Talk:Here Comes the Sun

message: Although your comment about Lennon's absence from this recording is correct, Lennon definitely did play on the final version of ‘While My Guitar Gently Weeps’ which is evidenced in The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn. Just thought you should know so that you can delete the inaccuracy in current text.
Cheers,
"Pepperstool 13:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lennon's contribution 

message: Thought you might like to mention that George employs a common guitarist’s compositional tool in the writing of this song known as the ‘D-nut’ chord technique. By playing the chord of D in the “nut” shape the guitarist is able to create subtle harmonic embellishments or melodic ideas by removing the 2nd finger or adding the 3rd and/or 4th finger. This is how George wrote the melody to ‘Here Comes the Sun’. He capoed his guitar on the 7th fret resulting the final key of A major.
He also used the same technique on his 1965 song ‘If I Needed Someone’ which shares a similar melodic pattern as a result.
"Pepperstool 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about the song’s composition 

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

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

message: For those who might want to add this information and have better sources for quoting than me:
There is also a cover version of  Here comes the sun by George Benson which appeared on the album "The George Benson Collection" in 1981.
As this is a compilation album, it might already have been released genuinely and earlier, but I don't know how to research that. Discogs is quite a good music database, but nevertheless it is hard to search by song, and see within what releases it appeared. At best you can make a Google search through Discogs.
--PutzfetzenORG (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover version by George Benson 

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

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

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

message: This article has been cited as a source claiming that EMI refused to allow the song to be included on the Voyager Golden Record.  However, the source provided in this article does not support this claim, so I have modified the article accordingly."We wanted to send "Here Comes the Sun" by the Beatles, and all four Beatles gave their approval. But the Beatles did not own the copyright, and the legal status of the piece seemed too murky to risk. " -Carl Sagan. Murmurs of Earth: The Voyager Interstellar Record
72.67.53.56 (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voyager probe 

message: It seems any further edits I try to make to this section of the article is going to be reverted. I initially added a 'Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel version' section to this article on 23 July. It has since been trimmed back greatly, and I respect that the original edit may have been particularly comprehensive and therefore unnecessary in comparison to the Beatles' original. However, my edit today on 25 July was nothing more than adding a short paragraph worth of information that was limited, relevant and satisfactorily referenced. This has been reverted for seemingly no reason at all. Seeing that I am being asked to get consensus, perhaps some other editors could have a look at the recent edit  and help reach an agreement. The cover version may not be 'more notable' than the original, however as a Top Ten UK chart hit (the highest charting for the song out of all recorded versions), I don't agree that this section cannot be slightly expanded upon from its current state. Ajsmith141 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Seemingly no reason"?? Your original edit increased the size of the article by 50% I considered reducing it to a couple of sentences and putting it with the other covers (and I'm not certain I won't eventually do that, but it's appropriate at this point to see if there are other opinions). On my talk page you described my reverts as "assertive". Is your giving the Harley cover more emphasis than all of the other covers combined not "assertive". You also suggested that I have not provided a policy or guideline to support my revert. Did you read the edit summary in my first revert here? I noted WP:WEIGHT, which is part of one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, WP:NPOV. After I first reverted with a legitimate rationale, you should have brought it to the talk page here immediately if you wanted to restore some of the information. So I really didn't need an additional policy to back me up at that point because it was then your responsibility to get consensus before adding to the section. It's a matter of opinion that this cover is more notable than all of the other covers, and my opinion is that it is not. "Trimmed back greatly" also is a matter of opinion. I'm sure some of the other covers could be expanded immensely in this article, but that doesn't mean it should happen. There is a cover by Nina Simone that is probably the most notable cover. If someone added as much content about that cover as you did with the Harley version, I would be making the same argument to reduce it. I personally think the Harley cover should be reduced even further. I realize you have devoted a lot of effort in working on Harley-related material, and I appreciate that. But sometimes we can be too close to a subject and lose a sense of relative perspective. I think that my be what's happened here, but it's really up to the Wikipedia community to resolve this issue, not just you and me. Sundayclose (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for taking the time to repond Sundayclose. As I've noted beforehand, I admit the original edit was too much for the existing article, though my edit was in good faith. WP:WEIGHT was a fair reason for reverting. However, in my opinion, that policy doesn't seem to justify the reversion of the latest edit, which was materially smaller. Furthermore, I can not see where Wikipedia suggests that it is an editor's responsibility to gain consensus to add a small amount of relevant, sourced information to an article. As noted before, you originally suggested that I seek consensus if I wanted to add such a large amount of information as per the original edit. However, my latest edit is not attempting to add anywhere near that level of information, and so I did not think gaining a consensus was necessary for what was largely a few extra sentences. I have not claimed that the cover version was "more notable than all of the other covers". I simply pointed out that it was a UK chart hit, and the most successful version in terms of UK chart position. Meeting notability requirements for cover versions, I felt the version warranted its own section in the main article. My original edit was the wrong way to go about achieving this, but I do feel a subsection on the version is warranted (and I'm sure other notable cover versions should have their own coverage too). Ajsmith141 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. It is always an editor's responsibility to get consensus for anything that has been challenged before adding it to an article, as is the case here; again, read WP:BRD. "Relevant and sourced" does not mean anything can be added without regard to relative importance, again per WP:WEIGHT. You may not have directly stated that the Harley version is more notable than other covers, but by giving more coverage in the article to that cover than all others combined, that is effectively what your edit said. Achieving "most successful version in terms of UK chart position" is noteworthy, but that alone does not justify giving such huge emphasis to one cover. Some of the other covers may merit a bit of expansion, specifically the Simone and Havens versions, but in my opinion none of them should have a separate subsection. Again, this is all a matter of opinion, and my opinion is that the Harley version is less notable than those of Simone and Havens. Sundayclose (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

text: <edit conflict>Thanks for raising it here for discussion. Your original additions, on 23 July, were way over the top(!), as you concede, and perhaps that has contributed to the situation now, I don't know. I think there is some scope to include much of that second paragraph. But the track listing you wanted, the chart performance box, and especially the personnel lists – they're all unnecessary in my opinion. Because we're dealing with only two nations' charts, mention of the Irish chart peak can easily be incorporated into the main text. And if the lineup of musicians is so important (which I somehow doubt?), that can also be discussed in the text. But overall, I think the section heading should be Cover versions, with a subsection titled "Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel", followed by another, titled "Other artists". That's consistent with the way I've done it at articles such as "Something", which has attracted a huge number of covers and in a wide range of styles, and have made a start doing at "Ticket to Ride". This article, "Here Comes the Sun", is one I'd love to return to and take to GA status, so that's the sort of approach I'd be adopting. JG66 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the importance of Nina's version, and Richie Havens' recording is highly notable also, and not just because it was a big hit in the US. I'd imagine there may be good reason to give those two artists similar coverage (the short subsection, as for Bassey and Sinatra at "Something"). JG66 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your input JG66. I also agree that other versions such as Nina Simone's and Richie Havens' would deserve a similar subsection to make the article more rounded. Ajsmith141 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel version

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Here Comes the Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.harleyfanzone.com/70/Scrapbook/1976/Empire_Pool/Empire_Pool76.htm
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5hFf8iFDu?url=http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement to http://www.irishcharts.ie/search/placement
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224113701/http://www.fretbase.com:80/songs/393-here-comes-the-sun to http://www.fretbase.com/songs/393-here-comes-the-sun
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

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

message: As of May, it has hit a billion Spotify streams. It is the first Beatles song to do so and the oldest one on Spotify if I'm correct. I feel like this should be added. 190.233.207.190 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Billion Spotify Streams 

message: This is USA-talk. The British don't measure years in seasons this way. Give the date, or at least something like 'mid-1969'. 2001:8003:3020:1C00:489C:9075:9247:482E (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thanks. And if I were an Aussie, who experiences summer in the USA's winter months, I would take offense at that Americocentric wording. Sundayclose (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   ... in the summer of 1969 

message: and idk how to fix it
im sorry Ded Meem (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  help i fucked some shit up by accident