|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 26, 2005 19:36:48 GMT -5
Girl, I've never met anyone in the whole flipping universe that thought Rubber Soul sounded like Hard Day's Night. I'll try to show you, because imo there seriously is a huge difference: Hard Day's Night is pop tunes galore -- I love you, you love me. The sounds there are very optimistic, very in your face, and I mean IN YOUR FACE (Hard Day's Night, I Shoulda Known Better, Can't Buy Me Love, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, Anytime At All, and ESPECIALLY Tell Me Why). The lyrics were ALL about love -- nothing too deep. Then ONE YEAR LATER, Rubber Soul comes out, and poof, they've CHANGED. They gotten more pessimistic (Run For Your Life, I'm Looking Through You, You Won't See Me, Think For Yourself, Girl), George suddenly gets VERY good with lyrics and making his own music (If I Needed Someone, Think For Yourself), the lyrics get very deeper (Think For Yourself, Girl, IN MY LIFE, Nowhere Man), they start getting into more psychadelic sounding songs/lyrics (Nowhere Man), George learns sitar (Norwegian Wood), the sound is more laid back than Hard Day's Night... WAY MORE (the whole album), and their singles were WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY better -- We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper was incredible, and Day Tripper was a rocking drugs piece that was different lyrically and musically than other rockers like Hard Day's Night. Rubber Soul seems ultimately where they made the big leap and change, not Sgt. Pepper. I think what Girl meant was the style in which the Beatles recorded their songs, the spirit that was in their songs. Yes Rubber Soul is very different from Hard Day's Night. I will agree with you on that. However, even Rubber Soul had songs that could be easily played live. There was a difference in Rubber Soul and there was ALSO a difference with Sgt. Pepper. As far as what I was talking about, the changes I am referring to are in the Beatles behavior, attitudes, activities they undertook and the content of their songs.
|
|
|
Post by TotalInformation on Feb 28, 2005 13:40:15 GMT -5
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.
Getting back on topic here ... There were two shots of the Mona Lisa, cropped in different ways... Havent' I seen that kind of optic game played with the Mona Lisa before? Does anyone recall what the point is? Don't forget that folks were aware of coded messages in DaVinci's work long before "The DaVinci Code" came out.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 28, 2005 18:23:44 GMT -5
Yes, "coding" was very much a part of da Vinci's world, his mind, his artistic bent. His artistic children--maybe even grandchildren, are still using cyphers and symbols today. Da Vinci has descendants in the art world.
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Feb 28, 2005 19:17:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Feb 28, 2005 22:34:36 GMT -5
Very cool Girl, I need to buy the book to go further I guess.
Yes, and why not? Stating things explicitly is not always a good idea, could get you in trouble. Hmmm..
|
|
|
Post by Girl on Mar 1, 2005 8:44:05 GMT -5
Yeah, in the end, it's all about saving face... (I'm laughing because of a post I'm about to make in another section) there is no way anyone could come out and say PWR after all this time, no matter how much they might want to... Actually, I guess there's a lot of "codes" out there on the internet... LOL... you know, here's who I really am, but I don't want anyone to know it's me, so I'll make up a name and drop hints, and if anyone figures it out, I can always deny it, and save my real identity for the stuff I WANT people to know... I love it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 1, 2005 18:05:25 GMT -5
Very cool Girl, I need to buy the book to go further I guess. Yes, and why not? Stating things explicitly is not always a good idea, could get you in trouble. Hmmm.. Yes, very little is explicit around here......but, much is implicit........as per this tangent I spin thither: "implicit in those writings was the idea that so-and-so believed such-and-such, which implied this-and-that, which led to further speculation that perhaps they woulda-coulda-shoulda-,which is where we glean the notion that inherent in the account was the possibility that maybe there always was the imminent option for an alternate view of the ambigious details, which remain diffuse and uncertain upon circumspection, furthering the already indefinite nature of the unknown elements......" But it's all perfectly clear to me, on some level. I think. Isn't it? Isn't it to you? You get it all. right? Yes, good, good. Very reassuring. Now, tell me, though, WHICH parts do you fully get, again?...... Thither a tangent I hath spun.
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 1, 2009 21:41:50 GMT -5
Just hanging this here, because I said in Taf's blog that John was advised by Ringo not not use the lines: The only thing you done was yesterday.. I bet you pinched that bitch anyway..And Taf asked me about the source, could be in Beatlefan as a commenter replied, I have a big stack of back issues: I disagree with Jojo on just about everything (I'm PIA after all) but Jojo is correct. The story was mentioned in Beatlefan magazine in an interview with one of the musicians (Klaus Voorman?) who played on the record.I'm sure "just about everything" encompasses far too much for it to be true.. Anyway, been reading the recently released Philip Norman book, and while Ringo is not directly quoted or sourced, seems likely he at least heard it. (and would have surely suggested it was a BAD idea) p.672: Felix Dennis, who was around as the lyric took shape, remembers John's fellow musicians, including Ringo, telling him in vain that he was going way too far. In its original version, the line after the "Yesterday" reference was "You probably stole that bitch anyway." Only when the album was being mastered in NY did Allen Klein persuade John to cut it on the grounds that Paul would probably sue...The only problem I have with this is that having heard many takes/rehearsals of HDYS, not once is that line in there. I suspect Allen Klein seizing an opportunity to portray himself as "saving the day", when he had little or nothing to do with it... Likely the line change was very early in the process.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Jan 2, 2009 6:49:05 GMT -5
I lean on the side of believing that story, just because it would be the most cutting remark Lennon could make while delivering the "Yesterday" pun.
Then again, he did craft an even more relevant-for-the-time double pun with the "Another Day" reference.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 2, 2009 21:51:38 GMT -5
I've leaned towards the probability that "Another Day" was penned by Paul. It has the poignancy of "For NoOne" and would've fit nicely on "Revolver". I don't think that Paul would've sang it the same way that Bill/Faul did. I think that Paul would've sang it with more of a sad aire to it. Similar to " For Noone". Maybe that's why they didn't put both songs on "Revolver". It seems that they strived for diversity on each album.
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Jan 2, 2009 22:18:38 GMT -5
Oh, I think Paul wrote it too. Just much later than "Revolver."
|
|
|
Post by JoJo on Jan 3, 2009 1:04:10 GMT -5
I lean on the side of believing that story, just because it would be the most cutting remark Lennon could make while delivering the "Yesterday" pun. Then again, he did craft an even more relevant-for-the-time double pun with the "Another Day" reference. Much more clever and effective. I believe John made noise about saying it too, much like he made like he was going to say "rattle your f***ing jewelry".. just to enjoy freaking people out and then playing it more or less safe in the end.
|
|
|
Post by mommybird on Jan 3, 2009 15:37:12 GMT -5
Just John being John... ;D
|
|