|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 22, 2005 19:13:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 22, 2005 21:56:04 GMT -5
I risk stating the obvious (as I frequently do) or repeating what;s been gleand (dittos) but, fools rush in.
Anyway, first of all, they are "Playing Paul". Or, "Bill-iards".
They are laying it out on the table.
They take SHOTS at POOL(Paul?) using a CUE stick.
There are too many balls in play at the end.
There are contrasting masks on the wall, some with a big face, long noses, round faces, and, that last one is hideous. That masked is off the nail, on a person's face, in use...........
John, Yoko, and May? wear eithere masks, or, sunglasses. John seems to be playing blind.
Pictures of the Mona Lisa are "cropped", or perhaps even bandaged over.
Her image is partially covered in one; and it's an alternate version of her.
The shots that John is taking are made through fabric, or, a filter, if you will...
At the end, they exit the room through a trick panel in the library wall, the kind meant to be concealed.
Yoko appears blind as she feels her way out of it.
John is bare-foot like Paul on Abbey Road.
Yoko's outfits change and change. There are two pairs of them (or is one May Pang) toward the end.
The guitar solo features a montage of a flying Rorschach ink-blot. Which asks the mental patient, how do you interpret patterns?
Some of the shots taken are "banked".
And, again, as they play, instead of the balls decreasing, there are more and more balls on the table.
Could that be Phil Spector as the other male playing?
Scathing song. Ouch John, ouch.
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 24, 2005 22:53:31 GMT -5
I risk stating the obvious (as I frequently do) or repeating what;s been gleand (dittos) but, fools rush in. Anyway, first of all, they are "Playing Paul". Or, "Bill-iards". They are laying it out on the table. They take SHOTS at POOL(Paul?) using a CUE stick. There are too many balls in play at the end. There are contrasting masks on the wall, some with a big face, long noses, round faces, and, that last one is hideous. That masked is off the nail, on a person's face, in use........... John, Yoko, and May? wear eithere masks, or, sunglasses. John seems to be playing blind. Pictures of the Mona Lisa are "cropped", or perhaps even bandaged over. Her image is partially covered in one; and it's an alternate version of her. The shots that John is taking are made through fabric, or, a filter, if you will... At the end, they exit the room through a trick panel in the library wall, the kind meant to be concealed. Yoko appears blind as she feels her way out of it. John is bare-foot like Paul on Abbey Road. Yoko's outfits change and change. There are two pairs of them (or is one May Pang) toward the end. The guitar solo features a montage of a flying Rorschach ink-blot. Which asks the mental patient, how do you interpret patterns? Some of the shots taken are "banked". And, again, as they play, instead of the balls decreasing, there are more and more balls on the table. Could that be Phil Spector as the other male playing? Scathing song. Ouch John, ouch. Interesting interpretations, Doc. I thought the animated ink blot was supposed to be like a bat/vampire, since they don't sleep at night. Overall, a pretty creepy video. I can't imagine John being so bitter towards Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 25, 2005 15:58:37 GMT -5
Your interpretation is amazing, Dr. Robert!!! "Bill-iards"... wow!!!  Revolver, I must say that I disagree with your last statement. Let's assume for all intents and purposes that Paul was never replaced: they spent over a decade with each other, and saw each other a lot for over a decade. I know from experience with myself and others and just other friends that people can become sick of each other, and turn bitter and eventually hate each other after seeing each other so much, no matter how much they got along before. So it's very plausible that if Paul wasn't replaced, they got sick of people like many normally do. It's natural. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 25, 2005 16:36:32 GMT -5
Your interpretation is amazing, Dr. Robert!!! "Bill-iards"... wow!!! Revolver, I must say that I disagree with your last statement. Let's assume for all intents and purposes that Paul was never replaced: they spent over a decade with each other, and saw each other a lot for over a decade. I know from experience with myself and others and just other friends that people can become sick of each other, and turn bitter and eventually hate each other after seeing each other so much, no matter how much they got along before. So it's very plausible that if Paul wasn't replaced, they got sick of people like many normally do. It's natural. Cheers, Umang The difference is that normally it doesn't happen overnight like it did with the Beatles. Things are great and then all of a sudden with the Beatles there are problems within the group, increased use of drugs, cynicism from Lennon, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 25, 2005 16:39:58 GMT -5
Let's assume for all intents and purposes that Paul was never replaced: they spent over a decade with each other, and saw each other a lot for over a decade. I know from experience with myself and others and just other friends that people can become sick of each other, and turn bitter and eventually hate each other after seeing each other so much, no matter how much they got along before. So it's very plausible that if Paul wasn't replaced, they got sick of people like many normally do. It's natural. I think it was more than coincidental that the final Beatles breakup was essentially between Bill by himself against the other 3 Beatles. John, George and Ringo all remained good friends after the breakup even though they spent just as much time together. All the symbolism in the video and the song lyrics only makes sense if it's about Paul's replacement. Sour grapes alone don't explain it IMO. George played guitar on HDYS, and we know from the making-of video that he shared in the sentiment. |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 25, 2005 17:13:24 GMT -5
The difference is that normally it doesn't happen overnight like it did with the Beatles. Things are great and then all of a sudden with the Beatles there are problems within the group, increased use of drugs, cynicism from Lennon, etc. Darkhorse, your point would be legit if that were true. But the problems started in 1968, not in November, 1966. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 25, 2005 17:25:51 GMT -5
I think it was more than coincidental that the final Beatles breakup was essentially between Bill by himself against the other 3 Beatles. John, George and Ringo all remained good friends after the breakup even though they spent just as much time together. All the symbolism in the video and the song lyrics only makes sense if it's about Paul's replacement. Sour grapes alone don't explain it IMO. George played guitar on HDYS, and we know from the making-of video that he shared in the sentiment. Good point. Paul did have problems with the other two Beatles (not Ringo). Ringo had a problem with everyone because he felt the other three were close and he wasn't, which doesn't signal tension to me. George and Paul both had a problem with John bringing in Yoko Ono. John was constantly missing rehearsals of George Harrison songs, so there was just as much tension there for a while. Your second statement is incorrect -- I've always understood the song as toward Paul, as it makes plenty sense without a PID theory. As far as the video, DoctorRobert's post was interesting, but there's a few points that can be taken down from there. For example, Yoko Ono was barefoot in the video as well. "Bill-iards" was a nice interpreation, but it's pool, not billiards. John doesn't seem to be playing blind as he is playing like some women I see, with his feminine movements and all. Interesting interpretation, but just because we made that interpretation doesn't mean we are to go "Oh that's what he meant! It makes sense!!! It made sense before. I've encountered no one in my life or on any messsage forum that never understood the song, so your statement is simply incorrect. I'm sorry, Revolver. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 25, 2005 17:32:15 GMT -5
Darkhorse, your point would be legit if that were true. But the problems started in 1968, not in November, 1966. Cheers, Umang Except that John makes clear the start of his rancor with the opening line: "So Sgt Pepper took you..by surprise..You better see right through that..mother's eyes." (mother in the sense of I suspect "mother f***er", I don't hear it used in that sense much anymore) |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 25, 2005 17:51:38 GMT -5
Good point. Paul did have problems with the other two Beatles (not Ringo). Ringo had a problem with everyone because he felt the other three were close and he wasn't, which doesn't signal tension to me. George and Paul both had a problem with John bringing in Yoko Ono. John was constantly missing rehearsals of George Harrison songs, so there was just as much tension there for a while. Your second statement is incorrect -- I've always understood the song as toward Paul, as it makes plenty sense without a PID theory. As far as the video, DoctorRobert's post was interesting, but there's a few points that can be taken down from there. For example, Yoko Ono was barefoot in the video as well. "Bill-iards" was a nice interpreation, but it's pool, not billiards. John doesn't seem to be playing blind as he is playing like some women I see, with his feminine movements and all. Interesting interpretation, but just because we made that interpretation doesn't mean we are to go "Oh that's what he meant! It makes sense!!! It made sense before. I've encountered no one in my life or on any messsage forum that never understood the song, so your statement is simply incorrect. I'm sorry, Revolver. Jeers, Umang We're all speculating here. None of us know for certain what Lennon did or didn't mean to say in the song. You shouldn't dogmatically state whose opinion is "incorrect" and whose isn't - not good form. Don't forget on this forum your opinions about PWR are in the minority. Most everyone here agrees the song is addressed to Bill, not Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 25, 2005 17:56:20 GMT -5
Darkhorse, your point would be legit if that were true. But the problems started in 1968, not in November, 1966. Cheers, Umang You say that my statements weren't true. And then you begin by saying that the problems didn't start in November of 1966 which I never said. |
|
|
|
Post by jonna on Feb 25, 2005 19:55:01 GMT -5
Good point. Paul did have problems with the other two Beatles (not Ringo). Ringo had a problem with everyone because he felt the other three were close and he wasn't, which doesn't signal tension to me. George and Paul both had a problem with John bringing in Yoko Ono. John was constantly missing rehearsals of George Harrison songs, so there was just as much tension there for a while. Your second statement is incorrect -- I've always understood the song as toward Paul, as it makes plenty sense without a PID theory. As far as the video, DoctorRobert's post was interesting, but there's a few points that can be taken down from there. For example, Yoko Ono was barefoot in the video as well. "Bill-iards" was a nice interpreation, but it's pool, not billiards. John doesn't seem to be playing blind as he is playing like some women I see, with his feminine movements and all. Interesting interpretation, but just because we made that interpretation doesn't mean we are to go "Oh that's what he meant! It makes sense!!! It made sense before. I've encountered no one in my life or on any messsage forum that never understood the song, so your statement is simply incorrect. I'm sorry, Revolver. Cheers, Umang you stated that things are incorrect, is that an opinion or fact? from my observation revolver voiced an opinion. you however seem to be stating what you see as facts. do you have something to back this up? if not i will urge you to reword your replies. i will not tolerate baiting of any kind. You are a new member here and of the minority being a PIAer so i would ask you to keep in mind your a guest here. Or i can supply you with Larry's forum address, your call. |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Feb 25, 2005 20:52:31 GMT -5
Revolver, I must say that I disagree with your last statement. Let's assume for all intents and purposes that Paul was never replaced No..... lets not. Ya see, the large majority of folks here have no doubt what-so-ever that JPM was replaced by "Sir Paul", so what's the point? IMO..... If JPM was a part of it, they never would've stopped touring. They wouldn't have split up. They wouldn't have done an album with a grave on the cover. And you wouldn't have "turn me on dead man" etc. etc. etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 0:21:54 GMT -5
Except that John makes clear the start of his rancor with the opening line: "So Sgt Pepper took you..by surprise..You better see right through that..mother's eyes." (mother in the sense of I suspect "mother f***er", I don't hear it used in that sense much anymore) 1) If Paul never died, hypothetically, he was probably very proud of how his idea of an opener of Sgt. Pepper and the theme fared around the world. 2) I don't quite see how that relates to my comment. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 0:25:41 GMT -5
We're all speculating here. None of us know for certain what Lennon did or didn't mean to say in the song. You shouldn't dogmatically state whose opinion is "incorrect" and whose isn't - not good form. Don't forget on this forum your opinions about PWR are in the minority. Most everyone here agrees the song is addressed to Bill, not Paul. I think a lot of you are making a good point with me being a minority (and I think your post was very clear, not abrasive like Jonna -- sorry to mention names -- and very helpful), but I think some are missing THE point entirely, so I would like to rephrase myself and display a clear theme. Just because most here believe that PWR, doesn't mean we should agree with everything automatically. We shouldn't make assumptions that the song "only" makes sense if addressed to Bill. I am also not a PIAer -- I am a fencesitter, and because of my aforementioned comment about not being yes-men, I'll call a good call when I see one and call a bad call when I see it. That's all. I am not saying opinions are incorrect -- I'm saying I whole-heartedly disagree with some of this. All I'm saying is don't be a yes-man -- think for yourself, because I won't be there with you  . And to all besides DarkHorse and Revolver, please don't be as abrasive when I say "Assume that PIA for a second." I'm being open-minded and considering multiple theories for lyrics and such, and I believe it's a bit impolite to call me on that when I'm trying to have an open-mind. Saying you believe "with a doubt" that PID, while somewhat OK, is NOT having an open mind -- it's saying, "Even if I'm wrong, I'm right." We're not fixing a hole  . That's called overconfidence syndrome -- you want to be more confident than correct. By all means, have a belief that PID -- but don't have a one-track mind or you won't get far in life. And that's coming from a concerned individual about some of the guys here, not a troll, because it's sad to see some minds that are closing themselves when everyone here is leap years smarter than that!!! Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 0:27:07 GMT -5
You say that my statements weren't true. And then you begin by saying that the problems didn't start in November of 1966 which I never said.
Things are great and then all of a sudden with the Beatles there are problems within the group, increased use of drugs, cynicism from Lennon, etc."Sure, you never SAID it, but you implied it. "Overnight" meaning "suddenly" meaning "when he was replaced." So you're pretty much saying when he made his appearance in Nov/Dec of 1966, that's when the problems started, which is untrue. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 0:29:02 GMT -5
you stated that things are incorrect, is that an opinion or fact? from my observation revolver voiced an opinion. you however seem to be stating what you see as facts. do you have something to back this up? if not i will urge you to reword your replies. i will not tolerate baiting of any kind. You are a new member here and of the minority being a PIAer so i would ask you to keep in mind your a guest here. Or i can supply you with Larry's forum address, your call. So you're the Jonna I've heard about over at M4E (don't worry, I lurk there all the time). You obviously didn't read my introductory post -- I stated clearly that I'm a fence-sitter, AKA "Not a PIDDER or a PIAer." But M4E is right -- you certainly ain't tolerant, because you have falsely accused me of baiting. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 0:32:06 GMT -5
No..... lets not. Ya see, the large majority of folks here have no doubt what-so-ever that JPM was replaced by "Sir Paul", so what's the point? IMO..... If JPM was a part of it, they never would've stopped touring. They wouldn't have split up. They wouldn't have done an album with a grave on the cover. And you wouldn't have "turn me on dead man" etc. etc. etc. etc. Which is what makes this as closed-minded as people have called M4E!!!! "without-a-doubt" = "I am definitely not not not not not wrong about this" = can't see things beyond a one-way persepctive. With your opinions, I have to call you on "they wouldn't have split up." How many bands from the 60s split up? A lot. So say PID was false, they could have still easily split like other bands. Their best albums also seem to be made after Paul supposedly died. Sgt. Pepper, MMT, White Album, and Abbey Road, these being my favorite along with Rubber Soul. Why would their music suddenly maintain high order? This is one of the things that makes me a fence-sitter and currently unable to shift either way. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 26, 2005 0:44:25 GMT -5
So you're the Jonna I've heard about over at M4E (don't worry, I lurk there all the time). The same M4E where one of their top posters pretended to be one of OUR dearest friends (lied) to get into another PID forum? Yes, I know all about it... |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 0:47:52 GMT -5
The same M4E where one of their top posters pretended to be one of OUR dearest friends (lied) to get into another PID forum? Yes, I know all about it... Well, I wasn't asking you if you were. To be honest, I see stuff wrong with both of your boards. I just choose to come here to get a dose of more PID info. LarryC seems to me an angry man, and here we have Jonna, who I think is 3 times angrier. Not a gibe, but an observation -- the minute I say one thing, "You're a guest, behave." That was the gist of it. I think PID needs to be more open-minded to PIA, and PIA to PID, because you BELIEVING PID DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT, and them believing PIA DOES NOT MAKE THEM RIGHT!!! I have friends that know that they know that they know that they know they're not annoying -- but everyone else thinks so, and if everyone else is annoyed, they're annoying. One example of that. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 0:49:00 GMT -5
The same M4E where one of their top posters pretended to be one of OUR dearest friends (lied) to get into another PID forum? Yes, I know all about it... Oh boy, I also don't know who you're talking about!!! Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 0:52:44 GMT -5
You're serious... well, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but when you've grown up listening to the old stuff, I had a hard time liking most of the new stuff, because it and they had changed so drastically... the difference is clear, the music became much more melancholy, whereas the old stuff was totally upbeat, which was part of the magic that was the Beatles.  So my point is: Something more than drugs had to have influenced such a drastic change. |
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 1:01:01 GMT -5
You're serious... well, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but when you've grown up listening to the old stuff, I had a hard time liking most of the new stuff, because it and they had changed so drastically... the difference is clear, the music became much more melancholy, whereas the old stuff was totally upbeat, which was part of the magic that was the Beatles. I think most Beatles fans would agree that Rubber Soul - Abbey Road was terrific. In fact that's all I see. Your upbeat comment is true -- a lot of their old stuff was upbeat. But let's not forget -- Help!, Ticket To Ride, No Reply, I'm A Loser, Eleanor Rigby, For No One, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, Run For Your Life, Misery... they also always had pessimistic songs. What I love about the Beatles is that they did everything. As for melancholy, I can't see that. I look at Sgt. Pepper -- only Melancholy thing I see is She's Leaving Home, and A Day In The Life MIGHT be considered it, but I just think it's a glorious rock song, if it can be called that. MMT was a shift to psychadelia, and all bands were doing this nowadays, not just the Beatles -- all bands were changing. It's not necessarily called changing because someone died -- it's called evolving and trying out everything. And let's not forget the singles -- Hello Goodbye, Penny Lane, ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE (Go Lennon  ... all optimistic, poppy, great tunes. White Album had everything. Abbey Road was a very happy record on its own, especially the glorious ending suite. Let's not forget the awesome Here Comes The Sun, Octopus' Garden... Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see how they became melancholy. I believe they've always been able to cover all genres well, PID or no PID. A Little Edit: Let's not forget that the saddest or most downbeat Beatle album was, arguably, Beatles For Sale. The title and album cover showed it all. They were sick of so much by that point. More Edit: In other words, 99.99999999999999999999% think Rubber Soul through Abbey Road were the best. I've never seen any differing opinion on this besides one or two people, quite literally one or two Beatles fanatics that for some reason or another thought PPM was their best effort. Cheers, Umang |
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 26, 2005 1:10:25 GMT -5
Yes... but check the rhythm. Still upbeat.
I am not one of them... good song, but there are many more better.
|
|
|
|
Post by BandOnTheJet on Feb 26, 2005 1:15:53 GMT -5
Yes... but check the rhythm Still upbeat. Why did you only respond to one point? Anyway, the rhythm doesn't matter, if the tune is melancholy, then the feeling will be a somewhat upbeat melancholy song. And I'm a bit confused by your statement -- I, like some people on this board, are a qualified musician, and I know that I know You've Got To Hide Your Love Away, No Reply, For No One, Eleanor Rigby, etc. aren't upbeat. Upbeatness doesn't make a song -- tune, lyrics, message, sound, and getting notes/rhythm/intonation right does!!! I'm also waiting for a response to my "Best Albums" remark that was glossed over, along with the rest of my post Cheers, Umang A small edit: I know that I know Yesterday ain't upbeat either, and it's a sad song. |
|
. 
. That's called overconfidence syndrome -- you want to be more confident than correct. By all means, have a belief that PID -- but don't have a one-track mind or you won't get far in life. And that's coming from a concerned individual about some of the guys here, not a troll, because it's sad to see some minds that are closing themselves when everyone here is leap years smarter than that!!!
... all optimistic, poppy, great tunes.