Uncle Albert
LarryM
SBrown3270 wrote in message
<19980304032...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>the next time you listen to the song, pay close attention to the talking in
the
>middle of the song that sounds something like"and i put her in the
pie,,,,well
>all right",,, does this not sound like george harrison's voice saying "all
>right". i'm wondering if it's not some tape of something that paul had that
he
>injected into the middle of the song for fun.
It was the butter pie "joke"---"Butter pie...the butter wouldn't melt so we
put it in the pie and called it..."
LarryM
SBrown3270
Laurel Adams
SBrown3270 <sbrow...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980304032...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
I'm not sure about it being George Harrison's voice...I can tell you what
is said though.
"Butter pie. Butter pie?
The butter wouldn't melt so I put it in the pie...
all right...
Hands across the water, etc. etc."
I think it's just Pauls voice overdubbed...but I could be wrong.
Laurel
sgoo...@mcione.com
"Laurel Adams"
> The butter wouldn't melt so I put it in the pie...
> all right...
> Hands across the water, etc. etc."
>
a perfect example of his problem? I mean "Hands across the water,
Heads across the sky" is a fantastic lyric, if you think about it.
As good as any Lennon script about relating to each other, etc. You
could analyze that one line forever (and its worthy of the analysis)
Whats more, it comes with an exhilirating melody to boot.
But then whats all this crap about Admiral Halsey and his butter pie?
Couldn't he finish the lyric and make the rest of it worthy of
the chorus?? Or at least about the same thing?
Duck-
It's called 'pot' ;)
JSeraf7064
>> "Laurel Adams"
>> > "Butter pie. Butter pie? The butter wouldn't melt so I put it in the pie
perfect example of his problem?
As a long time Paul fan, owning his (and the rest of the Beatles) entire solo
collections on CD, I'll be the first to say, his lyrics can be downright
silly, and often inane.
John was able to (at his will) write lyrics that instantly made you THINK. No
matter how simple they were, there was allways a multi-dimensional depth to
them, that could be explored to whatever depth the listener wanted.
An interesting thing about Paul's lyrics, is what APPEARS to be silly and
without meaning, sometimes does have a deep personal meaning, but it's often
lost on the listener. For example, when John sings 'Jealous Guy' or 'Woman' we
KNOW he's talking to Yoko, but when Paul sings "My Love" or "Warm and
Beautiful", that he talking to Linda is vague.
If you look at Paul's music 'in the big picture', you see the incredible range
of musical ideas the man had explored. Dozens upon dozens of melodies,
instrumentations, orchestrations, experimentations, at best the lyrics were
interesting enough just to listen to.
On the other hand, John's music I find boring to listen to, for the most part.
His songs often seem to be full of great lyrics, and snippets of interesting
musical ideas, thrown together into a dull song. I often use the song 'Mind
Games' as an example of "A masterpiece covered with mud". The chorus "Love is
the answer..." is brilliant, while the verses are dull and draggy. If this song
was written with Paul, the music and words would have fit together better, it'd
be easier to listen to, and would have no doubt been a masterpiece.
Robert Johnson
JSeraf7064 <jsera...@aol.com> wrote:
> If you look at Paul's music 'in the big picture', you see the incredible range
> of musical ideas the man had explored. Dozens upon dozens of melodies,
> instrumentations, orchestrations, experimentations, at best the lyrics were
> interesting enough just to listen to.
> On the other hand, John's music I find boring to listen to, for the most part.
> His songs often seem to be full of great lyrics, and snippets of interesting
> musical ideas, thrown together into a dull song. I often use the song 'Mind
> Games' as an example of "A masterpiece covered with mud". The chorus "Love is
> the answer..." is brilliant, while the verses are dull and draggy. If this song
> was written with Paul, the music and words would have fit together better, it'd
> be easier to listen to, and would have no doubt been a masterpiece.
Before you get scorched with flames from the JL and PM camps, I'd like to chime
in and say I agree with you whole-heartedly! That analyis was well-said and
it's what I feel as well, but couldn't articulate it!
Thanks!
Rob
--
Rob Johnson
rjoh...@enteract.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|"This is what you'll get when |
| you mess with us." --Radiohead|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom
>An interesting thing about Paul's lyrics, is what APPEARS to be silly and
>without meaning, sometimes does have a deep personal meaning, but it's
often
>lost on the listener. For example, when John sings 'Jealous Guy' or 'Woman'
we
>KNOW he's talking to Yoko, but when Paul sings "My Love" or "Warm and
>Beautiful", that he talking to Linda is vague.
Why is that? Is it an artistic failure on Paul's part, where he is trying to
say something personal but fails to communicate that to the listener? Is it
part of their respective images, "John is the one who writes personal songs,
so everything he saing is about his life specifically, where Paul is just a
craftsman." Is there something inherent in the songs, perhaps the
difference is that John had a specific idea he wanted to convey in those
songs while Paul's meaning was vaguer ("I was wrong" or "this is how you've
affected me" vs. "You're really great")
The fact is, we may get a feeling that John wrote those songs for Yoko but
we don't know that. It's only an idea that, for some reason,seems more
likely than Paul writing My Love to communicate something to Linda does.
John Cardinal
Tom wrote:
> [snip]
> The fact is, we may get a feeling that John wrote those songs for Yoko but
> we don't know that. It's only an idea that, for some reason,seems more
> likely than Paul writing My Love to communicate something to Linda does.
We don't know, I guess, unless John or Paul has specifically said "I
wrote that song for xxx". I know what I feel though: more of John comes
through in his lyrics. That's not necessarily better--sometimes it's
easier to relate to Paul's lyrics.
Brian Fried
Paul admits in a few interviews he rarely writes in the first person,
making the idea more universal than personal. For example, take "My Love"
or the Beatles' "For No One." We know, because he's stated as such, that
they are written for Linda and Jane respectively. However, how many people
here can honestly say that it's a sentiment which can easily transfer to
themselves? "My Love" is a fantastic example of a guy so much in love he
can't express his true feelings in words, and "For No One" is a song about
communications lost.
No McCartney fan will tell you that Paul's lyrics are right on all the
time. Take, for example, OFF THE GROUND. Some songs have great lyrics --
like "Mistress and Maid" -- some decent ones -- like "Biker Like an Icon"
-- and some 'what were you thinking?' -- like "Golden Earth Girl."
Also, it is difficult to compare Paul to John in the post-Beatles periods
because Paul was busy writing as many songs as he could to get Wings off
the ground (no pun intended) and keep them going. John's situation was
different, giving him more time to play with lyrics. Whereas Paul is
releasing albums in 70,71,71,73,73,75,76,76,77,78,79,79,80, John is taking
more time -- and the great lost weekend which I must admit helped him
tremendously.
Turning back to the subject of "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", the reason
for the butter pie reference is easily understood: Mary and Heather. At
the beginning of the song, Paul tells Uncle Albert that they haven't done
a bloody thing all day. What does that mean? Does it mean that they
haven't done anything productive? Have they lazed around the house? Or,
have they been leaving work for a while to play with the kids? This is a
kids song, as any parent can attest. It oozes with f-u-n. Maybe Admiral
Halsey is a game that's being played. Maybe it's a joke between him and
the kids, a word game of nonsense. Paul's situation has to be taken into
account as well in order to understand a bit more about the songs he writes.
======================================================================
Brian Fried
bfr...@chat.carleton.ca
Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"What do you say? Will the human race be run in a day?
Or will someone save this planet we're playing on?"
- Paul McCartney, 'Pipes Of Peace', 1983
======================================================================
MHHedgeco
No McCartney fan will tell you that Paul's lyrics are right on all the
time. Take, for example, OFF THE GROUND. Some songs have great lyrics --
like "Mistress and Maid" -- some decent ones -- like "Biker Like an Icon"
-- and some 'what were you thinking?' -- like "Golden Earth Girl."
>>
And "Looking for Changes"...his intent was good, I suppose, but the lyric just
flat-out sucks. McCartney's lyrics rarely about anything of great importance,
IMO. Good songs, but very little lyrical content. He also writes about so
many more light-hearted themes than John...while Paul would write about looking
for a way to find love (Young Boy), John would write about being depressed
because he couldn't find one.
JSeraf7064
>He also writes about so many more light-hearted themes than John...while Paul
would write about looking for a way to find love (Young Boy), John would write
about being depressed because he couldn't find one.
Nice observation. I have always been a bigger fan of Paul's music.
John never had any trouble getting his words to fit when he wanted them to, and
he never had trouble turning what could be a simple lyric into something poetic
that makes you think. He could often find just the RIGHT words...(something
Paul has a lot of trouble doing).
It's hard to equate the power of lyrics to the power of musical phrases, but
that's where Paul's strength lies. John can often find a good melody for his
words, but the song itself won't stand out, and tends to be boring IMO.
Meanwhile, a lyrically inept song like 'My Love' will top the charts because
the music sounds so good.
That's why John and Paul made such a formidable team.
Tup...@seaside.net
In article <6ee29k$6gg$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
bfr...@chat.carleton.ca (Brian Fried) wrote:
>
> Paul admits in a few interviews he rarely writes in the first person,
> making the idea more universal than personal. For example, take "My Love"
> or the Beatles' "For No One." We know, because he's stated as such, that
> they are written for Linda and Jane respectively. However, how many people
> here can honestly say that it's a sentiment which can easily transfer to
> themselves? "My Love" is a fantastic example of a guy so much in love he
> can't express his true feelings in words, and "For No One" is a song about
> communications lost.
>
> time. Take, for example, OFF THE GROUND. Some songs have great lyrics --
> like "Mistress and Maid" -- some decent ones -- like "Biker Like an Icon"
> -- and some 'what were you thinking?' -- like "Golden Earth Girl."
>
IMO Paul is more creative musically and John more creative lyrically.
Smileaway
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
MHHedgeco
Meanwhile, a lyrically inept song like 'My Love' will top the charts because
the music sounds so good.
That's why John and Paul made such a formidable team.
>>>
Right. I agree 100%. That would be why I have always enjoyed Paul's music
more; I don't enjoy a song for it's lyrics, but for it's melody and such. Even
though they did make a very good team, I think it's sad that they didn't do
much writing together after '65.
sgoo...@mcione.com
mhhe...@aol.com (MHHedgeco) writes: > Meanwhile, a lyrically inept song like 'My Love' will top the charts because
> the music sounds so good.
Theres nothing inept about the lyric to "My Love". It's fine.
The wo-wo's sound good, and it has some good lines. Inept is
when the words are just plain awkward, like in "You Like Me Too Much".
By the way, you can't divorce the words from the song. You shouldn't
judge a lyric by how it works as stand alone poetry, but by how
it works in the song. IMO "My Love" is a great ballad because it
moves me.
MHHedgeco
Theres nothing inept about the lyric to "My Love". It's fine.
The wo-wo's sound good, and it has some good lines. Inept is
when the words are just plain awkward, like in "You Like Me Too Much".
By the way, you can't divorce the words from the song. You shouldn't
judge a lyric by how it works as stand alone poetry, but by how
it works in the song. IMO "My Love" is a great ballad because it
moves me.
>>>>
I agree. I only copied the post that I was responding to; I never posted a
direct opinion on "My Love"...but here it is. A good song. I agree that lyrics
can't be/shouldn't be 'divorced' from a song. A "song" is the whole concept,
not just the words or just the music. But that doesn't mean that the lyrics
can't be stronger than the music, or vice versa.
JSeraf7064
>Theres nothing inept about the lyric to "My Love". It's fine. The wo-wo's
sound good, and it has some good lines. Inept is when the words are just plain
awkward, like in "You Like Me Too Much".
>By the way, you can't divorce the words from the song. You shouldn't judge a
lyric by how it works as stand alone poetry, but by how it works in the song.
IMO "My Love" is a great ballad because it moves me.
Don't get me wrong... I'm a big Paul fan, and I love "My Love". I used the
word 'inept' to make a point. The words of "My Love" are 'adequate'. My point
was this: Lyrically, Paul is no John Lennon, and musically, John is no Paul
McCartney. Each of them DO have thier moments, but overall, I feel this is a
fair statement.
And you can indeed 'divorce' the words and the song. Not always, but with the
best of them, you can. During my teenage years, I was a big fan of Elton John's
pre-1976 work. His lyricist was indeed a poet, and would send Elton the
completed lyrics, which Elton then set to music. More often than not, the music
and lyrics would fit together perfectly. I'd sit and read the lyrics along as I
listened, astounded at how the melody and chords would convey perfectly the
emotions of the words. As those two songwriters once said "Hand in hand went
music and the rhyme".
Lennon/McCartney music was often of this quality, and occasionaly of this
quality when they went solo.
Incidentaly, Elton went to hell in a handbasket after "Captain Fantastic". His
talents began to wane with "Rock of The Westies", and was virually
non-existent by "Blue Moves". After this, He produced little music that I
liked. Somehow, I feel he changed his style on purpose.
-JS
sgoo...@mcione.com
A good song. I agree that lyrics
> can't be/shouldn't be 'divorced' from a song. A "song" is the whole concept,
> not just the words or just the music. But that doesn't mean that the lyrics
> can't be stronger than the music, or vice versa.
Well said.
Orange
On 15 Mar 1998 05:55:35 GMT, jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) thought
"Why don't I post something?", and did just that:
>Incidentaly, Elton went to hell in a handbasket after "Captain Fantastic". His
>talents began to wane with "Rock of The Westies", and was virually
>non-existent by "Blue Moves". After this, He produced little music that I
>liked. Somehow, I feel he changed his style on purpose.
>
Then would you say that "Caribou" is the last album worth getting by
him? I am trying to decide how many albums to buy from the 70s, so any
comment would be in order.
Sorry for the non-beatle content.
Christian Henriksson
--
A sign in front of a roadworks in Japan:
Stop. Drive sideways.
--
BTW, to mail me, remove the REMOVE from my e-mail
address
JSeraf7064
>Then would you say that "Caribou" is the last album worth getting by him? I am
order.
No, 'Captain Fantastic' is an extremely good album, It debuted at #1 on the
charts, and was among the first to do so. I used to listen to it constantly.
'Rock of the Westies' is OK, but by this time Elton's personal discomfort with
his life was beginning to show in his music, and his relationship with his
band, and a lot of the music is not as well thought out as it could be. It's
still one of his 'Classic' albums. 'Blue Moves' is a steep decline for him. It
has some moments, and may be worth getting. His next album was 'Simple Man',
and IMO, don't bother. He worked with a different band, a different producer,
and a different lyricist. The music sounds boring and thin to me. Like Lennon
and McCartney, Elton's relationship with his songwriting partner was something
that developed from a close personal bond... and It wasn't the same when he
wrote (or tried to write) with others.
My all time favorite EJ album is 'Tumbleweed Connection'. The words and music
fit together perfectly in all of the songs, and the songs are great. I recently
saw and interview where both Bernie and Elton said this was thier favorite,
because it was the 'most musicaly perfect' album they wrote. I was surprised
to hear them say this, because it had been my opinion for years. It has a
1800's western type feel to them (note I do not mean a 'Country and Western'
feel)... kind of like the Eagles 'Desperado' album. If you get this one, give
it five or six listens under the headphones while you read the lyric booklet
before you Judge it. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
And, I apologize to the group for the off-topic post.
-JS
Andrew Brooks
I whole heartedly agree with what ever this guy is on about (does anyone
know?)
--
Andrew Brooks
Neil Robinson
Brian Fried wrote in message <6ee29k$6gg$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
>Turning back to the subject of "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", the reason
>for the butter pie reference is easily understood: Mary and Heather. At
>the beginning of the song, Paul tells Uncle Albert that they haven't done
>a bloody thing all day. What does that mean? Does it mean that they
>haven't done anything productive? Have they lazed around the house? Or,
>have they been leaving work for a while to play with the kids? This is a
>kids song, as any parent can attest. It oozes with f-u-n. Maybe Admiral
>Halsey is a game that's being played. Maybe it's a joke between him and
>the kids, a word game of nonsense. Paul's situation has to be taken into
>account as well in order to understand a bit more about the songs he
writes.
> Brian Fried
I probably missed the start of this thread. What you suggest may be right.
Here's my interpretation of Uncle Albert.
It is McCartney's hearing of that English upper class voice.
The Upper Class Person (I think this is a woman he is parodying) has a lot
of training in politeness, so that if the UCP is trying to get away from you
(you being non upper class), you take a while to catch on. They just seem to
be rabbiting on about trivialities in a very *tired* voice.
We're sooo sooorrry, Uncle Albert
rather than giving the sort of signals you are used to.
The UCP often swears, in a very posh accent. To the NUCP, this is strange,
since where he comes from, the people with the posher accents tend not to
swear.
We haven't done a _bloody_ thing all day.
These people have some strange eating habits, and almost proud way they
confess to doing strange things with food is amazing
So I had a cup of tea and a butter pie
- Butter pie?
- Butter wouldn't melt so I put it in a pie
The (English) UCP is positive about americans, but in a way that comes
across as a bit patronising
Hands across the water [and all that]
If McCartney, the highly successful but in London upper class society
somewhat "hick" irish-descent Liverpudlian, listens to to casual banter of
the UCP, there are some ironies in what he hears. There are casual
references to people of high position in society.
Admiral Halsey notified me
He couldn't get a berth so he couldn't get to sea
This reference to an _admiral_ (the boss of a lot of people who drive
ships!) failing to book passage on a passenger liner sound comical to a
NUCP, but being "on good behaviour" in the presence of his betters, he
cannot show his mirth.
The UCP tends to bring her children to order by reminding them that they are
in a privileged position, and are expected to show more correct behaviour
than those less privileged, e.g. "If you wish to behave like a gypsy,
perhaps you would prefer to go and live with them". To McCartney's ear this
is comical, but with a harsh, threatening tone.
.. gypsy gad-around
Get your feet on off the ground
Little little gad-around.
If you haven't come across this interpretation, try listing to the song for
this "posh" accent.
BTW, Let Em In has a lot of the flavour of cozy family life that you seemed
to be referring to. It is a secure household where the adult can say to a
child
Someone's knocking at the door
Do me a favour
Let 'em in
on the assumption that whoever is knocking will be friendly.
I heard McCartney once relate a conversation between him, Linda, John and
Joko. He had been saying how, when he was young, his family would have
friends and relations dropping in all the time. He said that John and Yoko
just looked at each other and said "Oh, we never had visitors".
Cheers,
===========================================
Neil.
I used to keep an open mind, but people kept throwing rubbish in it.
Home page:
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Amphitheatre/1263
Teresa Williams
Now wait a minute Neil and Brian and whoever else is mincing lyrics
with social consciousness! Below is one of my favorite bits of lyric
and you have mangeled it !
On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Neil Robinson wrote:
> Brian Fried wrote in message <6ee29k$6gg$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
> >Turning back to the subject of "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", the reason
> >for the butter pie reference is easily understood: Mary and Heather...
> > It oozes with f-u-n.
.....................................
>
> The UCP tends to bring her children to order by reminding them that they are
> in a privileged position, and are expected to show more correct behaviour
> than those less privileged, e.g. "If you wish to behave like a gypsy,
> perhaps you would prefer to go and live with them". To McCartney's ear this
> is comical, but with a harsh, threatening tone.
> .. gypsy gad-around
> Get your feet on off the ground
> Little little gad-around.
>
No, no, no!
Try:
Live a little, be a gypsy, get around,
Get your feet up off the ground,
Live a little get around.
I'll search out official confirmation if you insist, but give it
another listen and see if these words don't seem to fit and to make
a bit more of a point than those above. I have long considered this
an admonition, a reminder to be open to new experience.
It's got me in trouble more than once, but I'd argue it's still
something I need to keep in mind.
Teresa
Brian Fried
Teresa -
While I agree that getting the lyrics right is vitally important, if you
look at my original post I didn't include any lyrics except the "hands
across the water/heads above the sky" lines which someone had posted in
this thread previously. When I write that it "oozes with f-u-n", I'm
trying to stress the enjoyment Paul is trying desparately to express.
One song of Paul's which was slammed pretty hard in this forum was "Biker
Like an Icon" from OFF THE GROUND. A lot of people questioned why Paul
would release this one at all. Yet listen to it on PAUL IS LIVE or watch
it on PAUL IS LIVE IN CONCERT and you notice a great enjoyment from Paul
in performing this piece. Sometimes lyrics don't always matter (although I
don't mind the lyrics in this song at all).
I agree with you that lyrics make or break your point some times.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Neil Robinson
Teresa Williams wrote in message ...
Here's a version off the web :
Live a little, be a gypsy, get around, get around
Get your feet up off the ground, live a little, get around
Live a little, be a gypsy, get around, get around
Get your feet up off the ground, live a little, get around
Ok, I grant that there is no sign of a "harsh, threatening
tone" - that may be my reading in. But what of my contention that
Uncle Albert is MacCartney's hearing of that upeer class English
voice?