History Headscratchers / TheBeatles

19th Jul '17 4:53:00 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** And of course, even if it did, a perfectly valid argument exists that he'd earned the right to decline given that his high point was, well, the Beatles. It's hard to complain that an artist's later work pales in comparison to their earlier work when their resume includes such little things as "A Hard Day's Night", "Help", "In My Life", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Across the Universe" and all up basically helping to define what pop and rock music means for an entire generation without looking a ''little'' bit petty and churlish.

to:

** And of course, even if it did, a perfectly valid argument exists that he'd earned the right to decline given that his high point was, well, the Beatles. It's hard to complain that an artist's later work pales in comparison to their earlier work when their resume includes such little things as "A Hard Day's Night", "Help", "In My Life", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Across the Universe" and all up basically helping to define what pop and rock music means for an entire generation generation. At least, not without looking a ''little'' bit petty and churlish.churlish. So yeah, maybe Lennon's solo career didn't live up to the Beatles, but then again, he was still in the Beatles.
26th Jun '17 12:48:28 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** And of course, even if it did, a perfectly valid argument exists that he'd earned the right to decline given that his high point was, well, the Beatles. It's hard to complain that an artist's later work pales in comparison to their earlier work when their resume includes such little things as "A Hard Day's Night", "Help", "In My Life", "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds", "Across the Universe" and all up basically helping to define what pop and rock music means for an entire generation without looking a ''little'' bit petty and churlish.
18th Jun '17 4:45:02 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** According to ThatOtherWiki the song is meant to be a parody of the French style of music. It's not serious.

to:

** According to ThatOtherWiki Wiki/ThatOtherWiki the song is meant to be a parody of the French style of music. It's not serious.
22nd Nov '16 4:00:26 PM StFan
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** If they had gotten back together, I expect that it would have been for a one-shot deal, likely for charity. My best friend has always felt they would have gotten together for LiveAid, which seems a reasonable thought.

to:

*** If they had gotten back together, I expect that it would have been for a one-shot deal, likely for charity. My best friend has always felt they would have gotten together for LiveAid, Music/LiveAid, which seems a reasonable thought.
30th Jul '16 9:42:15 AM OrgaNik
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Also, they wanted to steal the "longest charting single" status from Richard Harris' "MacArthur Park."

to:

** Also, they wanted to steal the "longest charting single" status from Richard Harris' "MacArthur "[=MacArthur=] Park."
30th Jul '16 9:41:39 AM OrgaNik
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Also, they wanted to steal the "longest charting single" status from Richard Harris' "MacArthur Park."
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.
This list shows the last 10 events of 191. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheBeatles