Hide Your Love Away Question
Mystic Seven
Pederson. In it it is mentioned that John wrote "You've Got To Hide
Your Love Away" for her. She didn't say it; it was stated as fact and
she mentioned how touched she was that he did it. I've never heard
this story before. Anyone care to elaborate? True or false?
M7
Roadogg29
way for Brian Epstein because of his being a homosexual he couldn't come right
out and say he loved men back then. Also for his wife Cynthia who he couldn't
show his love to her in public for fear of loosing female fans. Never heard
anything about the half sister being the inspiration for the song. John didn't
even know for sure if she existed and never met her in real life. Hope this
helps. Let me know
"And the fake pope can be recognized by his high-top sneakers and foul mouth."
"That man must have incredible conversational skills or that little girl wasn't
doin her buisness. Cause If I was doin my business my man would be doin his
business"
dmac
says...
>
>EVerything I've read indicates that John wrote You've got to Hide your love a
>way for Brian Epstein because of his being a homosexual he couldn't come right
>out and say he loved men back then. Also for his wife Cynthia who he couldn't
>show his love to her in public for fear of loosing female fans. Never heard
>anything about the half sister being the inspiration for the song. John didn't
>even know for sure if she existed and never met her in real life.
I'm continually perplexed to hear that people seem to have read about
a meaning of this song that just doesn't seem to exist. It's almost as
if folks are looking at the title and ignoring the lyrics---and that's
where the clues to its meaning really reside, not in some assumed hidden
message about Brian's homosexuality. There's no convincing support that
I know of for any such interpretation. John certainly never said that
that's what the song was about. And the words of the song don't suggest
that either.
In fact, evidence is overwhelming for a much more obvious delineation.
You just have to listen to the words. And once you do, you'll hear echoes
of other songs where the concepts of "pride" and "hurt" predominate. A
telling number of those songs are John's.
"She Loves You" is one that comes to mind: "Pride can hurt you too"; or
"If I Fell" ("Don't hurt my pride like her..."; harmonically nice but
the grammar could use a brush-up!). Then there's "I'm A Loser",
where "pride comes before a fall"; in "Yes It Is", it's "my pride"
that's destroyed.
Curious, isn't it, to hear again and again how the singer suffers
dreadfully once his lover is gone? That loss is clearly bad enough,
but what's striking is how this fellow fears what other people will
think of him. That's what's in clear focus in "You've Got To Hide
Your Love Away".
People stare, people laugh, according to the singer, and he can't
face the public, knowing that they laugh because he's lost the lady
he loves. Pride doesn't just hurt, it *devastates*. It's not because the
love John sings about is a forbidden sort (like homosexuality was at
the time Brian was alive)---indeed, everyone knew about what it was,
and now they know what it's not. This love was too public---and perhaps
so was his pride in it, as well. Now his romantic failure is the talk of
the town.
Lennon writes about this vincibility in other Beatles songs, but
with a different twist. In "I'm A Loser" and "You've Got To
Hide Your Love Away", the singer folds up helplessly in the
face of derision---or the anticipated taunts of those around him.
In "Not A Second Time", "You Can't Do That" and "Run For Your
Life", the singer threatens the girl----he'll leave her himself if she
two-times him, the better to head off scoffs and scorns of the
world.
In "I'll Cry Instead" he weeps outwardly for his loss, yet impotently
imagines exacting his revenge upon the whole of womankind for the
transgressions of one heartless lady. In "Girl", the singer is held in
thrall by the power of a seductress whose grasp is irresistible. He's
both enticed and entrapped, and he knows it; people may laugh
and he's powerless to stop it; there's no threat that will work against
her...and no real succor for him.
I find it intriguing that John wrote no Beatles songs in this
thematic mode after about 1967. The focus on hurt pride, on derisive
laughter, seems gone. If there's any conflict articulated, it's a dialogue
or debate with a singular enamorata, rather than a passion-play dramatized
on a public stage, subject to a provocative chorus of contempt and
disdain.
Paul, on the other hand, rarely writes his Beatles output in the mode
of one bedeviled by someone so heartless and controlling, as John had
done, and it doesn't seem to matter much to him what others may
think. The more I consider their respective songwriting modes,
the more impressed I am with Lennon & McCartney's independent
development of lyrical typologies...whether or not it was
intentional. Sometimes subconscious creativity is best.
Over and over, Paul's persona is the romantic who calls the shots
and leaves the girl behind ("I'll Be On My Way", "I'll Follow The
Sun", "Things We Said Today", "We Can Work It Out"---admittedly
where abandonment is merely a threat, but their future together
is predisposed upon her admission that *he's right after all*---and
"Martha, My Dear").
Rarely is the Beatles-era McCartney lyrical protagonist at a loss.
When he is, he seems to view it from a dispassionate distance. In
"Yesterday" he's stunned and clueless; in "For No One" he's forced
to watch the close-range devolution of what was once true love, but
is now an almost existentialist interchange. We know he can scream ("I'm
Down") and we know he can suffer ("Oh Darling!"). He just doesn't
seem to lyrically declaim his vulnerability or fear of how the public might
see it, as often as John did.
Were either of these songwriting developments based upon real-life
experience of the songwriters themselves?
Perhaps their talent relied upon an amalgam of real or enhanced
love affairs, held separate in each songwriters' minds; perhaps they
were dependent upon projections from their creative source, only
dimly connected to reality.
More interesting, both Lennon and McCartney could create, when they chose,
styles that remained consistent from song to song. They developed themes
whose patterns can be traced, whose reappearance in disparate songs
fuels the nuclear passion of their songbook.
Those styles seem to have cross-bred in their solo years, when these
observations may not necessarily remain consistent. Surely dispassion and
distance were part of Lennon's toolkit in the seventies, and one of
Paul's most recent albums reveals harbingers of grief so stark that
one almost cannot bear to hear them.
This doesn't mean, even in their years as Beatles, that they couldn't
write out of character, whatever we imagine their creative characters
could be. It doesn't mean that underneath his public cruelty Lennon
couldn't be sympathetic to Epstein's hidden life, or that the need
to act the pop-icon didn't spark some sympathy in John for those
who could live without worrying what the press would say. I just
don't see what it is in "YGTHYLA" that refers to anything other
than what its lyrics tell us it says.
What I hear in this song is the nameless pain of love lost. I hear the
terrible fear of what a cruel world will think even when a man is
faced with hiding what he feels, lest he be judged too harshly for his
incommunicable sorrow.
Given the words and the music we have, I'm not sure what other eloquence
we need to explain it.
--
----------------------------------------------
Think of her/everyday/think of her
She doesn't help me
Gallard
> >I'm continually perplexed to hear that people seem to have read about
> >a meaning of this song that just doesn't seem to exist. It's almost as
> >if folks are looking at the title and ignoring the lyrics---and that's
> >where the clues to its meaning really reside, not in some assumed hidden
> >message about Brian's homosexuality. There's no convincing support that
> >I know of for any such interpretation. John certainly never said that
> >that's what the song was about. And the words of the song don't suggest
> >that either.
And now we have learned that John was writing about his Mom and half
sister that he looked for, for 16 years... His mother had a daughter by
another man while Johns father was at sea and so the child was put up
for adoption.
Eramon1
>
>I'm continually perplexed to hear that people seem to have read about
>a meaning of this song that just doesn't seem to exist. It's almost as
>if folks are looking at the title and ignoring the lyrics---and that's
>where the clues to its meaning really reside, not in some assumed hidden
>message about Brian's homosexuality. There's no convincing support that
>I know of for any such interpretation. John certainly never said that
>that's what the song was about. And the words of the song don't suggest
>that either.
<snip the rest of a lengthy post.....>
Thanks for one of the most interesting dissertations I've seen here! This
bit...
>You just have to listen to the words. And once you do, you'll hear echoes
>of other songs where the concepts of "pride" and "hurt" predominate. A
>telling number of those songs are John's.
>
>"She Loves You" is one that comes to mind: "Pride can hurt you too"; or
>"If I Fell" ("Don't hurt my pride like her..."; harmonically nice but
>the grammar could use a brush-up!). Then there's "I'm A Loser",
>where "pride comes before a fall"; in "Yes It Is", it's "my pride"
>that's destroyed.
>
>
is terrific! I hadn't noticed, in all my Beatle-listening years, how many songs
mention pride. The importance to Johnny of his image has really been pointed
out here! I like the Paul comparison...
.>
>Rarely is the Beatles-era McCartney lyrical protagonist at a loss.
>When he is, he seems to view it from a dispassionate distance. In
>"Yesterday" he's stunned and clueless; in "For No One" he's forced
>to watch the close-range devolution of what was once true love, but
>is now an almost existentialist interchange.
Yes, it's almost as if he's discussing someone else's failed romance. He's not
talking about the emotional effect it has on him. I should point out that it's
merely a different way of looking at it. I don't think either view is superior.
The songs you mention are all great works.
Again, great post!
-Eric Ramon
Portland, Oregon
ian hammond
One element of your piece particularly caught my eye: the gear change
that took place in Lennon's subject matter around 1965
dmac wrote:
>I'm continually perplexed to hear that people seem to have read about
>a meaning of this song that just doesn't seem to exist.
<snip>
>In fact, evidence is overwhelming for a much more obvious delineation.
>You just have to listen to the words. And once you do, you'll hear echoes
>of other songs where the concepts of "pride" and "hurt" predominate. A
>telling number of those songs are John's.
<snip>
>I find it intriguing that John wrote no Beatles songs in this
>thematic mode after about 1967. The focus on hurt pride, on derisive
>laughter, seems gone. If there's any conflict articulated, it's a dialogue
>or debate with a singular enamorata, rather than a passion-play dramatized
>on a public stage, subject to a provocative chorus of contempt and
>disdain.
The mode all but peters out in 1965, along with the Boy-Girl theme and
a number of musical idioms. Some musical styles reappear when Ono
arrives on the scene (slightly before actually). Even when "Hatred and
Jealousy" does reappear in 1973, it's balanced by a thank you song,
"Bless You", to the guy "holding her now".
Lennon seems to have completely changed his subject matter by _Rubber
Soul_. If we believe Lennon to be a creature of habit who returns a
song form over and over, then the changes before 1965 constituted
setting up a whole new set of songwriting themes and possibly even
writing habits.
How does such a blood transfusion take place?
Lennon tells us some of the story: He tells us that he started writing
subjectively about himself. He tells us he had great difficulty
completing "Nowhere Man" and "In My Life". "The Word" is a remarkable
document in which he explains how he has reframed his interpretation
of the "word" love.
I think we can work out 'when' the transition took place. In the
eleven months from November 1964 to January 1966, 'Fat Elvis' Lennon
produced only six recorded songs, a curious mixture of songs which
point forward, backward and nowhere:
new Ticket To Ride
old Yes It Is
new You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
old You're Going To Lose That Girl
new Help!
??? It's Only Love
When he returned, all of his eight new songs pointed forward, except
the first recorded, which was lyrically and musically a throw-back.
What's more he had many of the new regular slots in place. (And he
contributed to "What Goes On", "We Can Work It Out" & "Michelle")
old Run For Your Life
new Norwegian Wood Fantasy
new Day Tripper Rocker/sound song
new In My Life Childhood
new Nowhere Man Portrait/Self-portrait
new The Word Wisdom/Anthem
new Girl Portrait
I think we can see new traditions, with "Norwegian Wood" continuing to
songs such as "Sleeping", "Lucy", "Prudence". Where "The Word", became
"The Void" (aka "Tomorrow Never Knows"), "Rain", etc. But I wouldn't
want to push the analogy too far.
<big snip>
>More interesting, both Lennon and McCartney could create, when they chose,
>styles that remained consistent from song to song. They developed themes
>whose patterns can be traced, whose reappearance in disparate songs
>fuels the nuclear passion of their songbook.
I've not studied McCartney's themes as much as Lennon's, but I have
the feeling he didn't come back to the same well quite as often as
Lennon. John seems to have been a hopeless recidivist.
>Those styles seem to have cross-bred in their solo years, when these
>observations may not necessarily remain consistent. Surely dispassion and
>distance were part of Lennon's toolkit in the seventies, and one of
>Paul's most recent albums reveals harbingers of grief so stark that
>one almost cannot bear to hear them.
>This doesn't mean, even in their years as Beatles, that they couldn't
>write out of character, whatever we imagine their creative characters
>could be.
It's too easy to transplant his JohnAndYoko mode of the seventies back
to the late sixties. But Beatle-John was never full on. Few people
knew who "Julia" was. He still wrote portraits such as "Bungalow Bill"
and "Polythene Pam", and even poetry such as "Because". "Don't Let Me
Down" and "I Want You" were for Ono, but could have been about anyone
as far as the public were concerned. Even "Come Together" was obscure
in 1969.
Even after 1969, Lennon's public persona was close, but not identical
to his private soul, as he made clear in interviews in 1980. Still,
he effectively locked himself into writing almost completely about
himself, requiring yet another change of mode and themes at the time
(even down to replacing "yeah" with "well").
ian hammond
============================
"he come grooving up slowly"
ora...@hem.passagen.se
i...@hammo.com wrote:
> Lennon seems to have completely changed his subject matter by _Rubber
> Soul_. If we believe Lennon to be a creature of habit who returns a
> song form over and over, then the changes before 1965 constituted
> setting up a whole new set of songwriting themes and possibly even
> writing habits.
>
> How does such a blood transfusion take place?
>
> I think we can work out 'when' the transition took place. In the
> eleven months from November 1964 to January 1966, 'Fat Elvis' Lennon
> produced only six recorded songs, a curious mixture of songs which
> point forward, backward and nowhere:
Ian, I don't quite get what you're talking about here. First, there's 15
months between Nov 64 and Jan 66. Second, there were more than 6 John songs
recorded during those 15 months. Third, why not start counting at Feb 65,
when the first of the Lennon songs was recorded? The final one was, as I'm
sure you know, recorded in June (which means the time span was 5 months)....
>
> new Ticket To Ride
> old Yes It Is
> new You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
> old You're Going To Lose That Girl
> new Help!
> ??? It's Only Love
... or did you mean to count the songs below here too?
> When he returned, all of his eight new songs pointed forward, except
> the first recorded, which was lyrically and musically a throw-back.
> What's more he had many of the new regular slots in place. (And he
> contributed to "What Goes On", "We Can Work It Out" & "Michelle")
>
> old Run For Your Life
> new Norwegian Wood Fantasy
> new Day Tripper Rocker/sound song
> new In My Life Childhood
> new Nowhere Man Portrait/Self-portrait
> new The Word Wisdom/Anthem
> new Girl Portrait
>
> I think we can see new traditions, with "Norwegian Wood" continuing to
> songs such as "Sleeping", "Lucy", "Prudence". Where "The Word", became
> "The Void" (aka "Tomorrow Never Knows"), "Rain", etc. But I wouldn't
> want to push the analogy too far.
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AAlt
And then by later 1965 started L.S.D.? Surely *that" could have had
something to do with the "gear change." But probably not to much. Maybe
more the music than the lyrics. The aggressive change in lyrics came
later.
ian hammond <i...@hammo.com> wrote in article
<366136aa...@news.supernews.com>...
Mystic Seven
generated such an interesting, prolonged discussion.
M7
AAlt
probably '68 though. And unfortunately I snipped a little too much of your
post, but as far as the "real-life experiences" go, at one point,
according to a book by Ray Coleman, Lennon put his arms around his wife
and told her there'd been hundreds. In that same book, it was stated that
someone did make the claim that Hiding His Love Away was about Epstein,
and I can't recall the name of the fellow who suggested it. But I imagine
it was from that person where the idea sprang forth and grew. The name of
the book is _Lennon:_The Definitive Biography._
dmac <dm...@law.ucla.edu> wrote in article
<7326f9$fsv$1...@carroll.library.ucla.edu>...
> In article <19981119142719...@ng140.aol.com>,
road...@aol.com
> says...
> I find it intriguing that John wrote no Beatles songs in this
interstate5
<365bff28...@news.supernews.com>, i...@hammo.com stated:
>
>On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:12:45 GMT, "AAlt" <andy...@phouse.com> wrote:
>
>>Did the Beatles not start smoking marijuana in the latter part of 1964.
>>And then by later 1965 started L.S.D.? Surely *that" could have had
>>something to do with the "gear change." But probably not to much. Maybe
>>more the music than the lyrics. The aggressive change in lyrics came
>>later.
>would have had an affect. But artists can stick the same model quite
>tenaciously, when it's a successful mode. Despite all the influences.
>
>ian
Well, they were doing drugs (among other things :) ) hand over fist in India,
and generated a lot of great music there.
Also, George said it: The farther one travels, the less one knows, the less one
*really* knows. I think it ties back to the excellent point made in rmb a while
back about the link between output and the feeling that you've got something to
say. In "I've Got A Feeling," McCartney never says what kind of feeling he has
-- I always thought that was a song about the Beatles onrushing group creative
block, distractions, etc.
Laura
Well, they were doing drugs (among other things :) ) hand over fist in
India,
and generated a lot of great music there.
Also, George said it: The farther one travels, the less one knows, the
less one
*really* knows. I think it ties back to the excellent point made in rmb
a while
back about the link between output and the feeling that you've got
something to
say. In "I've Got A Feeling," McCartney never says what kind of feeling
he has
-- I always thought that was a song about the Beatles onrushing group
creative
block, distractions, etc.
LAURA SAYS:
I thought they (officially) swore off drugs during the India trip. So
were they about as successful as I am at swearing off cheese and
chocolate?
I always saw IGAF as being about Paul's just having fallen in love.
There's a hard to understand lyric something like he's gone all around
the world and why didn't somebody tell him all he was really looking for
was somebody to look like you (whoever the song is directed at, that
is).
Mystic Seven
>I always saw IGAF as being about Paul's just having fallen in love.
>There's a hard to understand lyric something like he's gone all around
>the world and why didn't somebody tell him all he was really looking for
>was somebody to look like you (whoever the song is directed at, that
>is).
The lyric is:
Well all these years I've been wandering around,
Wondering how come nobody told me,
All I'm ever looking for is somebody who looks like you.
Mcgbjk
>Well all these years I've been wandering around,
>Wondering how come nobody told me,
>All I'm ever looking for is somebody who looks like you.
Nitpick: All that I was looking for is somebody that looks like you.
ora...@hem.passagen.se
i...@hammo.com wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 1998 21:56:37 GMT, ora...@hem.passagen.se wrote:
>
> >In article <366136aa...@news.supernews.com>,
> > i...@hammo.com wrote:
> >
> >> I think we can work out 'when' the transition took place. In the
> >> eleven months from November 1964 to January 1966, 'Fat Elvis' Lennon
> >> produced only six recorded songs, a curious mixture of songs which
> >> point forward, backward and nowhere:
> >
> >Ian, I don't quite get what you're talking about here. First, there's 15
> >months between Nov 64 and Jan 66.
> don't know where I got January 66 from.
>
> >Second, there were more than 6 John songs recorded during those 15 months.
> covers. But I'm happy to be wrong... which ones did I miss?
I guess the six you're talking about are:
Ticket to ride
Yes it is
You've got to hide your love away
You're going to lose that girl
Help!
It's only love
If we're only going to count everything recorded up to October 65, we don't
have any new material (if we do not include October, which I'm going to
suppose you didn't). However, with your original suggestion (January 66),
there would have been all the Rubber Soul songs too.
Then we have "Wait", which is debatable. Did Lennon have anything to do with
that one?
> >Third, why not start counting at Feb 65,
> >when the first of the Lennon songs was recorded? The final one was, as I'm
> >sure you know, recorded in June (which means the time span was 5 months)....
> I was trying to get some measure of his productivity. Any method is
> bound to be a crude approximation -- your choice or my choice. I guess
> I would have to plot the rate in much more detail to get really
> meaningful figures. But, I do think his productivity was very low in
> this period. What do you think?
Okay, sorry about the misunderstanding then. I agree with you that his
productivity was comparatively low. Another even worse period was from
November 65 to November 66, which is 12 months and also only had 6 Lennon
songs (Tomorrow never knows, Rain, Dr. Robert, And your bird can sing, I'm
only sleeping, She said she said).
Even the next bit, November 66 to February 68 was pretty low (only 11 songs in
16 months).
> p.s. Thanks for taking the time to correct me.
No prob.
Christian Henriksson ("taking the time for a number of things")
ian hammond
>In article <366136aa...@news.supernews.com>,
> i...@hammo.com wrote:
>
>> I think we can work out 'when' the transition took place. In the
>> eleven months from November 1964 to January 1966, 'Fat Elvis' Lennon
>> produced only six recorded songs, a curious mixture of songs which
>> point forward, backward and nowhere:
>
>Ian, I don't quite get what you're talking about here. First, there's 15
>months between Nov 64 and Jan 66.
The 'eleven' was right, but from November 1964 to October 1965. I
don't know where I got January 66 from.
>Second, there were more than 6 John songs recorded during those 15 months.
I only find six new Lennon originals in that period. I'm not counting
covers. But I'm happy to be wrong... which ones did I miss?
>Third, why not start counting at Feb 65,
>when the first of the Lennon songs was recorded? The final one was, as I'm
>sure you know, recorded in June (which means the time span was 5 months)....
I was trying to get some measure of his productivity. Any method is
bound to be a crude approximation -- your choice or my choice. I guess
I would have to plot the rate in much more detail to get really
meaningful figures. But, I do think his productivity was very low in
this period. What do you think?
p.s. Thanks for taking the time to correct me.
ian hammond
=========================================
"writing fifty times i must not be so..."
ian hammond
ian hammond
>interstate 5 wrote:
>Well, they were doing drugs (among other things :) ) hand over fist in
>India,
>and generated a lot of great music there.
>
>Also, George said it: The farther one travels, the less one knows, the
>less one
>*really* knows. I think it ties back to the excellent point made in rmb
>a while
>back about the link between output and the feeling that you've got
>something to
>say. In "I've Got A Feeling," McCartney never says what kind of feeling
>he has
>-- I always thought that was a song about the Beatles onrushing group
>creative
>block, distractions, etc.
>
>LAURA SAYS:
>I thought they (officially) swore off drugs during the India trip. So
>were they about as successful as I am at swearing off cheese and
>chocolate?
Yes they did officially. But like all school-kids will, there was
stuff going on behind the shelter shed. Maybe. Like school-kids, they
also used to brag and exaggerate.
Anyway, the whole point about pot etc is that it turns up the sensory
volume knob. Meditation, particularly in retreat, is an even better
way to do that. A much cleaner high, and one that can more readily be
transmuted into song. Pot highs, IMHO, generally produce pretty
sluggish stuff that doesn't translate back.
>I always saw IGAF as being about Paul's just having fallen in love.
>There's a hard to understand lyric something like he's gone all around
>the world and why didn't somebody tell him all he was really looking for
>was somebody to look like you (whoever the song is directed at, that
>is).
Sort of "grass is greener on the other side of the fence", stuff
having come back from Inja... ("The farther one travels" again).
I think it's one of those first songs that McCartney wrote just by
exploring the sonorities of his own voice. The words were a
side-affect of a "sound song". That doesn't make the words worse or
better. Great manic bridge.
Anyway good luck. The cheese is the hardest of the two. IMHO.
ian hammond
=======================
"pulled their socks up"
Mystic Seven
Maybe his eyes say that, but his lips say All I'm ever looking for.
At least according to MY copy of "Let It Be".
P.S. Let's put the munchausen thing to rest. May the real culprit burn
in hell.
M7
ian hammond
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 00:37:10 GMT, in article
><365bff28...@news.supernews.com>, i...@hammo.com stated:
>>
>Well, they were doing drugs (among other things :) ) hand over fist in India,
>and generated a lot of great music there.
>
>Also, George said it: The farther one travels, the less one knows, the less one
>*really* knows. I think it ties back to the excellent point made in rmb a while
>back about the link between output and the feeling that you've got something to
>say. In "I've Got A Feeling," McCartney never says what kind of feeling he has
>-- I always thought that was a song about the Beatles onrushing group creative
>block, distractions, etc.
Around Peppertime, George's favorite device for writing a song seemed
to visit other peoples' houses. The chances of producing a song were
enhanced by the presence of an organ or harmonium. "Blue Jay Way",
"Within You and Without You" are pretty literal transcriptions. The
organs that drive "Only A Northern Song" and "All Too Much" seem to
point in that direction as well. Even "Piggies" was written at his
mum's house.
Later, Lennon seemed to do better in hotels and rented houses: away
from his spouse, which is how he wrote most of his stuff for "Walls
And Bridges" and "Double Fantasy".
But the Indian trip really did open them up. I think they also got a
lot more time to think about how they constructed their songs in
India. A little like a self-run master-class.
Alanis Morissette seems to have had a similar experience in India
after a severe case of writer's block and the distractions. She
documents it all in "Would Not Come"
i'd be filthy rich and still it would not come
...
i would stuff my face and still it would not come
...
And later, in "Thank You", the resolution
the moment I let go of it, was the moment
I got more than i could handle
...
ian hammond
===========
"when Life does not find a singer to sing her heart she produces a
philosopher to speak her mind."
ian hammond
>Then we have "Wait", which is debatable. Did Lennon have anything to do with
>that one?
It was written much earlier.
>I agree with you that his
>productivity was comparatively low. Another even worse period was from
>November 65 to November 66, which is 12 months and also only had 6 Lennon
>songs (Tomorrow never knows, Rain, Dr. Robert, And your bird can sing, I'm
>only sleeping, She said she said).
You're quite right. That kind of blows yesterday's theory out of the
water. I guess I kind of forgave him for that period because there was
only one album, but the same applies to the previous period as well.
So, I'll revert to the quality, rather than quantity argument. But on
it's own, it's pretty weak.
ian hammond
========================
"feeling two foot small"
Amaranth56
>>that one?
>It was written much earlier.
If I've been following this thread correctly, it's right smack in the middle
(June 1965). According to _The Long and Winding Road_ by Stannard, "Wait" was
written by both Paul and John. According to _All Together Now_ by Castleman
and Podrazik, just John wrote it.
(From _Beatlesongs_ where Dowlding gives Paul and John 50-50 credit for the
song)
Mcgbjk
>in hell.
Not a prob. :)
But I still think I'm right on the lyric.....
Mystic Seven
Just for arguments sake, are you basing it on your ears, or have you
got a copy of the Let It Be video?
(10 minutes later)
Just checked the video. It's "All I'm ever looking for...". We ARE, of
course, talking about the rooftop version, correct?
Mcgbjk
>got a copy of the Let It Be video?
I am basing it on my ears, but I do have the movie, which I will check later.
>(10 minutes later)
>Just checked the video. It's "All I'm ever looking for...". We ARE, of
>course, talking about the rooftop version, correct?
I was talking about the album.
Minor correction though: All that I've been lookinf for was somebody that
looked like you......
Mystic Seven
>>Just for arguments sake, are you basing it on your ears, or have you
>>got a copy of the Let It Be video?
>
>I am basing it on my ears, but I do have the movie, which I will check later.
>
>>(10 minutes later)
>
>>Just checked the video. It's "All I'm ever looking for...". We ARE, of
>>course, talking about the rooftop version, correct?
>
>I was talking about the album.
Yes, the album version is the one recorded on the roof.
>
>Minor correction though: All that I've been lookinf for was somebody that
>looked like you......
>
Check out the video again. If you still think you're right I'll check
it again. What the hell, it's a rainy day ;-)
Mcgbjk
LOL. I thought so, but didn't feel like displaying my ignorance here. :)
>
>Minor correction though: All that I've been lookinf for was somebody that
>looked like you......
>
>>Check out the video again. If you still think you're right I'll check
>>it again. What the hell, it's a rainy day ;-)
OK. Will do. I will check it some time today, even though it ISN'T raining.
(Not here anyway)
Mystic Seven
Now, isn't this more fun than tracking down and killing anonymous
email cowards? ;-)
ora...@hem.passagen.se
amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
> >>Then we have "Wait", which is debatable. Did Lennon have anything to do with
> >>that one?
> >It was written much earlier.
>
> If I've been following this thread correctly, it's right smack in the middle
> (June 1965).
Well, at least it was recorded then. It may have been written earlier, but
I've yet to see evidence. Maybe Ian knows?
> According to _The Long and Winding Road_ by Stannard, "Wait" was
> written by both Paul and John. According to _All Together Now_ by Castleman
> and Podrazik, just John wrote it.
Personally, I'm a believer in the 50-50 theory.
Christian Henriksson
Jim Richard
Amaranth56 <amara...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Then we have "Wait", which is debatable. Did Lennon have anything to do with
>>>that one?
>>It was written much earlier.
>
>If I've been following this thread correctly, it's right smack in the middle
>written by both Paul and John. According to _All Together Now_ by Castleman
>and Podrazik, just John wrote it.
>
>song)
And according to Paul (Many Years from Now, p. 278):
"We [Paul and the actor Brandon de Wilde] chatted endlessly, and I
seem to remember writing 'Wait' in front of him, and him being interested
to see it being written. I think it was my song. I don't remember John
collaborating too much on it, although he could have."
Jim
Mcgbjk
>>>it again. What the hell, it's a rainy day ;-)
>
>OK. Will do. I will check it some time today, even though it ISN'T raining.
>(Not here anyway)
OK. I checked. And it still wasn't even raining. But to be perfectly honest,
I can't tell for s***. Lip reading just ain't my forte. But it still sounds
like "All that I've been looking for was somebody that looks like you"
Surprised noone else is weighing in on this one....
>
>>Now, isn't this more fun than tracking down and killing anonymous
>>email cowards? ;-)
Yeah, but I found something even more fun than this. heh heh heh.
ian hammond
>In article <19981124031353...@ng04.aol.com>,
> amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
>> >>Then we have "Wait", which is debatable. Did Lennon have anything to do with
>> >>that one?
>> >It was written much earlier.
>>
>> If I've been following this thread correctly, it's right smack in the middle
>> (June 1965).
>
>Well, at least it was recorded then. It may have been written earlier, but
>I've yet to see evidence. Maybe Ian knows?
Lennon says NOTHING about the song in any reference that I have.
McCartney says only this:
'Wait' was written in the Bahamas, during the filming of Help!...
The Beatles had a little house near the sea... One of the people
they met... was the actor Brandon de Wilde. Paul, "He was a nice
guy... and I seem to remember writing Wait in front of him, and
him being interested to see it written. I think it was my song.
I don't remember John collaborating too much on it, although
he could have.
McCartney BMPM278
After recording "It's Only Love" and "Act Naturally" (their last
cover), "Wait!" was recorded in a three hour slot as the Beatles
rushed to complete "Help!". It's not certain that the song was even
fully recorded -- the session concluded with mixes for "Yesterday".
In any case, along with "If You've Got Troubles" and "That Means A
Lot", it didn't make it. It was only revived when the Beatles found
themselves one track short for "Rubber Soul".
So, it's not so much a matter of working out who to credit as it is
who to blame.
It would have been a good fit for "Beatles For Sale". One of those
miniatures like "Every Little Thing" (another McCartney song that
*sounds* like a Lennon song in places and where Lennon carries the
lead vocal (in the verse here)).
The bridge goes back even further. It shares bits with "No Reply",
which written around "A Hard Days Night" time I believe.
Lyrically, we're back to "coming home" again, which was a theme of
their first few albums.
It's interesting for a number of reasons.
The bridge finishs C# to f# minor, but McCartney sings c-b-a, as if
he's doing a blues finish from E+ to A.
Apart from the chromatics, the descending minor chord at the end
points to things like "Rigby", "Sleeping" or even "Cry Baby Cry"
(although I don't think I could defend this point).
Note the song does *not* finish on the chorus, which is what you might
expect. Instead an extra verse is thrown in, because it presents a
good opportunity for a coda. McCartney does essentially the same thing
on "For No One", where the affect is truly poetic.
The song deserved a better performance, but my feeling was that they
were knackered.
ian hammond
==========================
"but if your heart breaks"
ora...@hem.passagen.se
i...@hammo.com wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:59:49 GMT, ora...@hem.passagen.se wrote:
>
> >In article <19981124031353...@ng04.aol.com>,
> > amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
> >> >>Then we have "Wait", which is debatable. Did Lennon have anything to do
with
> >> >>that one?
> >> >It was written much earlier.
> >>
> >> If I've been following this thread correctly, it's right smack in the
middle
> >> (June 1965).
> >
> >Well, at least it was recorded then. It may have been written earlier, but
> >I've yet to see evidence. Maybe Ian knows?
>
> Lennon says NOTHING about the song in any reference that I have.
> McCartney says only this:
>
> 'Wait' was written in the Bahamas, during the filming of Help!...
> The Beatles had a little house near the sea... One of the people
> they met... was the actor Brandon de Wilde. Paul, "He was a nice
> guy... and I seem to remember writing Wait in front of him, and
> him being interested to see it written. I think it was my song.
> I don't remember John collaborating too much on it, although
> he could have.
> McCartney BMPM278
>
Well, it does seem that Paul is corroborating my statement that "Wait" was
written during the time period in question. But of course, you are right too,
because it seems John didn't have much input on it.