Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jun 13, 2010 17:22:48 GMT -5
There's a lot of things that I could say here, Joe, but I'll make just one point: you clearly belong to the "literalist" school of readers/listeners. You think what is "there" just is. You are a fundamentalist. This makes it difficult for you to see those "subtexts" (as you call them). In your example from L & H, as related by you, it is clear that, at the very least, a homosexual interpretation is a quite valid one. Yes, even if it wasn't intended by the writer.
Oh, & just to be very clear: seeing deeper-than-surface themes/subtexts/interpretations is NOT a matter of true/false or right/wrong. I would have thought that was obvious.
We have discussed this sort of thing before, and I am not really interested in discussing it futher.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 15, 2010 5:43:07 GMT -5
There's a lot of things that I could say here, Joe, but I'll make just one point: you clearly belong to the "literalist" school of readers/listeners. You think what is "there" just is. You are a fundamentalist. Well, when it comes to these types of things created by a writer, there IS only what was intended ... If John wrote LUCY simply about a drawing of Julian's, then that's what it is "supposed" to be about. That is a fact. Now, if we as listeners wish to take all those other wonderful psychedelic lyrics and let our imaginations run wild and make all sort of other intepretations about them, we are certainly free to do so... but they'll be nothing more than individual interpretations, and not "provable" or "factual". I have all sorts of personal feelings and meanings which I interpret out of songs ... And no, I am no such thing as a "literalist" or "fundamentalst". That's not any kind of "point". You can't make such a sweeping statement about me based on a couple of song lyrics now and then. If we diagnosed EVERY Beatles song, I can guarantee you that more often than not I would see many examples of "artistic poetic license" with lyrics. Probably more often than not when it comes to poetry. I'm sure there are times when an artist intended something else when it comes to writing songs - MANY times, in fact. I just don't think this is the case with SAVOY TRUFFLE. (Or PLEASE PLEASE ME, for that matter). "Fundamentalist"? LOL! I'm against fundamentalist religion, for one thing. I believe in God the Creator, but have little use for man-made church "fundamentalist rules". I don't look for "real, tangible, scientific explanations" for everything, as you do. So you've got it all wrong here. Wait a minute. I don't think you read me correctly. The only problem I have with these subtexts (as I said in my post) was when people insist they're "undisputably TRUE", or that they are "really there and intended". I can very easily look at that Laurel and Hardy dialogue, for example, and YES - I can view it as some sort of an alternate homosexual reference if I choose to, but that's simply nothing more than a theory or interpretation. I doubt the fillmmakers at the time were even thinking at all about anything dealing with subtle homosexuality. Just because it can also be skewed that way by a casual movie observer (perhaps even a gay viewer, seeking to "validate" his orientation), is interesting and workable -- but that doesn't mean it was actually intended or that there's something lacking in other viewers if they aren't wired to interpreting it that same way. And that's what I have an issue with. Then you need to come to your senses and believe in God the Creator. Because there's a lot more than just your science, Horatio, when it comes to "breaking down the world's many wonders to a purely scientific surface level". But if it's not a matter of true/false or right/wrong, then why do you keep driving home the "Good News Chocolates" thing (even starting another separate thread on that subject to "prove" it)? Yes, you ARE, in fact, trying to "prove" that George's usage of certain words "definitely meant this or that". Why else are you being so adamant instead of just saying "well, this is merely my own personal interpretation but it doesn't mean it's true/right" ...? Then I wish you would have wrote this first, so I wouldn't have had to waste my time. But I knew when I risked discussing this with you that it was probably something I shouldn't indulge you in. But on the contrary, you DO wish to go further on this, as you began another thread about the "Good News Chocolates". Anyway - at least you used the word INTERPRETATION. But keep in mind that an intepretation is just that, and means nothing when it comes to what went through an artist's mind when he wrote something (which I do see that you conceded in an earlier thread). You do acknowledge that it's "not about right/true/deliberate", but yet isn't it always ironic that all you people do indiscussions like these is keep driving it home as if it to INSIST that your perception is indeed "right"? "Aeolian Cadences", hmmm? I suppose you're one of those people who believed NORWEGIAN WOOD was about a lesbian, and DAY TRIPPER was about a prostitute? Even if John and Paul didn't know it? Beatles on song interpretations: John's sarcastic response is PRICELESS! ;D
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Jun 15, 2010 8:21:09 GMT -5
I suppose you're one of those people who believed NORWEGIAN WOOD was about a lesbian... My old boy is from Norway which makes me half whale muncher. On occasion I have asked my missus if she'd fancy some Norwegian wood...
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Jun 15, 2010 10:48:43 GMT -5
RS, Side 2
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jun 15, 2010 15:44:15 GMT -5
Joe:
(1) When I used the word "fundamentalist", it was NOT in any religious sense. It was in the sense of taking things "literally". When you went on about creation, scientific explanations etc, you were seeing a subtext when there wasn't one! ;D
(2) That thread I started was to share, with proof, the fact that George invented some chocolate names. It was not to "prove" anything else (and my statement "there's more going on here than ..." was a joke, in the light of this thread.) Did you see another subtext, perhaps? Hmm?
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Jun 15, 2010 15:54:59 GMT -5
We have discussed this sort of thing before, and I am not really interested in discussing it futher. Quoting myself! There has to be some subtext there. ;D Anyway, Joe, I replied to a point or two from you, but honestly, my heart's not in it.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 16, 2010 4:45:59 GMT -5
I do a bit of writing, and I can sometimes go back to something I've written and see things in it which I never consciously intended, but which illuminate and inform a) the piece itself, and b) (and whoops!) me. Never deliberate, doesn't happen every time, but sometimes it's a joy to look at it and go "Wow! See what I did there, without meaning to?"
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jun 23, 2010 22:00:30 GMT -5
RSs2. Easy one for me as Beatles s4 is the weakest. I have nothing against Rev 9 but just imagine that space with Two more songs versus this experiment. Not a big fan of Goodnight and prefer the Single version of Revolution.
|
|
|
Post by anyoneanyhow on Jul 8, 2010 19:34:46 GMT -5
No question here, but I surely hate to vote against the beefy horns of Savoy Truffle. Hope to see RS2 make it deep into the tourney, one of my favorite sides.
|
|