|
Post by stavros on Jun 11, 2017 15:46:17 GMT -5
Authored by someone called Bill Wyman at : Vulture.comThe piece lists 213 Beatles tracks from worst to first. There is an obvious dislike of the more trite McCartney songs and also songs where John uses the same line repeatedly like " Don't Let Me Down". It has " Good Day Sunshine" bottom of the pile " Free as a Bird" doesn't make the top 200 at 206. Nor does " She's Leaving Home" (204) or " Real Love" (203). Although it's only a personal thing "The Inner Light" lies languishing at 149 below any of George's other Indian tinged songs whereas I would have put it above the others. " The Fool on the Hill" (107) and " Good Morning Good Morning" (106) are the midpoint markers for Beatles output in the opinion of Mr. Wyman. Bizarrely the obscure and Beatles only instrumental piece “ Flying" (98) gets into the top 100. Overshadowing hit singles like " Get Back"(105) and " From Me To You"(100). Into the top 50 and " Twist and Shout" (43) is the 2nd best place for a cover version. " In My Life" which is a personal fave of mine is placed at 42. The world's most covered song " Yesterday" only makes no. 39. Perhaps a bigger surprise is that " Hey Jude" only just squeezes into the top 40 at 39. George doesn't make it into the top 10 with any song, which is slightly controversial and the top 5 isn't quite what I would have picked.....But everyone to their own. I wouldn't dispute the top 2. However I somehow get the feeling some of the choices were entirely random and others on purpose to attract attention. I guess it worked.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jun 11, 2017 18:39:47 GMT -5
Noted. I agree - to each their own...
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jun 11, 2017 20:10:42 GMT -5
I only looked at #213-#200, but just with this small sample I can safely say this is the most ridiculous Beatles song ranking I have ever seen anywhere. At least 8 of the songs have no business being even part of the discussion for the "bottom feeders", particularly when "Revolution #9" and several mediocre Ringo songs are nowhere in sight.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 11, 2017 20:15:41 GMT -5
I only looked at #213-#200, but just with this small sample I can safely say this is the most ridiculous Beatles song ranking I have ever seen anywhere. At least 8 of the songs have no business being even part of the discussion for the "bottom feeders", particularly when "Revolution #9" and several mediocre Ringo songs are nowhere in sight. Agreed. The writer should discard the list and start gain.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 12, 2017 7:46:45 GMT -5
I enjoyed it. No one would ever agree on such a list but half the fun is seeing what ended up where and the comments.
The writer ranks "Lovely Rita" really high and I kind of scoffed at first but then he convinced me that it was a great Macca song. I always liked it but I thought that he really sold that song well!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 12, 2017 16:27:38 GMT -5
The one thing that I liked was that he alluded to the meaning of Please Please Me as a song about oral sex. Very few people on this board agree or see it, but it is.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 12, 2017 16:30:37 GMT -5
My thoughts have always been that most bands would be proud to have any one of the Beatles' worst songs as their own.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 12, 2017 17:44:01 GMT -5
My thoughts have always been that most bands would be proud to have any one of the Beatles' worst songs as their own. Same here. Another agreement for us.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jun 12, 2017 20:36:11 GMT -5
I enjoyed it. No one would ever agree on such a list but half the fun is seeing what ended up where and the comments. The writer ranks "Lovely Rita" really high and I kind of scoffed at first but then he convinced me that it was a great Macca song. I always liked it but I thought that he really sold that song well! Maybe there are some interesting comments on this ranking, but when somebody lists a very good song like "Good Day Sunshine" as the Beatles "worst" song and provide no better explanation than what the author came up with here (his explanation is simply bizarre) , they immediately lose all credibility with me and I have no real interest in pursuing what they have to say further.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 13, 2017 0:40:10 GMT -5
The one thing that I liked was that he alluded to the meaning of Please Please Me as a song about oral sex. Very few people on this board agree or see it, but it is. OK, so I'll bite and play your game again. I think it's quite a bold stretch that you say " but it is", as if it's a fact. Unless John or Paul (Lennon specifically) said so with regard to the intent, then all we have is yours (and some others') interpretations - PERIOD. "Please please me, like I please you" can refer to anything. And so do lines like "you don't need me to show the way". There are many ways to be pleased other than by specifically, oral sex. Frankly, it would be cool with me if oral sex was intended, because it makes the Beatles all the more edgy. But it may not be. When John sings "Come on, please please me like I please you" do you really think he's begging her to pleasantly like him like he pleasantly likes her? When John sings, "You don't need me to show the way there." Show her to do what? How to like him? If you don't think it's about oral sex, then based on what you think he means by the word "please," what's the song about?
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 13, 2017 20:42:12 GMT -5
Do you think every single song is meant to be taken literally in some way? In this same song, John says it rains in his heart. So do you think there's a literal thunderstorm and lightning going on in his heart - or do you think it's a metaphor for feeling unhappiness, sadness, rejection, etc.? When John asked "why do you make me blue?", do you think he's physically turning blue in skin color? I have already explained that there are all sorts of other ways a partner wants to be pleased, and if you want to place a sexual angle to it, then it could even be about kissing. . . My interpretation of Please Please Me is not literal, for there is no mention of "oral sex" or "BJ's" or "fellatio" or "bagpiping" or "blowing the whistle" or "kneeling at the alter" or "sucky ducky" . . . I'm asserting that in the context of the song, "to please" is sexual. So, you needn't have given me a lecture on literal vs interpretive meanings of songs - especially since you seem to always go literal when you don't know what the author has said what it is about. Of course, there is often no one interpretation of a work of art, for people bring their experiences and psyche to the table. But, it is also true that not every interpretation has validity. If I'm reading a poem or looking at a painting that has lightning in it, I could say that the lightning represents Babe Ruth hitting a home run, but in a Hudson River School painting, it's not likely. Also, often, a creator of a piece of work often does not know what their work is about or they are sometimes surprised when people get them to see something that they had not thought of, but agree that that could be. So, the fact that John never said anything about it being about oral sex doesn't mean it isn't about oral sex. Also, the likelihood that two very randy young men wrote a song with a "hidden" reference to oral sex seems very likely - much more likely than these horny young lads were writing about a guy begging his girlfriend to please him for once with a kiss. But, I'm here to learn. Please give me your line by line interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 13, 2017 21:47:22 GMT -5
Do you think every single song is meant to be taken literally in some way? In this same song, John says it rains in his heart. So do you think there's a literal thunderstorm and lightning going on in his heart - or do you think it's a metaphor for feeling unhappiness, sadness, rejection, etc.? When John asked "why do you make me blue?", do you think he's physically turning blue in skin color? I have already explained that there are all sorts of other ways a partner wants to be pleased, and if you want to place a sexual angle to it, then it could even be about kissing. . . My interpretation of Please Please Me is not literal, for there is no mention of "oral sex" or "BJ's" or "fellatio" or "bagpiping" or "blowing the whistle" or "kneeling at the alter" or "sucky ducky" . . . I'm asserting that in the context of the song, "to please" is sexual. So, you needn't have given me a lecture on literal vs interpretive meanings of songs - especially since you seem to always go literal when you don't know what the author has said what it is about. Of course, there is often no one interpretation of a work of art, for people bring their experiences and psyche to the table. But, it is also true that not every interpretation has validity. If I'm reading a poem or looking at a painting that has lightning in it, I could say that the lightning represents Babe Ruth hitting a home run, but in a Hudson River School painting, it's not likely. Also, often, a creator of a piece of work often does not know what their work is about or they are sometimes surprised when people get them to see something that they had not thought of, but agree that that could be. So, the fact that John never said anything about it being about oral sex doesn't mean it isn't about oral sex. Also, the likelihood that two very randy young men wrote a song with a "hidden" reference to oral sex seems very likely - much more likely than these horny young lads were writing about a guy begging his girlfriend to please him for once with a kiss. But, I'm here to learn. Please give me your line by line interpretation. So he could be asking for a little cougee in the poo-gie, but probably not, since he says "like I pleased you", indicating he'd already done it to her. So, unless John liked a little pumpy in the rumpy, this is not likely. Oral is really the only aspect of love making that you're not doing to each other, so maybe you have a point. I'd say wise move for John to keep that one on the down-low though.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 14, 2017 14:22:08 GMT -5
But, I'm here to learn. Please give me your line by line interpretation. Allow me to let John and Paul address this type of thing themselves. (After watching the beginning, be sure to catch the interpretation at the end, too): Based on your logic and the way you derive meaning from art, since John said Eleanor Rigby was about "queers," then that's good enough for you.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 14, 2017 14:27:06 GMT -5
Well, no, because there are other lines in the lyric. Don't make the mistake that people who do not have interpretive skills often do when they take lines out of context. There is a lot inside and outside of Please Please Me that strongly suggests the likelihood of my interpretation, but nothing in or outside the lyrics of IWTHYH that suggests anything other than the innocence of holding hands.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 14, 2017 14:37:13 GMT -5
Good. Then you have gotten something from this . . . . . . 3) Up until I corrected you yesterday, you'd apparently always imagined the lyric in the song was "you don't need me to show the way THERE" --- and that was not correct. I'm surprised you don't "drop mike" every time you correct me. You get so much joy out of it. It's like little kids getting all hysterical when they catch a misspelled word on the board written by their teacher or when the teacher writes a wrong answer to an easy math problem.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 14, 2017 16:18:39 GMT -5
Just catching up and all I can say is that it's ironic that 'Please Please Me' is in the no.5 position and not 69 as some have alluded to.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 14, 2017 16:56:46 GMT -5
At the risk of, along my earlier comment, sounding like I have a fetish or something, I'll submit for interpretation the lyrics, I'll Get You in the End. Here's the Beatles explaining the lyrics to Day Tripper.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 14, 2017 19:49:00 GMT -5
Based on your logic and the way you derive meaning from art, since John said Eleanor Rigby was about "queers," then that's good enough for you. Oh come on now. That is a real swing and a miss. We all (myself included) realize Lennon was being sarcastic there in the interview. No, I don't take John literally when he's obviously mocking unintended song interpretations. Oh, that's where I saw that. No. I didn't realize that was the video you had already posted. I pulled it up earlier today at work. Day Tripper had come up on my friend's Sirius account. He asked me what a day tripper was. I was looking for a good answer when another guy came in and had found on his phone that it was British slang for someone who took the fairy over the weekend. I'd seen that video when looking. It's obvious Paul is making fun of the question.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 14, 2017 20:42:35 GMT -5
Just catching up and all I can say is that it's ironic that 'Please Please Me' is in the no.5 position and not 69 as some have alluded to. Well, played, Squire.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 15, 2017 7:00:11 GMT -5
OK, so I'll bite and play your game again. I think it's quite a bold stretch that you say " but it is", as if it's a fact. Unless John or Paul (Lennon specifically) said so with regard to the intent, then all we have is yours (and some others') interpretations - PERIOD. "Please please me, like I please you" can refer to anything. And so do lines like "you don't need me to show the way". There are many ways to be pleased other than by specifically, oral sex. Frankly, it would be cool with me if oral sex was intended, because it makes the Beatles all the more edgy. But it may not be. When John sings "Come on, please please me like I please you" do you really think he's begging her to pleasantly like him like he pleasantly likes her? When John sings, "You don't need me to show the way there." Show her to do what? How to like him? If you don't think it's about oral sex, then based on what you think he means by the word "please," what's the song about? You are approaching this song woth a modern 2017 mind. It was 1962 and John was 22 years old and a big fan of Roy Orbison. He and Paul were trying to write a song that would give them their first #1 and impress their new producer George Martin. They were not capable yet of writing song lryics with hidden sexual inuendos, nor did they want to. They were trying to reach the toppermost of the poppermost as John paraphrased at the time. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no hidden meaning in this song whatsoever. Put yourself in their shoes and where they were at this moment in their history.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 15, 2017 13:33:50 GMT -5
You are approaching this song woth a modern 2017 mind. It was 1962 and John was 22 years old and a big fan of Roy Orbison. He and Paul were trying to write a song that would give them their first #1 and impress their new producer George Martin. They were not capable yet of writing song lryics with hidden sexual inuendos, nor did they want to. They were trying to reach the toppermost of the poppermost as John paraphrased at the time. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no hidden meaning in this song whatsoever. Put yourself in their shoes and where they were at this moment in their history. Thanks for your comments. Actually, I think an appreciation of wordplay and double meaning (thanks to Spike Milligan and Peter Sellers) plus what they saw and experienced in Hamburg plus the giddiness of trying to "put one past" the establishment plus their lack of interest in keeping their rockets in their pockets, adds up to the likelihood of the tawdry real meaning of Please Please Me. 1962 was no different that today, and not different that 1862 or 1762 or 1662 or earlier. Bawdy song lyrics or stories with double meanings have been around for a long time. Shakespeare was the champ. Sex was everywhere in his plays: "This woman’s an easy glove, my lord; she goes off and on at pleasure." –All’s Well That Ends Well and "I am one, sir, who comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are making the beast with two backs" - Othello. Let's not even get into all those old blues songs they undoubtedly heard. Even the term "rock and roll" means fucking. They had to have dug that. The Beatles were not innocents, even back then. They were sharp, worldly, clever, and experienced in a lot of matters. That's why it's so funny that everyone thought the Beatles were the nice boys and the Rolling Stones were the bad ones. It was probably not until the late 60s that the Stones caught up with the Beatles in regards to bacchanalia - although Brian Jones was off the charts having fathered 5 children before Satisfaction.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 15, 2017 14:17:13 GMT -5
You are approaching this song woth a modern 2017 mind. It was 1962 and John was 22 years old and a big fan of Roy Orbison. He and Paul were trying to write a song that would give them their first #1 and impress their new producer George Martin. They were not capable yet of writing song lryics with hidden sexual inuendos, nor did they want to. They were trying to reach the toppermost of the poppermost as John paraphrased at the time. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no hidden meaning in this song whatsoever. Put yourself in their shoes and where they were at this moment in their history. Thanks for your comments. Actually, I think an appreciation of wordplay and double meaning (thanks to Spike Milligan and Peter Sellers) plus what they saw and experienced in Hamburg plus the giddiness of trying to "put one past" the establishment plus their lack of interest in keeping their rockets in their pockets, adds up to the likelihood of the tawdry real meaning of Please Please Me. 1962 was no different that today, and not different that 1862 or 1762 or 1662 or earlier. Bawdy song lyrics or stories with double meanings have been around for a long time. Shakespeare was the champ. Sex was everywhere in his plays: "This woman’s an easy glove, my lord; she goes off and on at pleasure." –All’s Well That Ends Well and "I am one, sir, who comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are making the beast with two backs" - Othello. Let's not even get into all those old blues songs they undoubtedly heard. Even the term "rock and roll" means fucking. They had to have dug that. The Beatles were not innocents, even back then. They were sharp, worldly, clever, and experienced in a lot of matters. That's why it's so funny that everyone thought the Beatles were the nice boys and the Rolling Stones were the bad ones. It was probably not until the late 60s that the Stones caught up with the Beatles in regards to bacchanalia - although Brian Jones was off the charts having fathered 5 children before Satisfaction. While I agree that John has never admitted that "Please Please Me" was a sly nod to oral sex(as far as I know), I side with sayne that the naughty side of John, Paul and George would have appreciated and approved of such subtle references and I cannot help but think that was a part of it in addition to all the things JoeK and lowbasso have likewise alluded to about Roy Orbison and even Bing Crosby. The Beatles had made their trips to Hamburg well before the song was written and I would suspect John and Paul were well experienced even before Hamburg, that was just their floodgate of sexual experiences! lowbasso's best point is that the Beatles were so hungry for fame that they would not have jeopardized that shot at schoolboy naughty lyrics but that is where the sly, double-meaning of the lyrics come in. Hey, that is just my opinion but anyway we shake it, PPM is an amazing song that is so full of energy and kicks ass!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 15, 2017 18:37:16 GMT -5
Please me = make me happy
Rock'n'Roll definitely meant sex. It sprung from the Blues which gave us the memorable Big Ten Inch and other equally risque songs. But it's meaning wasn't completely out front and served the duo purpose of being a name for the music. Rock'n'Roll was considered very racy, the double entendre well understood by most teens, but unknown to most parents who were listening to How Much is That Doggy in the Window and Tennessee Waltz.
Things started going sour and there was the effort to clean up the music. Pat Boone was remaking Tootie Fruity but not Great Balls of Fire. By '62, things had gotten pretty clean.
You certainly couldn't play Sullivan in '64 with a song that wasn't wholesome and clean.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 15, 2017 21:19:56 GMT -5
Please me = make me happy . . . So, if we go with Joe Karlosi's interpretation, we have "Please make me happy like I make you happy." THAT does not even come close to making any common sense in the real world. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has ever said that to a fellow human being.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 15, 2017 21:22:18 GMT -5
Now that is a first. I can't believe those stuffy old guys in the '50s were not censored on TV and on radio when they would shout: "Rock and Roll has got to go!". Who knew they were actually talking about sexual intercourse? I can't tell. Are you saying that you did not know the origin of the term "rock and roll"?
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 15, 2017 21:42:57 GMT -5
Please me = make me happy . . . So, if we go with Joe Karlosi's interpretation, we have "Please make me happy like I make you happy." THAT does not even come close to making any common sense in the real world. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has ever said that to a fellow human being. Please make me happy like I make you happy Make me smile like I make you smile Make me laugh like I make... Hmm, I think we have a song! Come up with a middle eight and go back to the early '60s and I think we can sell it.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 16, 2017 0:19:04 GMT -5
So, if we go with Joe Karlosi's interpretation, we have "Please make me happy like I make you happy." THAT does not even come close to making any common sense in the real world. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has ever said that to a fellow human being. Please make me happy like I make you happy Make me smile like I make you smile Make me laugh like I make... Hmm, I think we have a song! Come up with a middle eight and go back to the early '60s and I think we can sell it. Da Do Run Run, Da Do Run Run
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 16, 2017 4:58:09 GMT -5
Da Do Run Run, Da Do Run Run That was a song about diarrhea . Having the doo-doo runs . Very risque times, those.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 16, 2017 5:00:26 GMT -5
"Please make me happy like I make you happy." THAT does not even come close to making any common sense in the real world. I don't think anyone in the history of the world has ever said that to a fellow human being. Well, not today's world, at any rate. But then again, nobody ever ran around saying "please please me like I please you" (unless they were quoting the Beatles' classic song). It was just John Lennon's fascination with the double-usage of the word "please" in a song. That's how many songs are. We can list songs all day long that have catchy phrases that no human beings typically say to each other. I doubt anyone's ever told another that there's always rain in his/her heart to convey unhappiness.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 16, 2017 8:01:36 GMT -5
1962 was no different that today, and not different that 1862 or 1762 or 1662 or earlier. Bawdy song lyrics or stories with double meanings have been around for a long time. Shakespeare was the champ. Sex was everywhere in his plays: "This woman’s an easy glove, my lord; she goes off and on at pleasure." –All’s Well That Ends Well and "I am one, sir, who comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are making the beast with two backs" - Othello. Let's not even get into all those old blues songs they undoubtedly heard. 1962/63 was more innocent than today. A LOT more innocent. This is more blatantly obvious every day. But whatever... the censors were careful in the '50s. 60s. etc. The song "Please Please Me" would have been banned, had it so obviously been decipherable about a man begging his girlfriend for fellatio. Especially back in those days, everything was ultra-scrutinized. But no, it was sung on Ed Sullivan, at the Washington Coliseum, etc. Now that is a first. I can't believe those stuffy old guys in the '50s were not censored on TV and on radio when they would shout: "Rock and Roll has got to go!". Who knew they were actually talking about sexual intercourse? You're right about that. Which is why John Lennon darn likely would have blown the mythical Beatles lid right off in solo interviews, just like he did with so many other controversial topics; he never resisted an opportunity to demonstrate what naughty "bastards" (his word) the "sweet moptops" could be. But any time he had this chance with PPM, he didn't - and that's probably because there was nothing seedy intended in the lyrics of "Please Please Me". John would have gladly bragged in the 70's in print that the Beatles first #1 was a song about blowjobs if he had that in mind when he wrote it. He never did, nor has Paul, or the others for that matter, ever insinuated the song had a double meaning. John would have loved taking credit for that had it been true. According to the movie "Nowhere Boy", it was his favorite pastime with his teenage girlfriends... They bragged about using the word "tit" over and overin the backing vocals on the song "Girl' in 1965.
|
|