Too Many People
Rick
Does anybody out there know what Paul's song, "Too Many People", from
Ram is about?
Mary Kay Knasinski
Rick (alfu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Does anybody out there know what Paul's song, "Too Many People", from
: Ram is about?
Well, I read a long time ago that it was another little post-breakup dig at
John (or maybe JOHN thought it was, as he said in the Rolling Stone
interview.) In particular, the lines about too many people preaching, and
"don't let them tell you what you oughta be," were directed at John's
political activities at the time. That's my opinion, based on what I THINK
I've read, anyway!
Rick
In <4q4fjc$8...@uwm.edu> mk...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mary Kay Knasinski)
writes:
>Well, I read a long time ago that it was another little post-breakup
dig at
>John (or maybe JOHN thought it was, as he said in the Rolling Stone
>interview.) In particular, the lines about too many people preaching,
and
>"don't let them tell you what you oughta be," were directed at John's
>political activities at the time. That's my opinion, based on what I
THINK
>I've read, anyway!
Thank-you, I've never heard anybody else's opinion on this song. I
don't have the CD and my turntable doesn't work anymore, but I've been
thinking about the lines from the song I do remember. And, to me, it
does seem to be aimed at John, or his political philosophy. John seemed
to be a "power to the people" kind of guy, and Paul seemed to be a more
practical "deal with the powers that be" kind of guy. I get the
impression that Paul is saying that there are too many people in the
world for John's way to work. Ram came AFTER Plastic Ono Band, didn't
it? I think it was 1971. It seems to be a response, IMHO.
mel...@qnet.com
On this notable date in history 17 Jun 1996 17:46:15 GMT,
alfu...@ix.netcom.com(Rick) shared with all present:
>Does anybody out there know what Paul's song, "Too Many People", from
>Ram is about?
Four minutes, six seconds. :-)
*******************************************************
"Do what thy manhood bids thee do,
From none but self expect applause.
He noblest lives, and noblest does,
Who makes and keeps his self-made laws."
Sir Richard Francis Burton
Jeff Carty
In <4q4p92$9...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, alfu...@ix.netcom.com(Rick) writes:
>In <4q4fjc$8...@uwm.edu> mk...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mary Kay Knasinski)
>writes:
>
>>Well, I read a long time ago that it was another little post-breakup
>dig at
>>John (or maybe JOHN thought it was, as he said in the Rolling Stone
>>interview.) In particular, the lines about too many people preaching,
>and
>>"don't let them tell you what you oughta be," were directed at John's
>>political activities at the time.
I think those lines are directed at John & Yoko too. And precious
little else. As a whole, the song cannot be said to be "about" John.
>
>Thank-you, I've never heard anybody else's opinion on this song. I
>don't have the CD and my turntable doesn't work anymore, but I've been
>thinking about the lines from the song I do remember. And, to me, it
>does seem to be aimed at John, or his political philosophy. John seemed
>to be a "power to the people" kind of guy, and Paul seemed to be a more
>practical "deal with the powers that be" kind of guy.
Considering that the song in question (gently) protests against world
hunger, people working too hard, people obeying authority too much
etc., etc., and that the author did a song called "Give Ireland Back
to the Irish" and has fought for cannabis and the ecology a long time,
I'd suggest you, well, at least "nuance" that theory a little.
Jeff
Rick
>Considering that the song in question (gently) protests against world
>hunger, people working too hard, people obeying authority too much
>etc., etc., and that the author did a song called "Give Ireland Back
>to the Irish" and has fought for cannabis and the ecology a long time,
>I'd suggest you, well, at least "nuance" that theory a little.
>
>Jeff
Well, Jeff, why don't you "nuance" it for me, as you seem to know it
all? The arrogance of attitude around here is amazing! How about, Paul
is a "Let It Be" kinda guy, and John is a "Revolution" kinda guy?
Hey, John was one person, and Paul was another, right? They were not
exactly the same, right? One could, at least in theory, reasonably
assert that one was more something than the other, right? Paul is more
politically conventional than John. Paul wants to give Northern
Ireland to the "Irish" and John wants NO COUNTRIES, NO RELIGION, and
NO POSSESSIONS. They were not the same person. So what's the big
fucking deal?
Rob Hughes
On 18 Jun 1996, Jeff Carty wrote:
> > original poster wrote (name lost sorry!):
> >And, to me, it ["Too Many People"]
> >does seem to be aimed at John, or his political philosophy. John seemed
> >to be a "power to the people" kind of guy, and Paul seemed to be a more
> >practical "deal with the powers that be" kind of guy.
>
> Considering that the song in question (gently) protests against world
> hunger, people working too hard, people obeying authority too much
> etc., etc., and that the author did a song called "Give Ireland Back
> to the Irish" and has fought for cannabis and the ecology a long time,
> I'd suggest you, well, at least "nuance" that theory a little.
Well, it's true they both wrote some left-of-center songs, but to add a
little nuance (since you asked), you might consider to whom Paul and John
address their songs. In classic left tradition, John addresses "the
people" (whomever that might be) and exhorts them to empower themselves.
Paul, on the other hand, speaks not to the Irish or really even to the
northern Irish, but rather to the British and by extension to the British
government, telling them to do the right thing by the land across the
sea. John's implication is that the powers that be will defend their own
interests and will respond best to a broad (and threatening) popular
discontent. Paul's implication (in "Ireland") is that "the people" are
unlikely to organize or act reasonably in their own interest, so that the
government (the ostensible problem in his view), which at least has the
advantage of organization and is capable of making decisions and acting,
ought to be addressed, directly and through their voting constituency, to
give power to people who are basically incapable of taking it for
themselves (or who can only do so with undesireable side-effects). I'm
not sure, by the way, that the original poster intended to suggest
that Paul's "dealing with the powers that be" was a negative thing. You
gotta deal with somebody, right? I mean, that's why Nelson Mandela was
released: so that DeKlerk would have somebody to deal with, rather than
struggling with a disorganized, self-contradictory, multifactioned
opposition. It's a "practical" necessity, to use the original poster's word.
I might say that "Give Ireland" is a little exceptional in this respect
for Paul. Most of his (mildly) political songs are addressed, as were
John's, pretty directly to the people, seeking, I suppose, not so much to
push a piece of legislation as to slowly effect a change in the
sensibility of the people. A sort of "where the people will lead, the
leaders will follow" philosophy. And so, today, when compromise seems a
more obvious solution to the British in Ireland, when people are more
suspicious of people preaching practices, when people are more inclined
to view peace as a pipe for more than just the pinkos, when the cause of
rain forest preservation has gained vast support in the US and Europe,
when the US goverment is extremely wary of getting in trouble
with its people a la Vietnam, governments do follow, and--who knows?--
perhaps John and Paul share some tiny credit in the slowly changing views
of people and the policy changes their governments have made.
Now that I've stepped on nearly everybody in our global community here, :)
I'll butt out. Absolutely no offense intended, BTW, and if people want
to argue with me about specific political points, let's take it to e-mail.
-Rob Hughes
Rob Hughes
On 18 Jun 1996, a moderately-provoked but foul-mouthed Rick wrote:
> Hey, John was one person, and Paul was another, right? They were not
> exactly the same, right? One could, at least in theory, reasonably
> assert that one was more something than the other, right? Paul is more
> politically conventional than John. Paul wants to give Northern
> Ireland to the "Irish" and John wants NO COUNTRIES, NO RELIGION, and
> NO POSSESSIONS. They were not the same person. So what's the big
> fucking deal?
Your first point is well-taken.
I'm not so sure that John (who, nearly a decade after he wrote Imagine
was worth half a billion dollars) was really a no possessions kinda guy.
I think he was proposing "no possessions" not as a literal prescription,
but as an imaginative exercise to promote an ethic of love by questioning
the worldly investments that cause us to lose sight of this one most
important thing.
-Rob Hughes
Bill Flanigan
I've always thought *MOST* of McCartney's RAM (not just "Too Many People")
was aimed at John or the other Beatles. F'rinstance:
1. 3 Legs:
"Well, when I thought I could call you my friend..."
"You could knock me down with a feather (pen), yes you could, but you know
it's not allowed (potential lawsuit)..."
"My dog, he got three legs (the other Beatles?), You're dog he got none."
2. "Ram On" (possibly Lennon's vitrioli press interviews at the time)
"send your heart to somebody soon..."
3. Practically all of "Dear Boy" ("I bet you didn't know, dear boy, how
much you missed...")
4. "Smile Away"...Lennon again ("I met a friend of mine and he did say, I
could smell your breath a mile away..."). His response to John's attacks
("smile away sweetly, now..." "smile away, horribly, now...")
5. "Monkberry Moon Delight". References to Apple lawsuits? ("I leave my
pajamas to Billy Budapest"- I keep thinking Billy was a reference to
George Harrison, who was working with Lennon at the time)("I don't get the
gist of your letter..."). More written barbs from Lennon ("The horrible
sound of tomato...")
6. Long Haired Lady (Intro: "Well, Well, Well,WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL......."
Hmmm. I've heard that on someone else' album).
Anyway, not knocking RAM. It's one of my favorite McCartney albums, right
after "Tug Of War", "Band on The Run", and..."Press to Play"! However, the
above psychoanalysis is the ONLY way some of RAM's lyrics make any sense
to me (especially "Monkberry Moon Delight").
Rick
Interesting analysis, Bill Flanagan. I do not remember the album
well enough to comment, but it makes me feel good to know
somebody else makes such connections. Maybe I should spring for the CD.
Rick
In <Pine.SV4.3.91.96061...@larry.cc.emory.edu> Rob
Hughes <rhu...@emory.edu> writes:
>I'm not so sure that John (who, nearly a decade after he wrote Imagine
>was worth half a billion dollars) was really a no possessions kinda
guy.
>I think he was proposing "no possessions" not as a literal
prescription,
>but as an imaginative exercise to promote an ethic of love by
questioning
>the worldly investments that cause us to lose sight of this one most
>important thing.
>
>-Rob Hughes
Nice of you to tolerate my foul mouth! Actually, my foul fingers.
I think you are wrong, Rob. I think, when he wrote Imagine, and I'm
talking about the guy who wrote that song, he meant what he said. His
utopia, which he thought was attainable, had no countries, no
religions, and no possessions, our three biggest obstacles to peace.
I think he meant what he said. Whether or not he was a hypocrite is
another matter.
MeDinda
Im Artikel <4q4fjc$8...@uwm.edu>, mk...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Mary Kay
Knasinski) schreibt:
>Rick (alfu...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Does anybody out there know what Paul's song, "Too Many People", from
>: Ram is about?
>
>Well, I read a long time ago that it was another little post-breakup dig
at
>John (or maybe JOHN thought it was, as he said in the Rolling Stone
>interview.) In particular, the lines about too many people preaching,
and
>"don't let them tell you what you oughta be," were directed at John's
>political activities at the time. That's my opinion, based on what I
THINK
>I've read, anyway!
I have also read that "Two Many People" was a stab at John. I believe the
article stated that it was in responce to John`s "How Do You Sleep"
MeDinda
Jeff Carty
In <Pine.SV4.3.91.96061...@larry.cc.emory.edu>, Rob Hughes <rhu...@emory.edu> writes:
Rob,
Now *that's* nuance. :-) And a genuinely interesting and well-presented
analysis. Thanks!!!!
Jeff
Jeff Carty
In <4q5sld$i...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, alfu...@ix.netcom.com(Rick) writes:
>In <4q5575$7...@nntp1.best.com> ca...@best.com (Jeff Carty) writes:
>
>>hunger, people working too hard, people obeying authority too much
>>etc., etc., and that the author did a song called "Give Ireland Back
>>to the Irish" and has fought for cannabis and the ecology a long time,
>>I'd suggest you, well, at least "nuance" that theory a little.
>
>exactly the same, right? One could, at least in theory, reasonably
>assert that one was more something than the other, right? Paul is more
>politically conventional than John. Paul wants to give Northern
>Ireland to the "Irish" and John wants NO COUNTRIES, NO RELIGION, and
>NO POSSESSIONS. They were not the same person. So what's the big
>fucking deal?
??? Where did all *that* come from? (Who ever said it was a "big
fucking deal"?) Chill dude,
Jeff
Jeff Carty
In <bflan-18069...@ip18-118.phx.primenet.com>, bf...@primenet.com (Bill Flanigan) writes:
>I've always thought *MOST* of McCartney's RAM (not just "Too Many People")
>was aimed at John or the other Beatles. F'rinstance:
>
>1. 3 Legs:
>"Well, when I thought I could call you my friend..."
agree completely. Hurt about John and the gang. (Not saying he didn't
create the hurt himself, at least partly!)
>"You could knock me down with a feather (pen), yes you could, but you know
>it's not allowed (potential lawsuit)..."
Interesting!!!
>"My dog, he got three legs (the other Beatles?), You're dog he got none."
Mmmmm....a stretch. Definitely "nyah-nyahing" on somebody, but extremely
diffuse and indirect. Think about it: the other 3 Beatles are exactly
what Paul does NOT have, at that point. Maybe the 3 legs are him, Linda
and their new drummer....or maybe his family....or something. I don't
know.
>2. "Ram On" (possibly Lennon's vitrioli press interviews at the time)
>"send your heart to somebody soon..."
It's "give your heart to somebody" and no, I don't agree it could be
a slam at John; I think Paul meant it completely innocently; just telling
people "It's so great when you're in love, go for it!"
>3. Practically all of "Dear Boy" ("I bet you didn't know, dear boy, how
>much you missed...")
No no no!!! Paul has said repeatedly this song was about one of Linda's
ex boyfriends. (He didn't say which....maybe her first husband, Heather's
biological dad???) Try re-thinking the lyrics with that in mind. You
may find, as I have, that they are just plain more coherent that way
(and to me, coherence is evidence in and of itself). And the fact that
Linda wrote the song with Paul, to me is further evidence.
>4. "Smile Away"...Lennon again ("I met a friend of mine and he did say, I
>could smell your breath a mile away..."). His response to John's attacks
>("smile away sweetly, now..." "smile away, horribly, now...")
Agree. (Again, though, one has to admit it's pretty indirect/diffuse)
>5. "Monkberry Moon Delight". References to Apple lawsuits? ("I leave my
>pajamas to Billy Budapest"- I keep thinking Billy was a reference to
>George Harrison, who was working with Lennon at the time)("I don't get the
>gist of your letter..."). More written barbs from Lennon ("The horrible
>sound of tomato...")
>6. Long Haired Lady (Intro: "Well, Well, Well,WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL......."
>Hmmm. I've heard that on someone else' album).
Hmmmm.....well again.....
>Anyway, not knocking RAM.
I would add "Heart of the Country" - again, not a real direct jab at
Lennon - but definitely a "Why don't all of you sod off" kind of song. :-)
>It's one of my favorite McCartney albums, right
>after "Tug Of War", "Band on The Run", and..."Press to Play"! However, the
>above psychoanalysis is the ONLY way some of RAM's lyrics make any sense
>to me (especially "Monkberry Moon Delight").
But do they have to make sense? One of Paul's most characteristic
aspects is that words are employed totally because for how they sound
(or "sing")....even to the point of total stupidity (on the conceptual
level). And John also wrote some things that don't have to (and don't)
make sense.
Jeff
Roger Wiseman
med...@aol.com (MeDinda) wrote:
>I have also read that "Two Many People" was a stab at John. I believe the
>article stated that it was in responce to John`s "How Do You Sleep"
MeDinda
Too Many People, along with Smile Away and other references was an
unfortunate stab at John and Yoko. How Do You Sleep was directed at
Paul in response. Paul said recently in an interview that he was glad
that they settled their differences before his death, because he'd
hate to have John remember him and vice versa with all the "bitchin'
at each other", etc. The reporter asked Paul what he thought of the
other Beatles and here is his replies:
George: enigmatic...mischeivious
Ringo: solid..down-to earth
John: luv'ly boy..
hmmm maybe I should transcribe it for here...
--
cr...@ovnet.com (Crow(Roger Wiseman))
#(:)o] | MiSTie # 15126
________________________________________________________
Guitarist | The Beatles are #1 !!!!! | Jeet Kune Do/Kung Fu stylist @)
"Love is the answer..." John Lennon
" Mind Games" ©1973 Lennon Music/ATV Music Corp./BMI
Bill Flanigan
> > But do they have to make sense? One of Paul's most characteristic
> aspects is that words are employed totally because for how they sound
> (or "sing")....even to the point of total stupidity (on the conceptual
> level). And John also wrote some things that don't have to (and don't)
> make sense.
>
> Jeff
No, I can appreciate lyrics for their "sing" providing they're not too
stupid. Despite what some say about McCartney's lyrics, he has NEVER
written anything so horrible (to me) as "MacArthur Park". Everytime I hear
that song, I want to jump out a window (preferably landing on the person
who wrote it)!
"Someone left a cake out in the rain
and I don't think I can take it
'cause it took too long to bake it
and I'll never have the recipe, again....."AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Is that the worst metaphor for lost love, or what?!
Oh well, I would like "CMoon" even if I didn't know what Paul meant by it.
However, "Biker Like An Icon" was really pushing it...
LiveLetDie
On Jun 18, 1996 09:16:03 in article <Re: Too Many People>,
'bf...@primenet.com (Bill Flanigan)' wrote:
>I've always thought *MOST* of McCartney's RAM (not just "Too Many People")
>was aimed at John or the other Beatles. F'rinstance:
>
>1. 3 Legs:
>"Well, when I thought I could call you my friend..."
>"You could knock me down with a feather (pen), yes you could, but you know
>it's not allowed (potential lawsuit)..."
>"My dog, he got three legs (the other Beatles?), You're dog he got none."
. . <snip>
!!!! S -- T --- R --- E --- T ---
C --- H !!!
Fer gosh sakes, stand back Bill!! If that sucker snaps, it will knock you
clean to kingdom come! <g>
You won't be alone though -- lots of people have heard snide remarks all
through RAM (and don't forget the screwing beetles on the back cover.) I
like your comments on "knock me down with a feather," and "when I thought
you was my friend" but somehow the others sound to me more like Paul poking
fun at himself: "But my dog he can't run," and it is Paul himself who is
kidded about bad breath and smelly feet. As Jeff Carty pointed out, "Dear
Boy" was written about an ex-boyfriend of Linda's and if you listen to it
with that in mind, the song actually holds together better than a lot of
Paul's lyrics. As for the copulating creepy crawlers, I can't figure out
which of the critters people think Paul believed himself to be -- the
screwer as a way of saying "F*** you, John," or the screwee as a way of
saying that John was screwing him??? I just saw it as Paul's commentary
on the whole legal mess that had them all screwing each other. Sort of a
pun on John's old remark about them all being "perfoming fleas."
Well, whatever Paul's intention in his lyrics, John certainly heard
something that made him furious and it is interesting to try to pick it
---or them -- out. (Does anyone know which book has the copy of the letter
from John to a fan explaining that it was "Ram" that set him off? Coleman
or (accck, pitooey!) Goldman? As I remember it, there is a handwritten
comment in the letter from Yoko saying there were LOTS of things in the
album directed at John.) But one thing I think we all have to remember
is John's mental health at the time. One major side effect of LSD use is
paranoia and although I don't know how much John was still tripping by that
time, he certainly acknowledged in later years that it really messed him
up. Add to that the emotional stress of the breakup, the public's ridicule
of Yoko, the financial mess, whatever new drugs he was in and out of, and
so on. John was a bit of a mess and very likely to read a lot more into
the album than Paul intended.
As I have said before, even if Paul was cagily insulting his old mate, he
was doing it so subtley and privately none of us even knew it until we
heard "How Do You Sleep" and John's reason for writing it. (I wonder if
even Beatles insiders would have picked it up if John hadn't reacted to
it.) John's response was very public and not in the least subtle. So,
take your pick. Sneaky or viscious. Private digs or humiliating public
brawl.
I guess I feel that if Paul was jabbing at John (a big IF, I believe), his
behavior is still more acceptable than John's because John set out to very
clearly and very publicly slam Paul. And it would hurt the worst not
because it was public but because of what he chose to criticize. Paul said
John was "preaching practices" and letting people tell him what he "ought
to be." He was criticizing John's actions. John responded with an attack
not on Paul's behavior or even on Paul's current musical output, but on who
Paul was. "A pretty face will last a year or so . . ." implying that that
all Paul had to offer was Musak and Cuteness. Unfair, dishonest (John
didn't really believe that), and really hitting below the belt.
LiveLetDie
LiveLetDie
"When I die, I want to be cremated and have my ashes put in an
Etch-a-sketch."
John Hopkin
On 19 Jun 1996 11:27:01 -0700, bf...@primenet.com (Bill Flanigan)
wrote:
You want stupid lyrics? "Band of Gold". I forget the singer now (Freda
Payne?) whose vocal is excellent but those lyrics! She gets taken from
the comfort of a mother she has never known? He woos her, and marries
her and on their honeymoon night, they sleep in separate rooms? What
WAS the writer smoking when he wrote that?
jhopkin
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Need some ammunition in yer fight with jhopkin? Go to the Secret Homepage!
Lot's of fun facts to use against him. Make fun of his photo, tease his songwriting
abilities!! It's all here at:
http://durandal.edrc.cmu.edu/~heather/Secret/secretpage.html
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Jenna I. Udren
In article <4q8u1j$o...@news.mountain.net>,
cr...@ovnet.com (Roger Wiseman) wrote:
>Too Many People, along with Smile Away and other references was an
>unfortunate stab at John and Yoko.
Smile away? Was paul offended when john told him he had stinky feet and bad
breath? :)Surely you mean 3 legs...
Bill Flanigan
> You want stupid lyrics? "Band of Gold". I forget the singer now (Freda
> Payne?) whose vocal is excellent but those lyrics! She gets taken from
> the comfort of a mother she has never known? He woos her, and marries
> her and on their honeymoon night, they sleep in separate rooms? What
> WAS the writer smoking when he wrote that?
> jhopkin
>
Not to keep this stupid lyric thing going, but you reminded me of another
song I dread (which I used to hear all the time in Ohio) called "Patches".
I think it's by a guy named Clarence Carter about some sorry country boy
who has to raise his siblings after poppa dies ("Patches, I'm depending on
you son, it's up to yooooooooouuuuuuuuuuu to carry on...").
And who could forget the classic "Riding Through the Desert on a Horse
With No Name" with that famous observation "...the heat was hot." (Just
wait until it gets *freezing* hot).
Oh well, sorry about that; but it's stuff like that makes me appreciate a
Macca line like "Ketchup, soup or puree, don't get left behind..."
(Maybe this could be the start of a "McCartney: The Lyrical Genius" thread)
Jeff Carty
In <4qa3ml$p...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>, livel...@usa.pipeline.com(LiveLetDie) writes:
>"A pretty face will last a year or so . . ." implying that that
>all Paul had to offer was Musak and Cuteness. Unfair, dishonest (John
And ironic considering that Paul has lasted since 1963, oh,
thirty-three years now. :-) (Eleven of them as THE big solo artist of
rock/pop music, starting right about when John wrote that.)
Jeff
Brian Fried
Regarding the McCartney/Lennon post-Beatle battle . . . .
Paul seems to have a gift of writing songs about basically anything and
anyone. In one book (I forget which), it recounts the tale of how "Picasso's
Last Words" was written in just five minutes at the prompting of actor Dustin
Hoffman.
That said, one only has to look at McCARTNEY to see that RAM was not the
first time John Lennon, the break-up of the Beatles, or Paul's bitterness
at having lost what was so dear to him came into song. For example:
(I'm doing this from memory, but . . .)
"I used to ride on my fast city life
Singing songs that I thought were mine alone (alone)."
The song is "Man We Was Lonely", and the songs he thought were his alone
are probably songs -- such as "Teddy Boy" -- which Paul wrote, but were
recorded by the Beatles and copyrighted under Northern Songs Ltd. as
Lennon/McCartney co-compositions, therefore preventing Paul from going
truly 'solo'.
RAM was recorded as the lawsuits began, and it is no wonder that a certain
amount of anger comes through in the song "Too Many People". But Paul
takes that anger and mixes it into a pop-song that's quite listenable and
can also be seen years later as a song which says: "Piss off mate, I'm
trying to live my own life the way I want it too."
"Dear Boy", I must add, does not refer at all to John. And the "Smile
Away" bit is a bit of a stretch, since it sounds adlibed <sp?>.
"Heart Of The Country" is about the type of life Paul fancied: the life on
the farm. It's very autobiographical considering that he's kept that life-
style for years afterwards!
One other 'attack' is the photograph of two beetles screwing on the back
cover, a reference to the lawsuit. Paul was angry that his solo revenue
was still being divided up the old Beatle way (and thus allowing A. Klein
to get a piece of the action even when Paul didn't want it), and hence why
he listed Linda as co-composer and co-creditor.
John saw this, and of course immediately understood that McCartney was
sniding him in his pop songs. John responded with "How Do You Sleep?", a
vicious attack which does nothing to hide the fact that he is firing back
at Paul for what he (mistakenly IMHO) perceived as the opening salvos.
I've also been told by one Lennon fan that John included a photo of him
wrestling with a pig to mimic Paul's cover of RAM.
Lennon fans -- NOT all of them, but some -- have taken Lennon's view to be
more appropriate, believing that Paul was sneaky and acted underhanded in
much the same way that he had "broken up" the Beatles. That this thread is
still going after how many years proves that it is still a question of
contention between fans of one Beatle or another.
Not all the "clues" being offered are correct. This partly stems from a
somewhat zealousness to prove Lennon correct. Personally, I think these
people who see clues in everything have waay too much time on their hands.
(Not to offend, but that's my PERSONAL opinion).
McCartney fans seem to latch on to the fact that Paul took an apologetic
tone in his next responses. "Dear Friend" is a direct response to "How Do
You Sleep?", but sounding conciliatory. "Single Pigeon", on RED ROSE SPEED-
WAY seems to be symapthetic to John, who at that time had been thrown out
of the Dakota by Yoko. Paul wanted to make up, and be friends with everyone,
and this is the attitude Macca fans want.
"Too Many People"/"How Do You Sleep?" is not the beginning NOR the end
(who can forget John comparing Paul to Englebert Humperdink?) of it all.
They would continue to fire shots at each other like two boys sulking
after losing a large argument, which is somewhat analogous to what
actually seems to have happened.
The key point is that in the end, they were beginning to accept what had
happened in their lives and decided to get on with it. If you keep the
time frame in mind, and look at it all in historical perspective, then it
not only makes sense as to why they did it, but the total extent. Paul
wasn't gunning full throttle at John -- not all of RAM is directed at John
for chrissake! -- but it was an attack, it hurt John, and Paul wanted to
say he's sorry. End of story.
(My apologies to anyone who may have found this too long).
Brian
bfr...@chat.carleton.ca
Rick
In <4qn6p9$4...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian
Fried) wrote a very intelligent and even-handed post.
"Personally, I think these people who see clues in everything have
waay too much time on their hands. '
Everybody who posts to this newsgroup probably has too much time on his
hands. :)
If the Beatles' greatness is in their songs, it seems natural for
people who think they were great to try to understand their songs. The
Beatles could have just written letters to each other (i guess they did
do that!), but they also communicated through the songs they sold to us
to listen to. If I buy a song, and it's worth listening to, I'm going
to try to understand it. If I think How Do You Sleep is a great song,
I'm not going to ignore, "So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise" as
incomprehensible gobbledegook. It must mean SOMETHING! Right? If John
sings,"Hers's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul", and I
know damn well the walrus was John, am I just supposed to say, "O,
that's just John saying something silly. I love this song!" Sure, if
you want to. But I'd rather try to understand what the hell he's
saying. You don't just say something like that. You have a reason. I
want to know the reason. If George is writing about Eric Clapton's
sweet tooth, why does he say, "We all know Oblah-diblah-da, but can you
show me where YOU are?" Just to make dopes like think he's talking
about the author of Obladiblada, or of the previous track, "Honey Pie"?
Honey Pie? Savoy Truffle? What is sweet now turns so sour? I feel your
taste all the time we're apart? Just gobbledegook! It's about Eric
Clapton. Go back to sleep!
LiveLetDie
alfu...@ix.netcom.com(Rick) wrote:
>If the Beatles' greatness is in their songs, it seems natural for
>people who think they were great to try to understand their songs.
If I buy a song, and it's worth listening to, I'm going
>to try to understand it. If I think How Do You Sleep is a great song,
>I'm not going to ignore, "So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise" as
>incomprehensible gobbledegook. It must mean SOMETHING! Right? If John
>sings,"Hers's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul", and I
>know damn well the walrus was John, am I just supposed to say, "O,
>that's just John saying something silly. I love this song!" Sure, if
>you want to. But I'd rather try to understand what the hell he's
>saying. You don't just say something like that. You have a reason. I
>want to know the reason.
I agree, Rick. We know enough about the private lives of these guys
to be able to "interpret" a lot of what they say in their songs and I
thoroughly enjoy spending time discussing possible meanings and
influences. These songs weren't written in a vacuum and they do
reflect what was going on at the time. But I also believe that we
have to be careful to state that our interpretation of a song is just
that - our interpretation. Too much goes into the writing - some real
feelings and truths, some filler just because the words fit, maybe
some mirror images reversing the truth just for the fun of it -- and
maybe the inspiration for the song contributed one or two lines and
the rest of the song took off in a new direction as with Hey Jude.
So I listen to the songs on three levels - the surface meaning I would
take from it if I knew nothing of their personal lives, the meaning it
has for me in my life, and the possible meaning it had to the writer.
I could enjoy the Beatles work on the basis of the first two, but it
is the third one that fascinates me.
Liveletdie
JOSEPH NAGARYA
BF>Subject: Re: Too Many People
BF>Date: 24 Jun 1996 23:02:01 GMT
BF>Message-ID: <4qn6p9$4...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
BF>Regarding the McCartney/Lennon post-Beatle battle . . . .
BF>Paul seems to have a gift of writing songs about basically anything and
BF>anyone.
And even about nothing. Or (better) the "profundity" of vacuity.
In one book (I forget which), it recounts the tale of how "Picasso's
BF>Last Words" was written in just five minutes at the prompting of actor Dusti
BF>Hoffman.
Must be true -- it favors McCartney.
Do you ignore how "Nowhere Man" was "written" almost instantaneously
(by Lennon)?
BF>That said, one only has to look at McCARTNEY to see that RAM was not the
BF>first time John Lennon, the break-up of the Beatles, or Paul's bitterness
BF>at having lost what was so dear to him came into song. For example:
BF>(I'm doing this from memory, but . . .)
BF> "I used to ride on my fast city life
BF> Singing songs that I thought were mine alone (alone)."
And from what is that snippet?
BF>The song is "Man We Was Lonely",
And that occurred _before_ "RAM"?
and the songs he thought were his alone
BF>are probably songs -- such as "Teddy Boy" -- which Paul wrote, but were
BF>recorded by the Beatles and copyrighted under Northern Songs Ltd. as
BF>Lennon/McCartney co-compositions, therefore preventing Paul from going
BF>truly 'solo'.
That was the agreement he and Lennon made. So?
BF>RAM was recorded as the lawsuits began, and it is no wonder that a certain
BF>amount of anger comes through in the song "Too Many People".
But only in that one?
But Paul
BF>takes that anger and mixes it into a pop-song that's quite listenable
Certainly.
and
BF>can also be seen years later as a song which says: "Piss off mate, I'm
BF>trying to live my own life the way I want it too."
It is reactionary.
BF>"Dear Boy", I must add, does not refer at all to John.
Paul himself told you this?
And the "Smile
BF>Away" bit is a bit of a stretch, since it sounds adlibed <sp?>.
But wasn't as clear on that?
BF>"Heart Of The Country" is about the type of life Paul fancied: the life on
BF>the farm.
Gee, I'm surprised to learn this. <Yawn.>
It's very autobiographical considering that he's kept that life-
BF>style for years afterwards!
"'Very' is meaningless filler"--John Lennon.
BF>One other 'attack' is the photograph of two beetles screwing on the back
BF>cover, a reference to the lawsuit. Paul was angry that his solo revenue
BF>was still being divided up the old Beatle way (and thus allowing A. Klein
BF>to get a piece of the action even when Paul didn't want it), and hence why
BF>he listed Linda as co-composer and co-creditor.
Paul himself told you that?
BF>John saw this, and of course immediately understood that McCartney was
BF>sniding him in his pop songs.
John himself told you that?
John responded with "How Do You Sleep?",
Is that the only one?
a
BF>vicious attack which does nothing to hide the fact
John was known for being honest.
that he is firing back
BF>at Paul for what he (mistakenly IMHO) perceived as the opening salvos.
Excuse me? Hoe could he "fire back" at what "hadn't" happened
(though above, of course, you lay out how it _did_ happen, there-
fore cannot but admit that John _correctly_ perceived those "open-
ing salvos).
BF>I've also been told by one Lennon fan that John included a photo of him
BF>wrestling with a pig to mimic Paul's cover of RAM.
It was a photo of that on a post car included with "Imagine".
Have you heard that LP yet?
BF>Lennon fans -- NOT all of them, but some -- have taken Lennon's view to be
BF>more appropriate, believing that Paul was sneaky and acted underhanded in
BF>much the same way that he had "broken up" the Beatles.
Well, apparently Lennon told Paul he was leaving The Beatles. And
Paul asked him to wait on announcing it -- so that he, Paul, could
announce _he_ was leaving _first_.
That _is_ "sneaky and underhanded". In a word: dishonest.
That this thread is
BF>still going after how many years proves that it is still a question of
BF>contention between fans of one Beatle or another.
BF>Not all the "clues" being offered are correct. This partly stems from a
BF>somewhat zealousness to prove Lennon correct. Personally, I think these
BF>people who see clues in everything have waay too much time on their hands.
BF>(Not to offend, but that's my PERSONAL opinion).
Oh, but I can understand you not wanting to offend _yourself_ for
so zealously doing that very thing.
Too much time on your hands? (But not enough to be consistent?)
Let's continue with your zealous seeking of "clues," and interpreting
them "correctly" for all us peons:
BF>McCartney fans seem to latch on to the fact that Paul took an apologetic
BF>tone in his next responses.
>>> Continued to next message
___
. SLMR 2.1a . Ghosts are merely unsubstantiated roomers.
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
JOSEPH NAGARYA
Is that a "fact"?
"Dear Friend" is a direct response to "How Do
BF>You Sleep?", but sounding conciliatory.
Paul himself told you this?
"Single Pigeon", on RED ROSE SPEED-
BF>WAY seems to be symapthetic to John, who at that time had been thrown out
BF>of the Dakota by Yoko. Paul wanted to make up, and be friends with everyone,
BF>and this is the attitude Macca fans want.
Yeah, I guess you know. After all, you haven't enough time on
your hands to seek out "clues" and thereafter tell the world
their correct interpretation.
You wouldn't be "Macca" hisself, would ya?
BF>"Too Many People"/"How Do You Sleep?" is not the beginning NOR the end
BF>(who can forget John comparing Paul to Englebert Humperdink?) of it all.
In which song does John use the names "Paul McCartney" and "Englebert
Humperdink"?
BF>They would continue to fire shots at each other like two boys sulking
BF>after losing a large argument, which is somewhat analogous to what
BF>actually seems to have happened.
But who knows, eh? Wasn't it "rock" critics who began all the
interpreting of the "clues"?
Are you a "rock" critic?
BF>The key point is that in the end, they were beginning to accept what had
BF>happened in their lives and decided to get on with it.
John and Paul each, himself, told you all that directly?
If you keep the
BF>time frame in mind, and look at it all in historical perspective, then it
BF>not only makes sense as to why they did it, but the total extent. Paul
BF>wasn't gunning full throttle at John -- not all of RAM is directed at John
BF>for chrissake! -- but it was an attack, it hurt John, and Paul wanted to
BF>say he's sorry. End of story.
BF>(My apologies to anyone who may have found this too long).
My primary problem with it is it's internal contradictions, of which
you seem unaware.
JOSEPH NAGARYA
AR>Subject: Re: Too Many People
AR>Date: 25 Jun 1996 01:35:04 GMT
AR>Message-ID: <4qnfo8$b...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
AR>In <4qn6p9$4...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca> bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian
AR>Fried) wrote a very intelligent and even-handed post.
AR>"Personally, I think these people who see clues in everything have
AR>waay too much time on their hands. '
AR>Everybody who posts to this newsgroup probably has too much time on his
AR>hands. :)
AR>If the Beatles' greatness is in their songs, it seems natural for
AR>people who think they were great to try to understand their songs. The
AR>Beatles could have just written letters to each other (i guess they did
AR>do that!), but they also communicated through the songs they sold to us
AR>to listen to. If I buy a song, and it's worth listening to, I'm going
AR>to try to understand it. If I think How Do You Sleep is a great song,
AR>I'm not going to ignore, "So Sgt. Pepper took you by surprise" as
AR>incomprehensible gobbledegook. It must mean SOMETHING! Right? If John
AR>sings,"Hers's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul", and I
AR>know damn well the walrus was John, am I just supposed to say, "O,
AR>that's just John saying something silly. I love this song!" Sure, if
AR>you want to. But I'd rather try to understand what the hell he's
AR>saying. You don't just say something like that. You have a reason. I
AR>want to know the reason. If George is writing about Eric Clapton's
AR>sweet tooth, why does he say, "We all know Oblah-diblah-da, but can you
AR>show me where YOU are?" Just to make dopes like think he's talking
AR>about the author of Obladiblada, or of the previous track, "Honey Pie"?
AR>Honey Pie? Savoy Truffle? What is sweet now turns so sour? I feel your
AR>taste all the time we're apart? Just gobbledegook! It's about Eric
AR>Clapton. Go back to sleep!
The "reason" for John was as often as not simply playing with words.
He loved nonsense.
___
. SLMR 2.1a . North Carolina has the best politicians money can buy!
John Sinclair
On 6/25/96 02:02AM, in message <4qn6p9$4...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, Brian
Fried <bfr...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
> Regarding the McCartney/Lennon post-Beatle battle . . . .
>
> "Single Pigeon", on RED ROSE SPEED-
> WAY seems to be symapthetic to John, who at that time had been thrown out
> of the Dakota by Yoko.
I've thought so too. The lyrics make it seem obvious - "Did she turf you out...
I'm a lot like you". The only problem is that it *wasn't* at the that time.
"Red Rose Speedway" had come out *before* John was thrown out by Yoko.
--
John Sinclair
New e-mail address - se...@netmedia.net.il
"I must seem like an ostrich who forever buries its head in the relativistic
sand in order not to face the evil quanta." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
John Sinclair
On 6/25/96 04:35AM, in message <4qnfo8$b...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, Rick
<alfu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> If John
> sings,"Hers's another clue for you all, the walrus was Paul", and I
> know damn well the walrus was John, am I just supposed to say, "O,
> that's just John saying something silly. I love this song!" Sure, if
> you want to. But I'd rather try to understand what the hell he's
> saying. You don't just say something like that. You have a reason. I
> want to know the reason.
Of course there is a reason, and it is a fairly obvious one: John is trying to
confuse everyone who has read more into "I am the walrus" than there really was
by saying, "you've constructed all your theories about IATW with me being the
walrus in mind. Well, now I'm saying that all of that is worthless because I
*wasn't* the walrus, *Paul* was! Huh! Now put *that* in your pipe and smoke it!"
> Savoy Truffle? What is sweet now turns so sour?
Now you're eating tons of chocolate (sweet), but next week, when you go to the
dentist for treatment of numerous cavities, you will regret it (sour).
> I feel your
> taste all the time we're apart?
The sweets' taste, of course. They're apart because of Clapton's cavities.
What's the problem with that?
Rick
In <N.070196....@cs32a4.netmedia.net.il> se...@netmedia.net.il
(John Sinclair) writes:
>> Savoy Truffle? What is sweet now turns so sour?
>
>Now you're eating tons of chocolate (sweet), but next week, when you
go to the
>dentist for treatment of numerous cavities, you will regret it (sour).
>
>> I feel your
>> taste all the time we're apart?
>
>The sweets' taste, of course. They're apart because of Clapton's
cavities.
>What's the problem with that?
Now, now Johnny. You're ignoring the smoking gun. "We all know
Oblah-di-blah-da, but can you show me where YOU are?" What the frack
does that have to do with Eric Clapton's sweet and sour teeth? Nothin'
at all, dude. George is using the sweets as a metaphor for Paul's
"fruity" (George's term from an interview) songs. Particularly
"Ob-bla-di-bla-da" and the previous track on the record, "Honey Pie."
Get it, now?