In article
No, you don't have to prove it, but it helps the rest of us follow
your analysis if we can understand what you're quoting from. That
way, we can decide for ourselves---and perhaps add a bit more
commentary to your insights---if we know the circumstances of
John's quote.
None of the Fabs *always* spoke the absolute truth about their
own work; sometimes they lacked simple critical distance which
would allow them to rationally expound upon their own creative
process, rather than respond to their work emotionally. Not that
their own opinion is valueless, let me make clear. But it must
be balanced with other evidence.
And citations are simply a part of good scholarship; it's not a
challenge. Please don't take offense!
>I have two books that talk about it. One is "Beatles in Their Own Words",
Now that is really curious. "...In Their Own Words" is maddening for
its lack of proper attribution; there's no recourse for the Beatles
scholar to check the source and see if some vital part of the quote
was left off, or even to see if the transcription was accurate. And
on my copies of "Rubber Soul"---all of them :-) ---there's no text
whatsoever involving song meaning. It's just song titles, vocalists,
and instrumentation. Certainly nothing about the meaning of "Girl"!
>I'm curious. How do you know that it is of tenuous reliability,
My article didn't say I hadn't seen it; you've jumped to an
unfortunate conclusion. Some Beatles academic I'd be if I hadn't
read it. :-) But I don't own it. After having read it several
times (a library copy), I decided against owning it, considering
the circumstances of its genesis.
> You are able to tell whether John
Not at all. As George said, "Think For Yourself". You've not implying,
I trust, that a serious seeker of information is at the mercy of the
informant, not matter what he says, or how many times he contradicts
himself?
I can certainly tell whether John is maturely reflecting on his work.
So can you. We may come to different conclusions, but each of us is
possessed of a mind of our own, capable (under ideal circumstances)
of rational opinion, once all the facts are in. I trust you've
compared John's thoughts in "Lennon Remembers" to those in the
Playboy Interviews some nine years later? And you want to make
a case for "Lennon Remembers" being a *mature* reflection on
his work with and without the Beatles?
It's not just the lapse of time between the two interviews; it's
not merely the fact that Lennon was 31 in the first and 40 in the
second example. John's life had undeniably reached a plateau by
1980, from which he could better assess his own accomplishments.
By his fortieth year, he was less inclined to rant against the
musicians he was emotionally still "divorcing" in 1971; the
wounds, real and imagined, were still fresh in 1971; and his
work with the Beatles was almost entirely vilified in 1971, the
result of John's not having established his independent professional
persona at that time. What a difference a decade makes!
Yes, I'd say that IMHO John was a more trustworthy *and* mature
analyst of his life and work by 1980. He was also, inarguably,
more clear-headed, the result of having left behind him the
fog of substance abuse. And he'd had time to wrestle with the
resentments of a songwriting partnership which still had a hold
on him after all those years.
Please be clear on this. I'm not saying that "Lennon Remembers"
is worthless and the Playboy Interviews are pure gold. But I am
saying that, while both are essential to understanding the totality
of John Lennon (as are many other sources), one of the two is
certainly more valuable as a source reflecting greater information
and accuracy by the interviewee. Guess which source that it. :-)
>What has to be SHOWN? John SAID the song was a reference to Christianity.
Right. But your argument was that specific lines refered to equally
specific events and people within Christianity---Jesus, his death,
the gospels, the persistence of faith, etc. You didn't prove this.
It's impossible to do so, I'd suggest, because John didn't specify
how Christianity was to fit into the song. His statement was too
vague for us to even begin to make a case for such specificity.
A reference to Christianity is not the same as a lyrical analog
of Christian symbolism. Where's that reference? In what line?
Can you be absolutely certain that John's mental reference was
not actually *outside* of the song, and doesn't even make an
appearance in the lyrics? Can you also be certain that John,
in 1971, wasn't making a mistake about "Girl"? Could it have
been another song entirely? This is what I mean about the
trustworthiness of the source material. The fact that John
didn't give us an explication of the song---"You see, in line
two I was referring to Gnosticism...."---means we're at a deadend
as far as lyrical mapping is concerned. The fact that he
doesn't seem to have referred to this Christianity reference
during subsequent interviews suggests to me that a) John had
forgotten all about what he'd said in 1971; b) John didn't
mean it in 1971; c) John was confused. A really sharp interviewer
might have asked Lennon to explain what he meant in 1971; an
equally sharp one might well have done his homework in 1980
and asked *then* what the meaning was. But we'll never know,
alas. The moment was lost.
>I think you are reading far more into it than is necessary. Again, John
But you miss a vital point; John didn't say that the song was
about Christianity or Catholicism. He said his negative feelings
about these areas of religion were an influence. The clue is in
his *negativity*, not in the existence, worthiness, or persistence
of religion itself. And since the song is primarily (by John's own
admission) about a "dream girl", we have to try to see in what
faint manner John might have interwoven his feelings about a
woman whom he loved but who hurt him badly with a negative
image of the Christian faith. And we have to do it without
John's help, using the sources we think are most reliable.
>I don't mean to be harsh, but if John SAID it, then no amount
You are still the analyst here. So are we all. In doing what we do
in rec.music.beatles, we all try to make sense out of the grand
conundrum of Beatles music. You are not restricted by what the
artist says. You may choose to accept it or debunk it; or more
properly, weigh it with other sources and quotations. As much as
there is of value in what each Beatle has said about his own work
and the collective efforts of the group, you would be privy to
only a segment of the analytial universe if you stopped there.
Frankly, sometimes they were dim about their own songs; sometimes
they were incapable of deeper introspection. Artists are often
blind to their own gifts. John himself couldn't fathom what
William Mann was saying about "aeolian cadences" and "pandiatonic
clusters" in 1963; I'll wager that much of the musicological
analysis of Beatles music since then would be over the heads
of the composers (even our own esteemed Dr. Pollack's works!)
It doesn't mean that such things aren't in the songs; all it
means is that the artists didn't perceive these complexities.
And why should they? They wasn't trained to do so. They were
operating from a level of great creativity, using talent and
intuition to feel their way through the morass of musical and
lyrical development. If they'd stopped to think about clusters
and cadences, I'll wager that none of us would have much of a
reason to invent this newsgroup. :-)
Just a vivid illustration, for your enjoyment. Ray Coleman recounts
an altercation between trad-jazz singer George Melly and John Lennon
circa 1964. Admittedly, a party was involved; and admittedly, John
was not at his level-headed best when drinking. Melly made some
reference to the contribution to black singers and songwriters
to pop music---specifically Muddy Waters and Chuck Berry, who
Melly credited with virtually inventing the musical idiom which
both he and John shared. John refused to admit any influence,
Coleman reports, and further mentions that the conversation
almost came to physical violence over the argument.
Now, John *said* it. No Muddy Waters, no Chuck Berry. Good think
Melly didn't bring up Buddy Holly or the Shirelles. :-) Are we
not to argue with this? Is the discussion ended?
Heaven forfend.
>The point of rmb (I hope) is open communication, with an OPEN mind, open
The same reason I'd expect you to return the favor, in the spirit
of good scholarship, if I were missing out on something you felt
I should consider. But here's the vital distinction. Having an open
mind doesn't mean accepting *all* opinions as equally valid. It
means listening to the thoughts of our compatriots, and debating/
deflating/discussing as befits the topic. The central thought is
*expanding* the mind...not just leaving it open to collect all that's
blowing in the wind. :-)
--
>
>> >Citation, please?
>
>As if I have to PROVE something that was said by John almost 30 years ago.
>page 80. John is quoted on the Rubber Soul album.
>considering you have never even seen it?
>is maturely reflecting on HIS WORK (who knows it better than him?) from an
>interview? Forgive me, but THAT is a stretch!!!!! :)
>Given John SAID that, then some lines HAVE to refer to his feelings about
>Christianity or Catholicism. Remember, John SAID it. This is not a clue
>or backwards message given to conjecture.
>said the song was about Christianity or Catholicism. Isn't that enough?
>of conjecture or selective reasoning applies.
>to all and any discussion of Beatledom, open to all points of view. Why
>try to deflate something that perhaps you find hard to accept?
"But how their bewitched and bedazzled fans love it...."
saki ([email protected] )
Click here to return to the rmb home page.
Click here to return to saki's index.
