History Headscratchers / TheBeatles

12th May '16 10:46:30 AM NewVirginiaCreeper
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Sure, one ''could'' do so, but literary criticism still leaves place to say "I think this interpretation is made on too little evidence and thus is unconvincing." It's not hard to see this as being a song about sex (sufficiently spicy, no?), but insisting that it is specifically about oral sex without evidence of specifically coded vocabulary that points in that direction is just a weak interpretation.
5th May '16 2:08:18 AM 06tele
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

**** This is one of those cases where a little Lit-crit experience helps. The song isn't ''explicitly'' about oral sex (i.e. it makes no mention of genitalia, penises, mouths, cunnilingus etc.) but you could ''interpret it'' as being about oral sex, as long as you acknowledge that it could also be interpreted as being about the need for more reciprocity in a relationship. But the oral sex interpretation is certainly spicier. (After all, what exactly can he mean by "please please me [...] like I please you"?)
16th Jan '15 6:28:37 PM VinceM
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** The question should maybe be, did John Lennon care about such a thing as a career? Writing songs about self-examination or espousing political causes would imply otherwise; the fact that songs about giving peace a chance or imagining no possessions ''became'' hits is a sign of the times. Then, of course, he simply dropped out for some five years...
30th Dec '14 3:44:37 AM 06tele
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Put it this way: if you want to hear what the Beatles wanted you to hear, listen to them in mono. The "problem", if there is one, is that EMI and Apple won't just release the mono albums singly but make you pay for the whole box. Other labels have routinely re-released mono versions of albums by 60s artists, but EMI and Apple do love their cash. The Beatles supervised the mono mixes, not the stereo mixes, and once you get used to hearing their music in the foreground/background dimension as opposed to the left/right dimension, you'll probably never want to go back to hearing it the other way. It's true that the mono ''White Album'' doesn't have Ringo complaining about the blisters on his fingers, but ''A Day in the Life'' in mono is a good deal more terrifying than the stereo version because you can't hear the point where the orchestral freakout begins -- it creeps up on you far more effectively than in stereo, where the elements are more clearly separated from each other.

to:

*** Put it this way: if you want to hear what the Beatles wanted you to hear, listen to them in mono. The "problem", if there is one, is that EMI and Apple won't just release the mono albums singly but make you pay for the whole box. Other labels have routinely re-released mono versions of albums by 60s artists, but EMI and Apple do love their cash. The Beatles supervised the mono mixes, not the stereo mixes, and once you get used to hearing their music in the foreground/background dimension as opposed to the left/right dimension, you'll probably never want to go back to hearing it the other way. It's true that the mono ''White Album'' doesn't have Ringo complaining about the blisters on his fingers, but ''A "A Day in the Life'' Life" in mono is a good deal more terrifying than the stereo version because you can't hear the point where the orchestral freakout begins -- it creeps up on you far more effectively than in stereo, where the elements are more clearly separated from each other.
30th Dec '14 3:42:51 AM 06tele
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Put it this way: if you want to hear what the Beatles wanted you to hear, listen to them in mono. The "problem", if there is one, is that EMI and Apple won't just release the mono albums singly but make you pay for the whole box. Other labels have routinely re-released mono versions of albums by 60s artists, but EMI and Apple do love their cash. The Beatles supervised the mono mixes, not the stereo mixes, and once you get used to hearing their music in the foreground/background dimension as opposed to the left/right dimension, you'll probably never want to go back to hearing it the other way. It's true that the mono ''White Album'' doesn't have Ringo complaining about the blisters on his fingers, but ''A Day in the Life'' in mono is a good deal more terrifying than the stereo version because you can't hear the point where the orchestral freakout begins -- it creeps up on you far more effectively than in stereo, where the elements are more clearly separated from each other.
30th Dec '14 3:34:33 AM 06tele
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** They slowly faded into singing in their natural accents as their career went on (there's no way you could describe, say, "Glass Onion" as sounding American), & those albums are usually better regarded today by rock fans & music critics, but Beatlemania was when they were at the height of their sales & influence, & that was when their singing voices were most American.
**** Their families and friends noticed that when the band first started giving interviews on radio and TV, they played up their Liverpool accents a ''lot'', especially Lennon and McCartney, who were much more middle-class than Harrison and Starkey and whose natural voices sounded relatively posh. They were GenreSavvy enough to realise that sounding like they were tough Liverpool boys was useful, especially as it made for a contrast with their relatively smart 1962/63 look of matching suits and ties. The Beatles' early image was all about playing off what they sounded like (wild but melodic rock & roll) against what they looked like (smart, nonchalant young men.)

to:

*** They slowly faded into singing in their natural accents as their career went on (there's no way you could describe, say, "Glass Onion" as sounding American), & those albums are usually better regarded today by rock fans & music critics, but Beatlemania was when they were at the height of their sales & influence, & that was when their singing voices were most American.
American.[[note]]Having said that, when [=McCartney=] sang the showtune "Till There Was You" on their second album, he deliberately accentuated the "t" sound in "No, I never heard ''it at'' all", rather than "No, I never heard id ad all", to emphasise that he wasn't trying to sound American.[[/note]]
**** Their families and friends noticed that when the band first started giving interviews on radio and TV, they played up their Liverpool accents a ''lot'', especially Lennon and McCartney, [=McCartney=], who were much more middle-class than Harrison and Starkey and whose natural voices sounded relatively posh.posh by comparison. They were GenreSavvy enough to realise that sounding like they were tough Liverpool boys was useful, especially as it made for a contrast with their relatively smart 1962/63 look of matching suits and ties. The Beatles' early image was all about playing off what they sounded like (wild but melodic rock & roll) against what they looked like (smart, nonchalant young men.)
30th Dec '14 3:29:45 AM 06tele
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** They slowly faded into singing in their natural accents as their career went on (there's no way you could describe, say, "Glass Onion" as sounding American), & those albums are usually better regarded today by rock fans & music critics, but Beatlemania was when they were at the height of their sales & influence, & that was when their singing voices were most American.

to:

*** They slowly faded into singing in their natural accents as their career went on (there's no way you could describe, say, "Glass Onion" as sounding American), & those albums are usually better regarded today by rock fans & music critics, but Beatlemania was when they were at the height of their sales & influence, & that was when their singing voices were most American.American.
**** Their families and friends noticed that when the band first started giving interviews on radio and TV, they played up their Liverpool accents a ''lot'', especially Lennon and McCartney, who were much more middle-class than Harrison and Starkey and whose natural voices sounded relatively posh. They were GenreSavvy enough to realise that sounding like they were tough Liverpool boys was useful, especially as it made for a contrast with their relatively smart 1962/63 look of matching suits and ties. The Beatles' early image was all about playing off what they sounded like (wild but melodic rock & roll) against what they looked like (smart, nonchalant young men.)
19th Dec '14 3:37:00 AM Belphegor
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** A lot of the songs were less family-friendly than you might think; Music/TheBeatles were also quite fond of DoubleEntrendre and GettingCrapPastTheRadar. Sometimes having a wholesome and family-friendly image means you can be very sneaky in getting people to listen to stuff they'd automatically reject from someone who's a bit more upfront in being raunchy. Plus, let's be fair -- the fact that a lot of their songs are a bit more accessible and family friendly doesn't stop them from being amazing songs regardless. In fact, one could reasonably make the argument that this is, in part, ''why'' they're so amazing; it's surprisingly easy to write a 'great' song when only a handful of people need to think it's great in order to qualify. There can be a lot of pretentiousness and snobbery circulating in rock music circles about being 'authentic'.

to:

** A lot of the songs were less family-friendly than you might think; Music/TheBeatles were also quite fond of DoubleEntrendre DoubleEntendre and GettingCrapPastTheRadar. Sometimes having a wholesome and family-friendly image means you can be very sneaky in getting people to listen to stuff they'd automatically reject from someone who's a bit more upfront in being raunchy. Plus, let's be fair -- the fact that a lot of their songs are a bit more accessible and family friendly doesn't stop them from being amazing songs regardless. In fact, one could reasonably make the argument that this is, in part, ''why'' they're so amazing; it's surprisingly easy to write a 'great' song when only a handful of people need to think it's great in order to qualify. There can be a lot of pretentiousness and snobbery circulating in rock music circles about being 'authentic'.
2nd Dec '14 5:50:13 PM Jgorgon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


----

to:

----**There's a few reasons for this:
***They sang in ''transatlantic'' accents for maximum appeal. Since their natural accents were English, this means they were falsely "Americanising" the accents they sang in - just that they only falsely Americanised it 50%, not 100%.
***As an American, they'll sound English to you because you're used to hearing American accents, & therefore more likely to hear what's different about their accents than what's the same, because it sounds ''off'' compared to authentic Americans: it's a similar idea to the UncannyValley.
***SeinfeldIsUnfunny/FollowTheLeader - the British, & American, rock groups who came after The Beatles were influenced by many aspects of their songwriting, delivery, &c.; it's hard to believe now, but "yeah" was considered an Americanism when The Beatles started out. Due to its incredibly heavy usage in their early songs especially, it's now the most used word in rock, & used in conversation by Brits just as much as Americans.
***They slowly faded into singing in their natural accents as their career went on (there's no way you could describe, say, "Glass Onion" as sounding American), & those albums are usually better regarded today by rock fans & music critics, but Beatlemania was when they were at the height of their sales & influence, & that was when their singing voices were most American.
25th Nov '14 2:34:34 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** A lot of the songs were less family-friendly than you might think; Music/TheBeatles were also quite fond of DoubleEntrendre and GettingCrapPastTheRadar. Sometimes having a wholesome and family-friendly image means you can be very sneaky in getting people to listen to stuff they'd automatically reject from someone who's a bit more upfront in being raunchy. Plus, let's be fair -- the fact that a lot of their songs are a bit more accessible and family friendly doesn't stop them from being amazing songs regardless (one could make the argument that this is, in part, ''why'' they're so amazing; it's surprisingly easy to write a 'great' song when only a handful of people need to think it's great in order to qualify). There can be a lot of pretentiousness circulating in rock music circles about being 'authentic'.

to:

** A lot of the songs were less family-friendly than you might think; Music/TheBeatles were also quite fond of DoubleEntrendre and GettingCrapPastTheRadar. Sometimes having a wholesome and family-friendly image means you can be very sneaky in getting people to listen to stuff they'd automatically reject from someone who's a bit more upfront in being raunchy. Plus, let's be fair -- the fact that a lot of their songs are a bit more accessible and family friendly doesn't stop them from being amazing songs regardless (one regardless. In fact, one could reasonably make the argument that this is, in part, ''why'' they're so amazing; it's surprisingly easy to write a 'great' song when only a handful of people need to think it's great in order to qualify). qualify. There can be a lot of pretentiousness and snobbery circulating in rock music circles about being 'authentic'.
This list shows the last 10 events of 185. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheBeatles