Hit songs badmouthed by their singers

[firepoint525]

When I mentioned "early" Beatles albums I was talking about the US issues of "Meet The Beatles" through "Yesterday & Today". These albums were released before FM radio was a factor. Those of us who bought those albums "back in the day" were interested in the hits and cover songs. We had no interest in the likes of All I've Got To Do, Dont Bother Me, Little Child, Not A Second, Time, Devil In Her Heart, When I Get Home, I'll Be Back, Every Little Thing, What You're Doing, You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, I'm Only Sleeping, Dr Robert, And Your Bird Can Sing, etc.

You've got a point RE the packaging of those American releases. Those were, indeed, rip-offs. Instrumental filler music on the movie soundtracks (HELP! and Hard Day's Night) and album sides that would play through in less than 15 minutes! It finally backfired on Capitol in that cover controversy over Yesterday and Today. Maybe they finally learned their lesson and made the American and British releases consistent beginning with Sgt. Pepper. But I should point out that all the songs I mentioned were pre-Pepper. And I also like a lot of the ones that you mentioned! 8)

 

[TheFonz]

When I mentioned "early" Beatles albums I was talking about the US issues of "Meet The Beatles" through "Yesterday & Today". These albums were released before FM radio was a factor. Those of us who bought those albums "back in the day" were interested in the hits and cover songs. We had no interest in the likes of All I've Got To Do, Dont Bother Me, Little Child, Not A Second, Time, Devil In Her Heart, When I Get Home, I'll Be Back, Every Little Thing, What You're Doing, You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, I'm Only Sleeping, Dr Robert, And Your Bird Can Sing, etc.

But I should point out that all the songs I mentioned were pre-Pepper. And I also like a lot of the ones that you mentioned! 8)

And over the years I've learned to like some of them, also. But I NEVER played them when I first bought the albums. Like I always say, "so much good music, so little time".

 

[Talk_Dude]

When I mentioned "early" Beatles albums I was talking about the US issues of "Meet The Beatles" through "Yesterday & Today". These albums were released before FM radio was a factor. Those of us who bought those albums "back in the day" were interested in the hits and cover songs. We had no interest in the likes of All I've Got To Do, Dont Bother Me, Little Child, Not A Second, Time, Devil In Her Heart, When I Get Home, I'll Be Back, Every Little Thing, What You're Doing, You Like Me Too Much, Tell Me What You See, I'm Only Sleeping, Dr Robert, And Your Bird Can Sing, etc.

You've got a point RE the packaging of those American releases. Those were, indeed, rip-offs. Instrumental filler music on the movie soundtracks (HELP! and Hard Day's Night) and album sides that would play through in less than 15 minutes! It finally backfired on Capitol in that cover controversy over Yesterday and Today. Maybe they finally learned their lesson and made the American and British releases consistent beginning with Sgt. Pepper. But I should point out that all the songs I mentioned were pre-Pepper. And I also like a lot of the ones that you mentioned! 8)

If you listened to any of the interviews or had read any of the books, you'd know that the reason that the Beatles started filling their albums with all good songs and no filler is that they eventually got better at writing good songs. As George Martin said, when they first started, "Love Me Do" was about the best that they could manage. As their skills improved, so did their songs. Also, they began to have enough clout with their label that they could ignore the suits and do what they wanted. If it had been up to the suits at EMI (Capitol only released their albums in the states, EMI was calling the shots), they'd have never done anything remotely like Sgt. Pepper.

 

[TheFonz]

If you listened to any of the interviews or had read any of the books, you'd know that the reason that the Beatles started filling their albums with all good songs and no filler is that they eventually got better at writing good songs. As George Martin said, when they first started, "Love Me Do" was about the best that they could manage. As their skills improved, so did their songs. Also, they began to have enough clout with their label that they could ignore the suits and do what they wanted. If it had been up to the suits at EMI (Capitol only released their albums in the states, EMI was calling the shots), they'd have never done anything remotely like Sgt. Pepper.

I don't believe that Sgt. Pepper would have sold in 1964. The Beatles cut their teeth on American '50s rock & roll (check out their "Live At The BBC " sessions). Their first few albums were a carryover of that music. The "better writing" that you mention came as a result of American social issues in the later '60s, such as the Vietnam War and drug use. As Bob Dylan once said "the times they are a changin'".

 

[Talk_Dude]

If you listened to any of the interviews or had read any of the books, you'd know that the reason that the Beatles started filling their albums with all good songs and no filler is that they eventually got better at writing good songs. As George Martin said, when they first started, "Love Me Do" was about the best that they could manage. As their skills improved, so did their songs. Also, they began to have enough clout with their label that they could ignore the suits and do what they wanted. If it had been up to the suits at EMI (Capitol only released their albums in the states, EMI was calling the shots), they'd have never done anything remotely like Sgt. Pepper.

I don't believe that Sgt. Pepper would have sold in 1964. The Beatles cut their teeth on American '50s rock & roll (check out their "Live At The BBC " sessions). Their first few albums were a carryover of that music. The "better writing" that you mention came as a result of American social issues in the later '60s, such as the Vietnam War and drug use. As Bob Dylan once said "the times they are a changin'".

And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle.

The Beatles didn't have the skills to write the songs of Sgt. Pepper back in 1964, and EMI didn't have the recording studio capable of handling the work back in 1964. So, any discussion of whether or not the audience would have bought Sgt. Pepper in 1964 is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As for why they became better songwriters, "social issues" didn't have any influence on writing better tunes. Lyrics, maybe. But the tunes, the actual sequence of notes and harmony, have nothing to do with "social influences". Personally, I'm more inclined to believe what a bona-fide musical genius, Sir George Martin, said about the growth of the Beatles' skills and talents as composers of music than someone who can't tell the difference between tunes and lyrics.

I'd also like to know how "social issues" lead to lyrics like "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" or the title track, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

 

[johnbasalla]

"Devil In Her Heart" is a cover tune as done by The Beatles. It was written by Richard Drapkin and had been recorded earlier by a couple of other artists.

 

[TheFonz]

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe what a bona-fide musical genius, Sir George Martin, said about the growth of the Beatles' skills and talents as composers of music than someone who can't tell the difference between tunes and lyrics.

I'd also like to know how "social issues" lead to lyrics like "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" or the title track, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

You need to dig a little deeper into those history books, my friend. In the early '70s the U.S. government labeled John Lennon a "political activist" for protesting the Vietnam war. He lived in New York at the time and the government wanted to deport him (Google "Lennon FBI files"). That sounds a bit silly today, but 40 years ago it was some pretty serious stuff. You'd be a fool if you thought Lennon's activism didn't reflect in his earlier writings with the Beatles (does "Revolution" ring a bell?). As for the drug culture, it was prevalent in pop music in the late '60s. Just get a copy of the Billboard charts. ( Maybe you should play "With A Little Help From My Friends" and "Lucy In The Sky" one more time.)

 

[Talk_Dude]

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe what a bona-fide musical genius, Sir George Martin, said about the growth of the Beatles' skills and talents as composers of music than someone who can't tell the difference between tunes and lyrics.

I'd also like to know how "social issues" lead to lyrics like "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" or the title track, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

You need to dig a little deeper into those history books, my friend. In the early '70s the U.S. government labeled John Lennon a "political activist" for protesting the Vietnam war. He lived in New York at the time and the government wanted to deport him (Google "Lennon FBI files"). That sounds a bit silly today, but 40 years ago it was some pretty serious stuff. You'd be a fool if you thought Lennon's activism didn't reflect in his earlier writings with the Beatles (does "Revolution" ring a bell?). As for the drug culture, it was prevalent in pop music in the late '60s. Just get a copy of the Billboard charts. ( Maybe you should play "With A Little Help From My Friends" and "Lucy In The Sky" one more time.)

In the early 1070's, the US Government was being run by a bunch of paranoids who'd label almost anybody a "political activist", which doesn't proved much. Besides, We're talking about Sgt Pepper, which was recorded between December, 1966 and June, 1967, before many people in the UK (which, in case you hadn't noticed, was where the Beatles lived) started to pay much attention to the Vietnam war. Maybe you weren't aware of this, but the UK wasn't involved in Vietnam.

As for the song, "Revolution", Lennon repeatedly said it was an anti-revolution song, with lyrics like "But when you talk about destruction, Don't you know that you can count me out." Lennon said he wrote it in response to people who kept trying to get him to become politically involved, with the response being his turning down their invitation. What do you think, "You tell me it's the institution, Well you know, You better free your mind instead" means? According to Lennon himself, it meant that real change had to come from within, not through political activism.

As for the alleged drug references in Beatles lyrics, the usual idiots back then were all trying to prove that anything slightly surreal was a drug reference. That was proven to be mostly a pile of crap, but the diehards still like to cling to the old myths. Of course, the contemporary response to the political content of the Beatles' output was also mixed. Many on the left denounced the Beatles as sell-outs because they said that both versions of Revolution were counter-revolutionary. At the same time, the John Birch Society condemned the Beatles as communists.

Frankly, I think you should stick to sticking your thumbs up and saying "AAAA".

 

[TheFonz]

Personally, I'm more inclined to believe what a bona-fide musical genius, Sir George Martin, said about the growth of the Beatles' skills and talents as composers of music than someone who can't tell the difference between tunes and lyrics.

I'd also like to know how "social issues" lead to lyrics like "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite" or the title track, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

You need to dig a little deeper into those history books, my friend. In the early '70s the U.S. government labeled John Lennon a "political activist" for protesting the Vietnam war. He lived in New York at the time and the government wanted to deport him (Google "Lennon FBI files"). That sounds a bit silly today, but 40 years ago it was some pretty serious stuff. You'd be a fool if you thought Lennon's activism didn't reflect in his earlier writings with the Beatles (does "Revolution" ring a bell?). As for the drug culture, it was prevalent in pop music in the late '60s. Just get a copy of the Billboard charts. ( Maybe you should play "With A Little Help From My Friends" and "Lucy In The Sky" one more time.)

In the early 1070's, the US Government was being run by a bunch of paranoids who'd label almost anybody a "political activist", which doesn't proved much. Besides, We're talking about Sgt Pepper, which was recorded between December, 1966 and June, 1967, before many people in the UK (which, in case you hadn't noticed, was where the Beatles lived) started to pay much attention to the Vietnam war. Maybe you weren't aware of this, but the UK wasn't involved in Vietnam.

As for the song, "Revolution", Lennon repeatedly said it was an anti-revolution song, with lyrics like "But when you talk about destruction, Don't you know that you can count me out." Lennon said he wrote it in response to people who kept trying to get him to become politically involved, with the response being his turning down their invitation. What do you think, "You tell me it's the institution, Well you know, You better free your mind instead" means? According to Lennon himself, it meant that real change had to come from within, not through political activism.

As for the alleged drug references in Beatles lyrics, the usual idiots back then were all trying to prove that anything slightly surreal was a drug reference. That was proven to be mostly a pile of crap, but the diehards still like to cling to the old myths. Of course, the contemporary response to the political content of the Beatles' output was also mixed. Many on the left denounced the Beatles as sell-outs because they said that both versions of Revolution were counter-revolutionary. At the same time, the John Birch Society condemned the Beatles as communists.

Frankly, I think you should stick to sticking your thumbs up and saying "AAAA".

If you say so. But if you want a passing grade in English class, don't use any of this in your thesis. There's no doubt that the Beatles wrote a lot of great elevator music. But going from "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" hardly qualifies as musical genius.

 

[Talk_Dude]

If you say so. But if you want a passing grade in English class, don't use any of this in your thesis. There's no doubt that the Beatles wrote a lot of great elevator music. But going from "I Want To Hold Your Hand" to "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" hardly qualifies as musical genius.

And using an atypical song like "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" as an example of a typical Beatles song from later in their careers says more about how your mind works than you can imagine.

Someone else made the observation that the Beatles didn't have "filler" on their later albums. That's actually a little hyperbole. They had a lot of "filler" on their early albums, and only a very little bit of "filler" on their later albums. But "a little bit" isn't the same as "none". "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" was album filler. The so-called "White Album" is not a double album of all great songs. It's more like an album and three-quarters of great songs, and a quarter album of filler.

Frankly, if you're going to compare one of the very best works that any artists made early in their careers with one of the worst they made late in their careers, that doesn't prove that the artists work has all gone downhill. It only proves that you know how to pick atypical songs.

 

[FRR]

Be nice fellas

 

[firepoint525]

I personally believe that the cover songs WERE the filler! But as Fonzie alluded to, many early groups had Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Carl Perkins, and Buddy Holly songs (among others) in their repertoire. Nothing wrong with that, I just figured that they simply hadn't yet written enough songs to fill an album (yet). And they wanted to put some stuff out there that listeners were already familiar with.

And like it or not, the White Album did indeed have filler in it. ("Revolution #9," anyone?) Many of the songs were obviously incomplete. One of them doesn't even have a title! I call it "Can You Take Me Back." George Martin wanted them to record one good SINGLE album, but they wanted to release all the songs that they had written while in India, so they recorded a double album. I believe "Why Don't We Do It in The Road" and one of the "Honey Pies" were cited as songs that would have been left off of a single record album.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Be nice fellas

Go back to lurking.

 

[FRR]

Be nice fellas

Go back to lurking.

Some of us would rather read where people make fools of themselves rather than do it ourselves. You might learn something from that.

 

[hornet61]

From "Rubber Soul" forward... their maturity as song writers was becoming evident..and what greater work would have emerged all along, If they had allowed George Harrison to contribute more than his allowance of two songs. He is the one who broke up the Beatles when he quit over his dissatisfaction, not Yoko nor Paul. And he achived the first solo #1 and received the the most early critical acclaim "post Beatles". And of course the tragedy of John Lennon seemingly releasing his demons and on the road to possibly his greatest work, and the immediate pay-off was the beautiful "Double Fantasy". What we were cheated out of,by his Killer.