|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2008 14:22:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 17, 2008 18:16:35 GMT -5
LOL! I'd seen it before, but it still makes me laugh! Thanks, joe!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2008 6:27:23 GMT -5
I'm glad someone appreciated it! It's a great clip.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 18, 2008 9:40:50 GMT -5
Be very honest. Did you ever think "Blackbird" was a civil rights song as Paul said a few years ago?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 18, 2008 9:53:28 GMT -5
Be very honest. Did you ever think "Blackbird" was a civil rights song as Paul said a few years ago? Ha, great question, sayne! As a second generation fan, I can't answer that as I have been exposed to "Blackbird" through the rose-colored perspective of hindsight even by 1976 when I first heard it. I am sure that if Paul literally wrote "Blackbird" about the beauty of a bird's whistle in the dead of night, he wasn't subsequently displeased to read pundits opine that the song was about the Civil Rights movement. That takes the song from being just a pretty one to an edgy one giving Paul street creds normally reserved for John Lennon. What did you Firsties think back in 1968, 1969?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2008 14:11:15 GMT -5
Be very honest. Did you ever think "Blackbird" was a civil rights song as Paul said a few years ago? I'm always very honest. To my disadvantage most times. Like JSD, I first discovered the song along with the rest of The White Album around 1976 or thereabouts. I never put much thought into it, especially since it's a song that came from McCartney. I just figured he had a nice melody, as usual, and then added the words. I've never thought of it as anything other than a song about a blackbird, which I guess may be naivety on my part. I suppose I'm getting old here, but I didn't know Paul said it was about Civil Rights. I'll leave it to him to tell us what his intent was when he wrote it. If he's just riding the coattails of people who later said it was about this, and Paul just went along with the Civil Rights angle because it sounded good, that's BS. But I'm not sure I get where you're going with this. So IS Norwegian Wood about a lesbian, or is it about an affair John had (as he told us), even though anyone is free to imagine whatever scenario they choose?
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 18, 2008 16:30:25 GMT -5
I was in high school when The White Album came out and there were kids who talked about "Blackbird" being a metaphor for the civil rights movement back then.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2008 16:34:53 GMT -5
Well, it certainly works well as a civil rights song, that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 18, 2008 19:01:19 GMT -5
Obviously the "Manson Family" thought that Blackbird was about Black Power as members of that murderous clan contemporaneously quoted from the song in their efforts to incite their warped version of "Helter Skelter."
There must be something there then. Maybe Paul got lucky! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 18, 2008 19:55:43 GMT -5
. . . But I'm not sure I get where you're going with this. What I was trying to do was to put the Beatles news conference about "subtexts" into some sort of framework. Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed the YouTube video was presented to show that the Beatles thought that any type of interpretation of one their songs (other that a strict literal interpretation) was silly. If that was how they felt, then how could Paul later say that "Blackbird" was not about a literal bird, but a young black girl in the American South of the late 60s? And, those that cite the Beatles news conference to support the view of a literal only interpretation of songs, hence, would be hard pressed to agree that "Blackbird" was anything other than a song about a bird.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 18, 2008 19:57:47 GMT -5
I'm always very honest. To my disadvantage most times. Hey, me too! Maybe we're kindred spirits afterall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2008 4:15:00 GMT -5
Baby You're a Rich Man.. Is that John singing about his ex lover Brian...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 19, 2008 7:21:36 GMT -5
. . . But I'm not sure I get where you're going with this. What I was trying to do was to put the Beatles news conference about "subtexts" into some sort of framework. Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed the YouTube video was presented to show that the Beatles thought that any type of interpretation of one their songs (other that a strict literal interpretation) was silly. If that was how they felt, then how could Paul later say that "Blackbird" was not about a literal bird, but a young black girl in the American South of the late 60s? And, those that cite the Beatles news conference to support the view of a literal only interpretation of songs, hence, would be hard pressed to agree that "Blackbird" was anything other than a song about a bird. Are you saying that A) Paul always claimed from the beginning that the intent of BLACKBIRD at the time he wrote it in the '60s was about a black girl? B) Or that he lied and played it coy at the beginning but admitted it later on? C) Or that, over time, he has begun to agree with the civil rights interpretation? Because if it's "C", this is all fine and well. But 'original intent' and 'an alternate interpretation' are separate things. As for the press conference - yes, the Beatles thought the "prostitute and lesbian" angle was absolutely absurd and silly, and I'd agree with them 100%. But in the press conference, the speaker was talking about an article that put down pop music, by grousing that - "MATTER-OF-FACTLY" - this WAS the intent of the songwriters. It's not so much that some really deep thinking and philosophical author of an article was offering some other type of interesting artsy intepretation on their songs; the article was blatantly condemning them for writing songs about "prostitutes and lesbians", when they were not. This was never about my trying to say that people CANNOT have their own personal interpretations of songs. I said from the very start (in another thread) that anyone can have any song speak to them or mean whatver they like. There is, however, a distinct difference between LISTENER'S SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION and AUTHOR'S LITERAL INTENT. People can't go around saying that, in "fact",, PLEASE PLEASE ME is about oral sex or any other kind of sex, even going so far as to adding: "and that's a fact even if the author himself doesn't realize he's intending it!!!"... but that's where I say the bull comes in. Especially when they are so insistent that they're "right". Of course, my view on PLEASE PLEASE ME as a specific example is incorrect if, in fact, there was sexual intent behind writing it. I've always thought of it in a platonic way myself... but, I'm not incapable of making the sexual connection and opening my mind to visualizing a sexual interpretation of the words. Intent versus Interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 19, 2008 10:45:21 GMT -5
I'm not trying to say anything about "Blackbird". It's funny. If one follows the "Would a Beatles Reunion Have Made Sense" thread, one will see that it veered to the issue of "man boobs" ;D Someone complained and implored that the thread get back to talking about the Beatles. I thought I was being cheeky and clever by bringing the thread back to the Beatles, but focusing on the "sex" angle (get it? man boobs/sex . . . barump bump - hit cymble). That led to statements that it was NOT about sex and evolved to a separate thread of its own concerning "subtexts".
A request to get away from a certain male anatomical "enhancement" and to bring the thread back to the Beatles, did so by way of a discussion on oral sex. I guess the irony got lost on everyone.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 19, 2008 12:10:09 GMT -5
Well, that's how different topics get started. Sayne, your last post seems so evasive to this topic that I don't know what else to say. If you don't feel like talking anymore about subtexts, or interpretations vs. intent, maybe we can talk about man boobs (or any other kinda boobs) again. But gee whillikers, you're the one who asked me about BLACKBIRD.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 19, 2008 12:41:40 GMT -5
. . . But gee whillikers, you're the one who asked me about BLACKBIRD. Not evading anything. When I asked you about "Blackbird" it was because it seemed that your citing of the Beatles news conference seemed to confirm your view that any interpretation of a song other than what the writer has given is, at the very least, silly. That's from where I was coming. Since I thought that was your feeling, I followed with a question about what you thought about "Blackbird." Since many people have thought it was about civil rights, I wanted to see where you stood. Absent of any knowledge by you of statements by Paul, if you thought and still think it was about a bird, then that would imply that you are consistently a strict literal interpreter of art (not meant to be a criticism). If you, too, saw it as a civil rights tome, then that would put you in contrast to your own views based on the Beatle news conference. That's all. Just searching for some clarification of where you stood. As for the three choices you gave me about "Blackbird", I will answer by saying "Yes".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 19, 2008 13:23:47 GMT -5
I just think it's silly when someone makes a personal interpretation and then proceeds to declare it as some sort of a "fact" that this is what the artist intended - even to the point of claiming the artists themselves don't even know what they were saying! But yeah - some of the things people come up with can be very silly. It wouldn't necessarily mean that I never have my own interpretations of songs, or my own perceptions of what they mean to me personally, just because I don't share a few similar opinions as you on a message board! In the case of BLACKBIRD, I'm not political. I don't tend to think that way. And neither does Paul, really, with rare exceptions. He's claimed all three at various times?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 19, 2008 15:57:30 GMT -5
. . . even to the point of claiming the artists themselves don't even know what they were saying! . . . . . . He's claimed all three at various times? Haven't you ever read an interview with a songwriter when they were asked what a particular song is about? Often, they will say they don't know. Or, even more interesting, when asked if a song was about "X", they will say something like, "You know, I hadn't thought of that. That could be so." It's not me saying they don't know. It's what they've said in an interview. There's no hubris on my part. As for the multiple choice question, I am merely sayng that any of the three are possible, not that any of them DID happen.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 19, 2008 16:40:14 GMT -5
"Possible??" If the three didn't actually happen, next subject....
|
|