|
Post by mikev on Oct 16, 2008 11:57:37 GMT -5
From the Starkey-Bach photos Ringo played spoons at his wedding party. Paul was at a piano.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 16, 2008 21:13:21 GMT -5
. . . To sum it up here, I don't mean to say people can't have their own interpretations. I just don't believe that PLEASE PLEASE ME was intended to be a disguised song about oral sex. I guess that means discussion of "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away" ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 16, 2008 23:35:42 GMT -5
Our lads were very randy young fellows AND very clever. I wouldn't put it past them to write the tamest sounding song about oral sex. By the way, what do you think "Drive My Car" is about? NASCAR? Now that you mention it.... "You can do something in between..." Yes, these were the same lads who winking and singing about Day Trippers, tit tit tit, and girls who showed them their rooms -- (isn't it good).
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 17, 2008 3:25:08 GMT -5
I don't think Please Please Me was about oral sex. I think it was just about sex. And I have no doubt about that whatsoever. It's a mark of the cleverness of the song that it works on the level of a straightforward formula love song - nothing for the mums and dads to get upset about - and also as a thinly veiled song about teenage sexual activity. To be blunt, I'd always had it down as referring to handjobs rather than oral sex, but it works equally well for any sexual activity.
I have a feeling that Paul, John, or both, are on record somewhere as confirming this, but don't ask me for a source.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2008 5:53:34 GMT -5
So -- where IS your source, vectis? Sure, anything can "work" if you want it too. Heck, I can think that MICHAEL ROW THE BOAT ASHORE is about a kid wanting to stick it to his grandmother if it makes me happy. I come across this regularly on the movie discussions I'm involved in. There's always this "homosexual subtext" people like to talk about. It's great to pretend all sorts of things or to try to validate one's own existence or whatever. But to go a step further and factually state "it's definitely about this, and if you refuse to see it you're in denial and are a prude" is a whole 'nother thing entirely, I think. If Paul and/or John said something more conclusive about PLEASE PLEASE ME, I'm dead wrong. As I said earlier, I'd like to learn that it was a clever and naughty reference to sex. Way to go, guys - if true.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 17, 2008 7:47:26 GMT -5
I don't think Please Please Me was about oral sex . I think it was just about sex . . . To be blunt, I'd always had it down as referring to handjobs rather than oral sex, but it works equally well for any sexual activity. I can go with the handjob angle, but not the sex, simply because he is pleasing her, but she is not pleasing him. If it were sex, she would be involved, too, so the lyric would not quite fit ---- unless of course she's the only one who is getting off because he's working it, but she can't satisfy him because her technique is not as good as his or perhaps she's a selfish lover. Whatever, oral or manual, this song is probably not as innocent as many might believe.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 17, 2008 8:07:23 GMT -5
Sure, anything can "work" if you want it too. Heck, I can think that MICHAEL ROW THE BOAT ASHORE is about a kid wanting to stick it to his grandmother if it makes me happy. You're right in a general sense. Anyone can say anything about anything, but like paper money without gold to back it, an idea without any analysis is suspect. Good art runs deep. Many people are not able to look at a painting and not see anything more than an old man with a pitchfork standing next to an old woman or an old woman sitting in a rocking chair. Some people will look at Georgia O'keefe's work and never see anything phallic. Just flowers. That's fine, I suppose. The appreciation of art on a representational level is enjoyable. However, there are so many other levels to explore. Real art interpretation is NOT just saying anything about anything. One does not look at "Yesterday" and say it is about "laying carpet" or watch "The Wizard of Oz" and say it's about "animal rights." But, one can read "Frankenstein" and see it as a comment about the dangers of thinking that in the Industrial Age man will be able to solve all mankind's problems. One can read "Dracula" and see a "syphilis" theme. So, the interpretation of "Please Please Me" as a sexual song is not outlandish. In fact, it is probably more plausible that a strict literal interpretation. Is the strict interpretation wrong? No. Is the sexual angle right? No. The issue, I think, is that as a good work of art, it is more likely that it's meaning is more than literal.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2008 8:20:25 GMT -5
Sure, anything can "work" if you want it too. Heck, I can think that MICHAEL ROW THE BOAT ASHORE is about a kid wanting to stick it to his grandmother if it makes me happy. You're right in a general sense. Anyone can say anything about anything, but like paper money without gold to back it, an idea without any analysis is suspect. The "gold" in this case being the authors telling you what a song is or is not about. All true and good, but it still doesn't mean the artist's INTENT was what people say it was. These are two totally different things. I think Lennon would be the first to say "this was just a pop song, nothing more". Remember that bum who hung outside Lennon's estate in 1971 and tried to find deep meaning in I DIG A PONY ? Lets's see and hear John and Paul's take on this: "Prostitutes and Lesbians": "Two Queers": So in other words, The Beatles themselves think this is all as ridiculous as I do.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 17, 2008 14:18:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 17, 2008 15:40:05 GMT -5
The "gold" in this case being the authors telling you what a song is or is not about. But, therein lies the rub. Artists, often not knowing from where inspiration came, frequently don't know themselves what their work means. Artistic expression, for the artist, is often a journey of self-discovery. Often, an artist will create something and say to themselves, "Where 'd the heck that come from?" I would not necessarily give any credence to what an artist says about his/her own work. In fact, I would gather that an artist who as a lot to say about what their work means probably is not creating work that is very deep. If one cares to describe those of us who have a sexual interpretation of"Please Please Me" as people with heads in the gutter, then it is fair for us to say that one is sexually repressed if they cannot see it. Again, the real discussion really isn't whether it's about sex or not. The real discussion is about whether the song can legitimately be interpreted on different levels. I say, "Yes." I gather others here say, "No."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2008 16:07:19 GMT -5
The "gold" in this case being the authors telling you what a song is or is not about. But, therein lies the rub. Artists, often not knowing from where inspiration came, frequently don't know themselves what their work means. Artistic expression, for the artist, is often a journey of self-discovery. Often, an artist will create something and say to themselves, "Where 'd the heck that come from?" I would not necessarily give any credence to what an artist says about his/her own work. In fact, I would gather that an artist who as a lot to say about what their work means probably is not creating work that is very deep. If one cares to describe those of us who have a sexual interpretation of"Please Please Me" as people with heads in the gutter, then it is fair for us to say that one is sexually repressed if they cannot see it. Again, the real discussion really isn't whether it's about sex or not. The real discussion is about whether the song can legitimately be interpreted on different levels. I say, "Yes." I gather others here say, "No." Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 17, 2008 19:54:49 GMT -5
Folks: I gonna be the bad guy and ask that this thread get back on topic or I'm gonna lock it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 17, 2008 23:41:00 GMT -5
Hey I tried to get it back on track.
Seriously-in '78 Saturday Night Fever was the hottest album, and artists like Bowie, Stewart and even the Stones did some heavy duty disco. Historically THAT (Beatles disco)would have been a disaster, and I would have agreed with all that said they were glad it never happened.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 17, 2008 23:42:25 GMT -5
Best example of how bad it could have been: Ringo the 4th.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 18, 2008 9:31:22 GMT -5
If John McCain had taken debate lessons from you he'd be way ahead in the polls.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2008 14:15:47 GMT -5
I'm great at debating and I always do... ad nauseum for most folks' tastes! But this time I'm merely sick of wasting time on that nonsense you're suggesting, is all.
And why don't you try leaving politics o-u-t of things for a change? Since Steve suggested we get back on track of the thread topic, I'm trying to stifle it.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 18, 2008 14:53:54 GMT -5
I'm great at debating and I always do... ad nauseum for most folks' tastes! But this time I'm merely sick of wasting time on that nonsense you're suggesting, is all. And why don't you try leaving politics o-u-t of things for a change? Since Steve suggested we get back on track of the thread topic, I'm trying to stifle it. I don't mind off topic discussions, just not in the Beatles threads. There is an off-topic area you're welcome to discuss the election in.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 18, 2008 15:27:08 GMT -5
I'm great at debating and I always do... ad nauseum for most folks' tastes! I'd go farther than that, Joe, and say that you are a master debater! Just kidding, damn-it! A Beatles reunion in 1978 or 1979 would have been disastrous for the reasons I set out early in this Thread: John Lennon didn't have his head on straight for music at that time. It took the early 1980 trip to Bermuda to snap him out of his musical funk. Ringo's solo career stunk by 1978 but that never mattered: he just needed to sit there, keep his mouth shut and play drums and maybe sing one song preferably to be written by a newly reunited John and Paul. George was back in the right musical frame of mind in 78/79 with 33 1/3 from 1976 and the wonderfully sublime George Harrison. Paul's solo heyday was starting to go down by 1978 and 1979 but he would have risen to the occasion, no doubt in my mind at all on him. John would have been lost, out of it, and you'd have a disco version of Let It Be if The Beatles reunited in 1978/79! Mostly Paul, some George and a MIA John Lennon. Not a good way to make a reunion album.
|
|
|
Post by waitrose on Oct 18, 2008 15:37:31 GMT -5
you'd have a disco version of Let It Be if The Beatles reunited in 1978/79 Rubbish, they would have been New Wave and it would have been Awesome Awesome Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2008 16:32:51 GMT -5
I guess I'm just of the feeling that the Beatles ended on such a good note that I'm glad there was never a chance to upset that magic. I don't think they could have kept it going well forever.
But John was busy with his homebody days from 1976-1979 anyway. So any reunion would have had to occur in the early '70s. Maybe 1974.
Who's kidding? At least 5 times a week since I was 14!
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Oct 18, 2008 21:07:28 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that we can have a serious Beatle discussion as well as have a little fun along the way. Where would this sad world be without laughter? For those of you without a sense of humor, I think you should go unstuff your shirt, you might feel better about yourself.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Oct 18, 2008 22:24:00 GMT -5
Who's kidding? At least 5 times a week since I was 14! Joe, I guess last night you said these words to yourself: Please, please me ;D Just kidding.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Oct 18, 2008 22:25:18 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion that we can have a serious Beatle discussion as well as have a little fun along the way. Where would this sad world be without laughter? For those of you without a sense of humor, I think you should go unstuff your shirt, you might feel better about yourself. Totally agree.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 20, 2008 5:18:54 GMT -5
What about "finger pie" and "my finger on your trigger... " And Lennon live, "it's hard to get hard..." 9 ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 20, 2008 15:54:03 GMT -5
And why don't you try leaving politics o-u-t of things for a change? . . . and reduce my opportunities to piss you off? No way! By the way, you missed another one. My bringing up John McCain had NOTHING to do with politics. It was a reference to you ending one of your splendid eisegeses with "whatever." Since you fancy yourself as a pretty good debater, I thought perhaps McCain should have taken lessons from you.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 20, 2008 16:42:22 GMT -5
And you're STILL getting back to the politics...
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 26, 2008 4:05:49 GMT -5
I wouid have settled for a re-union in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980! And if that wanker had of successfully topped itself, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2000 and f-ing 1.
And they were the Fabs. The best ever band full stop. In any era they would have surprised us. The whole was always greater than the sum....
8
|
|
|
Post by Riff Raff on Oct 26, 2008 9:10:21 GMT -5
Nine, I agree 100%!!
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 26, 2008 9:20:20 GMT -5
Thankyou brother...
4
|
|