFO Club,[79] for which the Hapshash team designed promotional posters, Glynn considers the scene to be a cinematic version of Unlimited Freak Out – "a 'happening' that sought to create a totalising mind-expanding environment involving music, light and people".[77]
Again, maybe split: "Glynn considers the scene to be a cinematic version of Unlimited Freak Out, referring to London's UFO Club,[79] for which the Hapshash team designed promotional posters.  He describes it as "a 'happening' that sought to create a totalising mind-expanding environment involving music, light and people".[77]" —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'd like to retain the original sentence, because I think it's truer to Glynn's comments. He's clearly describing Unlimited Freak Out/UFO as "a 'happening' that sought to create a totalising mind-expanding environment involving music, light and people" and he makes the point that Too Much was the track that most clearly evokes this concept. But I think it would be incorrect to say he views the film segment in those terms. JG66 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking in 1999, Starr said of "It's All Too Much": "that's the [track] that really sets the mood of the movie … that's where the music and the movie really gel."[85]
This is a great quote.  Maybe use it in the lead "The song's sequence in the Yellow Submarine film has been recognised for its adventurousness in conveying a hallucinogenic experience – Ringo Starr calls it the track "that really sets the mood of the movie ... that's where the music and the movie really gel.[85]" It can be repeated here. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Magic quote, isn't it? I don't know about adding it in the lead – seems slightly odd to have an endorsement there from a band member; maybe I'll change my mind on that. What I am hoping to do is include a screenshot from the sequence, in which case I'll possibly set Ringo's words as a box quote. Having got some advice before adding similar images in Hello, Goodbye and Blue Jay Way, I'm thinking we've got enough commentary here to warrant a non-free image from the film. Would you agree? JG66 (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Great idea! I think there's enough discussion of the sequence and its tie to the song to qualify.  Adding Ringo's quote would be perfect. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

attempting an audio-visual recreation of the hallucinogenic state …
I'm not used to seeing ellipses at the end of a quote (just a period).  Is this British style? —Ojorojo (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably JG66-British, if I'm honest. The quote is a sentence in its own right, yet more text appears there originally. Given the rationale behind logical quotation (which, alas, has been undermined at the MOS by one or two editors who insist that the concept be approached from the perspective of "the original material", whereas LQ is about punctuation being used/retained with regard to how quoted matter sits in the "new" material), my view is that to have a period after the end quote mark would be incorrect – because the quoted portion constitutes a full sentence not a phrase or fragment. It so happens that there is more to come (in the original text), hence the ellipsis, instead of quote mark followed by full stop/period. I work as a book editor, and that's my view. Wary of sounding too batty on the subject, though – I come to Wikipedia to write articles on music that interests me, not to bury myself in back-room issues that end up going nowhere! Happy to go with what you suggest on this. JG66 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


### Release and reception
 Resolved

An EP containing "It's All Too Much" and the three other new soundtrack songs had been scheduled for September 1968, but a full album was created instead, through the addition of the previously issued "Yellow Submarine" and "All You Need Is Love",[88] and with side two of the LP consisting of orchestral pieces by George Martin.[89][90]
Maybe split up: "An EP containing "It's All Too Much" and the three other new soundtrack songs was scheduled for September 1968, but a full album was created instead.  With the addition of the previously issued "Yellow Submarine" and "All You Need Is Love" to fill out side one of the LP,[88] George Martin's soundtrack orchestral pieces make up the second side.[89][90" —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

one of the new songs that appeared "to have taken more than a few hours to write".
I know the continuing quote is cited, but I think there should be one at the end of this sentence also. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Very surprised, but done anyway. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
*' Show me that I'm everywhere, and get me home for tea. '

Italics in quote noted above. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Rodriguez notes that while the recording had been "positively anarchic" in mid 1967, the timing of its release suggested that the song was "slightly less groundbreaking and a little more reactionary to the psychedelic movement that the band itself had helped popularize".[43]
I think this point should receive more emphasis, something like: "Rodriguez recognises the timing of song's release on its public perception.  While he notes it was "positively anarchic" when it was recorded in mid-1967, by 1969, when it received widespread release, the song was "slightly less groundbreaking and a little more reactionary to the psychedelic movement that the band itself had helped popularize".[43]"  (I was surprised that it was recorded mid-1967 – if it had been released then, it would have had a much bigger impact.) —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Barry Miles of International Times wrote at length about the song, saying: "Endless, mantric,
I find the "wrote ... saying" construction awkward.  How about something like "In a lengthy review in the International Times, Barry Miles detailed the song as "Endless, mantric, a round, interwoven, trellised, tessellated, filigreed, gidouiled, spiralling ...is It's All Too Much [–] George's Indian-timed [rhythm], with drums fading-in-and-out, spurts of life to a decaying note, multi-level, handclapping number … High treble notes flicker like moths around the top register. Happy singalong music."[89]"  Whew, gidouiled!?! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
To get around the construction issue, I've introduced the description with "In his lengthy assessment of the track, Barry Miles of International Times wrote:". I'm not sure about your proposed changes to the quote, though. You've suggested adding "[rhythm]", but as I read Miles' words, there's already a noun to correspond with "George's Indian-timed [etc]" – number. It's a very tripped-out, adjective-heavy appraisal of the song, to put it mildly, which I guess reflects how the song resonated with the more radical element of the Beatles' audience. But the wax-lyrical approach makes it very hard to even attempt to condense. Perhaps:
In a lengthy review in the International Times, Barry Miles detailed the song as being "Endless, mantric, a round, interwoven, trellised, tessellated, filigreed, gidouiled, spiralling … George's Indian-timed, with drums fading-in-and-out, spurts of life to a decaying note, multi-level, handclapping number … High treble notes flicker like moths around the top register. Happy singalong music."
Have to say, I find it works better as it is currently in the article. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree, it does capture the time. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Miles praised it further as "the most striking piece of psychedelia The Beatles ever recorded" and concluded
It's OK to make minor changes to quotes to conform to WP style (see MOS:QUOTE#Typographic conformity): "the Beatles". —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't see this example as being as necessary or harmless as outlined in the guideline. After a lengthy RfC and RfM process, we decided to go with "the Beatles", which is fine, but the fact remains that Omnibus Press titles, The Beatles Anthology, Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head, magazines such as Mojo and Uncut, and many more sources do give the band name as "The Beatles". If we're quoting from those sources, I don't believe we should change to "the" – it's not a simple, stylistic correction in the way that altering dashes or quotation marks would be. In the same way, many UK publications abbreviate Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band to Sgt Pepper (not Sgt.), and US publications such as Rolling Stone include punctuation within a song title if it fits their purposes (e.g. when listing song titles: "George Harrison's 1967 compositions for the Beatles included 'Within You Without You,' 'Only a Northern Song,' 'It's All Too Much,' and 'Blue Jay Way.'). I don't think we'd change those examples to suit our style either, would we? – we're quoting from Rolling Stone or whoever. JG66 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


### Retrospective assessment and legacy
 Resolved

many Beatles biographers consider the band's post-Sgt. Pepper 1967 recordings to be substandard work.[100]
Perhaps this could be clarified – the period immediately following Pepper or? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was fairly clear already, but perhaps: "many Beatles biographers consider the band's 1967 recordings following the completion of Sgt. Pepper to be substandard work." I'm not sure that that's an improvement, though. JG66 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
MMT, the White Album, etc. are substandard?  I didn't realize that this was a common view. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify, we're only talking about recordings made in 1967, post-Pepper. So: MMT, yes, and Our World/"All You Need Is Love", the new Yellow Submarine songs, and oddities such as "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" – but not the White Album. Although, Beatles biographers do tend to take a slightly jaundiced view of much of the White Album, I find. Basically, these authors seem to view anything without George Martin sitting well and truly in the driver's seat as mediocre. (Having long become familiar with that sort of assessment, it surprised me big-time when I started contributing to critical reception at Magical Mystery Tour and song articles such as this one – because you get a very different picture outside of Planet Beatleology. More days off for Mr Martin in the late '60s would've been fine by me!) JG66 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I was reading it as "post-Sgt. Pepper (1967) recordings" (dating the album, not the subsequent 1967 recordings).  Anyhow, it's still surprising, especially with all the good reviews for MMT. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes indeed. In a way, the biographers are being quite perceptive, in that they're not fooled by the addition of all the surefire hits that Capitol Records compiled with the soundtrack songs to create the MMT album – they're referring to the double EP only. JG66 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
*Discussing the lyrics, particularly the line "Show me that I'm everywhere, and get me home for tea",

Again, italics in quote.  (Interesting cultural point.) —Ojorojo (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Writing for Rolling Stone in 2002, Greg Kot admired the song, saying: "once again, a raga-flavored groove brings
Maybe "In a 2002 article for Rolling Stone, Greg Kot expressed his admiration for the song: "once again, a raga-flavored". —Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, I imagine you're keen to avoid the construction "admired the song" followed by "saying"? I have reworded in other instances you've highlighted, but I think this particular example is worth retaining. (Generally, I don't see "saying" and the like as redundant in such a context; without it, or a similar link, the quotes strike me as arriving too abruptly.) Here though, Kot's comments serve as the first of many favourable assessments of the track after we've had a paragraph of unfavourable opinions from the Beatles "experts". So I think it's useful to draw out the point, as a subtle way to signpost the change. Do you see what I mean? JG66 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
OK as per your explanation. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

Joe Bosso of MusicRadar included the track on his 2011 list of Harrison's "10 Greatest Beatles Songs", writing: "At times the song
Perhaps "Joe Bosso of MusicRadar, who included the track on his 2011 list of Harrison's "10 Greatest Beatles Songs", commented, "At times the song" —Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Have gone for different phrasing, but it avoids that same construction you've identified: "Having included the track in his 2011 list of Harrison's "10 Greatest Beatles Songs", Joe Bosso of MusicRadar commented: …" How's that? JG66 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


### Cover versions
#### Other artists
 Resolved

Journey also issued a recording of the song in 1976, on their album Look into the Future.[120] Following its rediscovery in the late 1970s, according to Miles, "It's All Too Much" similarly "won fresh acclaim from a later wave of acid-rock adventurers" during the early 1990s.[121]
"Journey" alongside  "Following its rediscovery" may not be immediately clear.  Maybe "Also in 1976, Journey recorded the song for their album Look into the Future[120].  Besides the late 1970s renditions, the Beatles' "It's All Too Much" "won fresh acclaim from a later wave of acid-rock adventurers" during the early 1990s, according to Miles.[121]" (I wouldn't consider Journey acid-rock aventurers.) —Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Reworded to something close to your suggestion. I thought "according to Miles" had to come forward; felt like it arrived too late otherwise. JG66 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

The previous year, Loves Young Nightmare recorded it (as "All Too Much") for Revolution No. 9: A Tribute to The Beatles in Aid of Cambodia, a multi-artist compilation supplied with Revolver magazine;[124] the album was reissued in the United States in 1997, following the popularity there of Britpop bands such as Oasis.[125][nb 10]
Since the group does not have an article (doesn't appear to be the Robyn Griggs project), I wonder if this is noteworthy. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. It's noteworthy insofar as it's continuing the thread started by Miles' "fresh acclaim from a later wave of acid-rock adventurers", and it allows us to mention the Britpop aspect and then Oasis' adoption of the track during their 1995 tour. That appeals to me – to be able to discuss a song's influence via its cover versions, rather than simply list some notable covers and leave it at that. But as you say, the band don't have an article here (and it's unlikely the compilation would ever get one either). If you're thinking we should ditch all mention of the Loves Young Nightmare cover along with the note about Oasis, fair enough. It's a pity but no great disaster – we've got plenty on the song's über-cool status from the early '90s onwards, I guess (via Bobby Gillespie, the various Mojo and Uncut contributors). JG66 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


### References
 Resolved

Most of the references with author/year/page use sfn format.  However, several journals with this info don't (except Collis, which should have ref=harv). It would be better to be consistent. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all the alternatives you've provided here, Ojorojo, much appreciated. Might be some further comment from me below, but I've gone ahead and replaced them all.
Fixed Collis with ref=harv, but I have to disagree with what you're saying about taking all magazine pieces (have just changed these to the newish cite mag template, btw) to sit under Sources, to match treatment for the Collis/Mojo article. Collis is only there because we use several pages from his 1999 Yellow Submarine feature, whereas other magazine articles (as with online sources) can be handled in a single citation under References; in fact, other magazine pieces might only run to a single page anyway. I think it would be a mistake to lump all those mag sources under Sources, and I've seen other editors undoing such treatment when someone's imposed it at an article. I appreciate your experience must be different, but I can't see what benefit there is in sending a reader from what would become (for ref 12) "Glazer 1977, p. 41" to a Sources entry reading "Glazer, Mitchell (February 1977). "Growing Up at 33⅓: The George Harrison Interview". Crawdaddy. p. 41." when all the information can easily be provided there & then in ref 12. Sorry – perhaps I've misunderstood you? My understanding is that the Sources section is for books and for the overflow of information that results from more than one location being cited from a magazine article, documentary film, CD booklet and the like. So currently, from where I'm sitting, everything is consistent. JG66 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Sensible explanation.  On the other hand, WP:INCITE "Avoiding clutter" provides "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing. There are two main methods to avoid clutter in the edit window: *Inserting short citations (see below) that then refer to a full list of source texts ..." —Ojorojo (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

[111] Acclaimed Music – Since only the Uncut info is included in the article, it would be better to reference it and link to the rocklist archive.[3] —Ojorojo (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I just thought it might be useful to give readers an idea of the song's appearances in similar lists. No probs. JG66 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

[115] Planet gong – This appears to be a fansite.  45cat (image) may be a better ref.[4] —Ojorojo (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

[118] Discogs – I've gotten complaints about using this, so the AllMusic review would be a safer ref.[5] —Ojorojo (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I know, me too – it's the absolute barrel-scraper for me. Never too proud of myself whenever I do resort to using the site, but I guess I figure the artwork there alone supports the existence of the release, even if the user content shouldn't be relied upon. JG66 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 Resolved

[131] Second Hand Songs – I don't think they are a RS (see FAQ[6]).  You already have a ref from Fontenot (he is OK according to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES/ABOUT.COM), which should be sufficient. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I have seen Second Hand Songs starting to become recognised on music websites, but I can understand your reservations. Yes, Fontenot's good; user:3family6 did some sterling work in compiling that list of about.com contributors – I'm often referring to it. JG66 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


### Criteria
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Most of these points are addressed above. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Excellent work, JG66.  This article exceeds the GA criteria on every point.  I'm happy to have been involved. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ojorojo What a thorough review – thank you so much! It's great to see this article's now a GA. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a great new book by Rob Sheffield, with a whole chapter on this song, called Dreaming the Beatles. Sheffield is already cited from an earlier book, so I don't really hve anything to add to the article. But I'd like to get the book in here some how. Why is there no "Suggested Reading section? Or should I just drop it into "References"?--Daveler16 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daveler16. I've seen a couple of things in Sheffield's book I think might be worth including, actually. But if not, I'll happily add it under "Further reading" or something. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
{u|JG66}}} Hmm. I was going to use it for "all time great psychedelic guitar freak out", but that's already here from another article. What 2 uses did you see? Maybe that they were capable of jamming, and it's George's "funniest" lyric, or that it's all about Patti?  Glad to find someone else who's read it.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Daveler16 I haven't read it, in fact, but I make the most of the (edited) excerpts and online previews! Yeah, I thought the Beatles jamming aspect was worth adding, further to the point made by Bobby Gillespie in the Mojo list; and (although I think it's a bit of a stretch by Sheffield in this instance) the Pattie-as-muse thing. Also, the mention of how Pepper would have been improved by the inclusion of "Too Much", building on Williamson's opinion in Uncut with mention of "that combination of acid-rock momentum and brass-band frippery".
As mentioned in a comment with one of the edits, though, the section seems to have ballooned out now, somewhat. Will try to trim it down – e.g. Greg Kot's "raga-flavored groove" quote could easily move up to Composition, to add to the description of the song. JG66 (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Added the "jam" observation. --Daveler16 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Apologies but I felt the need to revert that change. It seems pretty trivial to include in the lead, where there's already mention of the Beatles' unusual, "informal approach" to creating the track. (Not only that but the song does have a formal structure – verses, choruses, 1st instrumental break, "Too much" coda – so Sheffield's exaggerating the jam aspect somewhat.) JG66 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The main track was recorded together while George Harrision was playing the Hammond organ. John Lennon played lead on this song i believe Zachdm (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you believe, but Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not individual editor's opinions. The sources support that Harrison and Lennon play lead guitar on the song, which would suggest Harrison overdubbing after playing Hammond on the main track. This would not be an unusual scenario; it's one supported by several sources anyway, and that's all that matters. JG66 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Well fair enough ig Zachdm (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Zachdm, that's great. You might want to read WP:VERIFY, to understand Wikipedia's approach. JG66 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the likelihood that it's Lennon playing the lead guitar, since he did have a fondness for guitar feedback sounds (as heard on "I Feel Fine" and the opening track on "Unfinished Music No. 2: Life with the Lions called Cambridge 1969).
220.245.115.93 (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@JG66: re: your 3 reverts [7],[8],[9]. Please explain why the following text relates specifically to the "mixing" of the record, and show why this content is due.
We read: "In the months since recording the song, Harrison had sworn off acid after visiting the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in August, with Boyd, Taylor and others. He said he found himself disillusioned at how, rather than an enlightened micro-society, Haight-Ashbury seemed to be a haven for dropouts and drug addicts. Harrison and Lennon subsequently became avid supporters of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Transcendental Meditation technique, after the Beatles had attended a seminar by the Maharishi in Bangor, Wales, in late August. While in Bangor, the group announced that they had given up taking hallucinogenic drugs – an about-turn after McCartney had caused controversy by publicly espousing the benefits of LSD in an interview with Life magazine, published in June. MacDonald writes that through Harrison's embrace of meditation, "It's All Too Much" served as his "farewell to acid"."
Mixing subsection should ideally deal with in-studio process of mixing a record and focus on the technical/creative aspects of the procedure - in relation to recording and production.
Why is excessive detail about Harrison/Haight Ashbury/Transcendental Meditation included when no direct connection between these aspects and how the record was mixed is presented? Acousmana 16:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
It's providing context for that October 1967 period, four months after initial recording, just as in any article about a song, there'd be context for when it was written, recorded, released, played live if the artist's ignored it for years, etc. This song is about the LSD experience – although as Harrison always said, the major message he got from his first trip was "Yogis of the Himalayas". And a major turnaround occurs in his and the band's philosophy and thoughts on LSD in late August/September, so it seems ridiculous not to mention it. Plus, Harrison telegraphs the change in his comments under Background, and MacDonald recognises the song's importance in light of his embrace of Transcendental Meditation. JG66 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't explain what this tangential aside has to do with "mixing."
Can you show how this influenced the mixing of the record?
Seems relevant only in the context of "Background and inspiration" section, not the section on production/recording/mixing. Acousmana 16:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
No, and I don't think it needs to. These details apply to the period when they happened to mix the song, but not before and not afterwards in terms of when we drop into the chronology. I wouldn't expect contextual details on a record's release to be anywhere but in the Release section either. JG66 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
we agree then that it doesn't relate to the "mixing" of the record, are you happy to accept this as a compromise? Acousmana 18:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I still think you're being overly rigid in your thinking. But yes, I can live with that change. JG66 (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
i find it coatracky, that's all, it all happened after the tune was written and tracked, just fail to see why Harrison's LSD crisis and consequent bigging up of TM requires this amount of coverage. Acousmana 13:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)