https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSfFwLwRQwY

Beyonce sounds pretty good, but I'd have held back a bit on all the additional vocals and effects. I'd give Beyonce more a capella time and let th4 other stuff come in more gradually.

The tapping sound is a lot like what was on the original -- except this is clearly a machine.

McCartney has praised Beyonce's version of the song, and he says she "reinforces the civil rights message" that inspired him to write it in the first place.

Is this revisionism or was he really inspired by the civil rights movement?

I retract my question about McCartney's claim about the song being in part about the civil rights movement. I came across an older quote in which he says, "I had in mind a black woman rather than a bird."

On 2024-04-05, Norbert <nyarlathotep1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I retract my question about McCartney's claim about
> the song being in part about the civil rights movement.
> I came across an older quote in which he says, "I had in
> mind a black woman rather than a bird."

I'm tired of everything have to be *about* something other that
simply being what it is. It's a beautiful song, beautifully recorded,
utterly unforgettable. And yet that's apparently not good enough. It
has to be *about* something "bigger".

Tired.... so fucking tired....

--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com

I didn't think it *was* about any major social issue and was skeptical, at first, about McCartney's response to Beyonce's version of the song. Then I found an older quote from Paul that supported it.

I think a lot of the Beatles' songs aren't particularly about anything -- and I agree, that's fine. However, if a songwriter wants to tackle an issue, that could be great, too, especially if it's done well as with "Blackbird."

On 2024-04-05, Norbert <nyarlathotep1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I didn't think it *was* about any major social issue and
> was skeptical, at first, about McCartney's response to
> Beyonce's version of the song. Then I found an older
> quote from Paul that supported it.
>
> I think a lot of the Beatles' songs aren't particularly
> about anything -- and I agree, that's fine. However, if a
> songwriter wants to tackle an issue, that could be great,
> too, especially if it's done well as with "Blackbird."

My admittedly over the top response was more to "moderns"
hell-bent on hijacking something already amazing into the more
purely conceptual space of "Aboutness", as though the rest of us
somehow missed The Real Value, which new enlightenment/wokeness
predictably devolves further into shaming/canceling those who
don't acknowledge said "Aboutness" as though the actual - if
not *only* - value.

Example:

"There goes 'oldernow' again, being insensitive to the plight of
black girls by ignoring that Higher Truth in order to *merely*
praise the song/arrangement/lyrics/recording!"

I swear said slope is getting slipperier by the instant.

Then again, the wife and I are currently plagued by some respiratory
bug, so it could be the illness talking....

--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com

I hear what you're saying, believe me.

And I only like songs that deal with social issues if they're good songs -- say, Gordon Lightfoot's "The Patriot's Dream" which dealt with the Vietnam War -- and if it's a cause I believe in.

Lennon and Ono dealt with real causes all over Sometime In New York City, but the songs were beyond bad and those were nutcase fringe causes. It's the worst album ever by a former Beatle -- unless you count John and Yoko's other collaborationa.

On 2024-04-05, Norbert <nyarlathotep1@hotmail.com> wrote:

> And I only like songs that deal with social issues
> if they're good songs -- say, Gordon Lightfoot's "The
> Patriot's Dream" which dealt with the Vietnam War --
> and if it's a cause I believe in.

I've typically not liked songs dealing with social issues: it
felt like people out of their skill-stack zone even when I was
teenaged. And if I'm remembering correctly, most of that sentiment
was borne of John and Yoko's straying that direction.

> Lennon and Ono dealt with real causes all over Sometime
> In New York City, but the songs were beyond bad and those
> were nutcase fringe causes. It's the worst album ever
> by a former Beatle -- unless you count John and Yoko's
> other collaborationa.

You just wrecked my having successfully forgotten about that album
for over 40 years, dammit! ;-)

That said, I vaguely recall liking a few songs from it, although
unfortunately the first that came to my internet-unassisted mind
upon seeing the title was "Scumbag".... >_<

--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com

On 6/04/2024 8:48 am, oldernow wrote:
> On 2024-04-05, Norbert <nyarlathotep1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't think it *was* about any major social issue and
>> was skeptical, at first, about McCartney's response to
>> Beyonce's version of the song. Then I found an older
>> quote from Paul that supported it.
>>
>> I think a lot of the Beatles' songs aren't particularly
>> about anything -- and I agree, that's fine. However, if a
>> songwriter wants to tackle an issue, that could be great,
>> too, especially if it's done well as with "Blackbird."
>
> My admittedly over the top response was more to "moderns"
> hell-bent on hijacking something already amazing into the more
> purely conceptual space of "Aboutness", as though the rest of us
> somehow missed The Real Value, which new enlightenment/wokeness
> predictably devolves further into shaming/canceling those who
> don't acknowledge said "Aboutness" as though the actual - if
> not *only* - value.
>
> Example:
>
> "There goes 'oldernow' again, being insensitive to the plight of
> black girls by ignoring that Higher Truth in order to *merely*
> praise the song/arrangement/lyrics/recording!"
>
> I swear said slope is getting slipperier by the instant.
>
> Then again, the wife and I are currently plagued by some respiratory
> bug, so it could be the illness talking....
>

Al contraire - so much these days would appear to be about nothing at
all,or about trivial shit.

As opposed to 'then', when music typically actually was 'about'
something - although this may have gone over the heads of some at the
time ....

geoff

On 2024-04-05, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
> On 6/04/2024 8:48 am, oldernow wrote:
>> On 2024-04-05, Norbert <nyarlathotep1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't think it *was* about any major social issue and
>>> was skeptical, at first, about McCartney's response to
>>> Beyonce's version of the song. Then I found an older
>>> quote from Paul that supported it.
>>>
>>> I think a lot of the Beatles' songs aren't particularly
>>> about anything -- and I agree, that's fine. However, if a
>>> songwriter wants to tackle an issue, that could be great,
>>> too, especially if it's done well as with "Blackbird."
>>
>> My admittedly over the top response was more to "moderns"
>> hell-bent on hijacking something already amazing into the more
>> purely conceptual space of "Aboutness", as though the rest of us
>> somehow missed The Real Value, which new enlightenment/wokeness
>> predictably devolves further into shaming/canceling those who
>> don't acknowledge said "Aboutness" as though the actual - if
>> not *only* - value.
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> "There goes 'oldernow' again, being insensitive to the plight of
>> black girls by ignoring that Higher Truth in order to *merely*
>> praise the song/arrangement/lyrics/recording!"
>>
>> I swear said slope is getting slipperier by the instant.
>>
>> Then again, the wife and I are currently plagued by some respiratory
>> bug, so it could be the illness talking....
>
> Al contraire - so much these days would appear to be about nothing at
> all,or about trivial shit.

Well, and then there's that. :-)

I don't know how to rewrite what I did to address what I was feeling
at the time *and* what you're pointing out, which I don't disagree
with. But I'll try some meandering, and maybe I chance upon it:

I think part of what I was getting at was that I've tended to be more
into the music than the meaning of any lyrics. But that's not to say
I don't adore the *words* comprising the lyrics. However, for me the
important aspects of the words are more their pronunciation, syllable
metering, and musical notes underlying the vocalizing thereof.

Take "Help!", for example. Fantastic lyrics. And yet none of them
give me the kind of chills/goosebumps that the first "When" does.

The power of that "When" for me isn't what 'when' means: it's the
sound of the word, how it's vocally attacked, whatever musical note
is underlying it relative to its surroundings, and that it's a single
brief - yet sustained so exquisitely long - syllable sandwiched
between that wonderful descending guitar thing, and my all-time
favorite vocalist's voice entering the soundscape squarely in its
zone that's always moved/spoken to me - that voice itself.

Does that make any sense?

> As opposed to 'then', when music typically actually was 'about'
> something - although this may have gone over the heads of some at the
> time ....

My take is music is no doubt about something ("meaning of lyrics"
sense) to those who need it to be about something, starting with
the composer. And that's fine. It's just that any aboutness simply
hasn't typically added much to my joy over/with songs.

Another example: the harmony and duration of the sustain of the
final "yeah" in "She Loves You" reaches much more deeply into
me than whatever the song is about, whatever it meant to others,
to history, etc.

Of *course* I've chanced upon all such analysis of such over the
years, but whereas such tends toward 'tl;dr', the sound of that
word presented by their voices at that moment in the song still
drops my jaw involuntarily.

--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com

oldernow wrote:

> On 2024-04-05, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:
>> On 6/04/2024 8:48 am, oldernow wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-05, Norbert <nyarlathotep1@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I didn't think it *was* about any major social issue and
>>>> was skeptical, at first, about McCartney's response to
>>>> Beyonce's version of the song. Then I found an older
>>>> quote from Paul that supported it.
>>>>
>>>> I think a lot of the Beatles' songs aren't particularly
>>>> about anything -- and I agree, that's fine. However, if a
>>>> songwriter wants to tackle an issue, that could be great,
>>>> too, especially if it's done well as with "Blackbird."
>>>
>>> My admittedly over the top response was more to "moderns"
>>> hell-bent on hijacking something already amazing into the more
>>> purely conceptual space of "Aboutness", as though the rest of us
>>> somehow missed The Real Value, which new enlightenment/wokeness
>>> predictably devolves further into shaming/canceling those who
>>> don't acknowledge said "Aboutness" as though the actual - if
>>> not *only* - value.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> "There goes 'oldernow' again, being insensitive to the plight of
>>> black girls by ignoring that Higher Truth in order to *merely*
>>> praise the song/arrangement/lyrics/recording!"
>>>
>>> I swear said slope is getting slipperier by the instant.
>>>
>>> Then again, the wife and I are currently plagued by some respiratory
>>> bug, so it could be the illness talking....
>>
>> Al contraire - so much these days would appear to be about nothing at
>> all,or about trivial shit.

> Well, and then there's that. :-)

> I don't know how to rewrite what I did to address what I was feeling
> at the time *and* what you're pointing out, which I don't disagree
> with. But I'll try some meandering, and maybe I chance upon it:

> I think part of what I was getting at was that I've tended to be more
> into the music than the meaning of any lyrics. But that's not to say
> I don't adore the *words* comprising the lyrics. However, for me the
> important aspects of the words are more their pronunciation, syllable
> metering, and musical notes underlying the vocalizing thereof.

> Take "Help!", for example. Fantastic lyrics. And yet none of them
> give me the kind of chills/goosebumps that the first "When" does.

> The power of that "When" for me isn't what 'when' means: it's the
> sound of the word, how it's vocally attacked, whatever musical note
> is underlying it relative to its surroundings, and that it's a single
> brief - yet sustained so exquisitely long - syllable sandwiched
> between that wonderful descending guitar thing, and my all-time
> favorite vocalist's voice entering the soundscape squarely in its
> zone that's always moved/spoken to me - that voice itself.

> Does that make any sense?

>> As opposed to 'then', when music typically actually was 'about'
>> something - although this may have gone over the heads of some at the
>> time ....

> My take is music is no doubt about something ("meaning of lyrics"
> sense) to those who need it to be about something, starting with
> the composer. And that's fine. It's just that any aboutness simply
> hasn't typically added much to my joy over/with songs.

> Another example: the harmony and duration of the sustain of the
> final "yeah" in "She Loves You" reaches much more deeply into
> me than whatever the song is about, whatever it meant to others,
> to history, etc.

> Of *course* I've chanced upon all such analysis of such over the
> years, but whereas such tends toward 'tl;dr', the sound of that
> word presented by their voices at that moment in the song still
> drops my jaw involuntarily.

Great post. I'm like 95% with you here. In my case I have no interest at all in what the words are supposed to mean. They are only important phonetically. The little bit I differ with you is that you mentioned that "Help" had great lyrics. I have no idea if the lyrics are good because I've never been interested in figuring out what they are supposed to be saying.

I have no idea what most of my favorite songs are about. Never cared to examine that. If I want somebody's opinion about social issues or about other aspects of life, I wouldn't ask some musician. I may as well ask my plumber before I ask John Lennon, or Bob Dylan.

I once put "St. James Infirmary" by Bobby Bland on a playlist I was making for having sex too, thinking that it was something romantic. My girlfriend had to tell me that it's about a guy going down to the clinic because he got VD from his woman.

On 2024-04-06, Bruce <savoybg@aol.com> wrote:
>> oldernow wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-05, geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

>>> Al contraire - so much these days would appear to be about nothing at
>>> all,or about trivial shit.
>
>> Well, and then there's that. :-)
>
>> I don't know how to rewrite what I did to address what I was feeling
>> at the time *and* what you're pointing out, which I don't disagree
>> with. But I'll try some meandering, and maybe I chance upon it:
>
>> I think part of what I was getting at was that I've tended to be more
>> into the music than the meaning of any lyrics. But that's not to say
>> I don't adore the *words* comprising the lyrics. However, for me the
>> important aspects of the words are more their pronunciation, syllable
>> metering, and musical notes underlying the vocalizing thereof.
>
>> Take "Help!", for example. Fantastic lyrics. And yet none of them
>> give me the kind of chills/goosebumps that the first "When" does.
>
>> The power of that "When" for me isn't what 'when' means: it's the
>> sound of the word, how it's vocally attacked, whatever musical note
>> is underlying it relative to its surroundings, and that it's a single
>> brief - yet sustained so exquisitely long - syllable sandwiched
>> between that wonderful descending guitar thing, and my all-time
>> favorite vocalist's voice entering the soundscape squarely in its
>> zone that's always moved/spoken to me - that voice itself.
>
>> Does that make any sense?
>
>>> As opposed to 'then', when music typically actually was 'about'
>>> something - although this may have gone over the heads of some at the
>>> time ....
>
>> My take is music is no doubt about something ("meaning of lyrics"
>> sense) to those who need it to be about something, starting with
>> the composer. And that's fine. It's just that any aboutness simply
>> hasn't typically added much to my joy over/with songs.
>
>> Another example: the harmony and duration of the sustain of the
>> final "yeah" in "She Loves You" reaches much more deeply into
>> me than whatever the song is about, whatever it meant to others,
>> to history, etc.
>
>> Of *course* I've chanced upon all such analysis of such over the
>> years, but whereas such tends toward 'tl;dr', the sound of that
>> word presented by their voices at that moment in the song still
>> drops my jaw involuntarily.
>
> Great post.

Thank you!

> I'm like 95% with you here. In my case I have no interest
> at all in what the words are supposed to mean. They are
> only important phonetically. The little bit I differ with
> you is that you mentioned that "Help" had great lyrics. I
> have no idea if the lyrics are good because I've never
> been interested in figuring out what they are supposed to
> be saying.

I should clarify.

What I meant by "great" lyrics was that somewhere along the line,
I was finally able to relate to the likes of "when I was younger,
so much younger than today". So they became meaningful to my life
circumstance. To have said they're "great" unqualified would have
implied I've a deep understanding of the better/worse-ness of lyrics
in some objective sense, which I don't. But it's pretty common
for people to conflate liking something with it being objective
good/great, as though their personal taste were some objective
measuring device.

I've written songs with lyrics. In every single case the lyrics were
a reflection of personal experience. What they might mean to others,
well, no idea. As I've seen written elsewhere "the words are mine;
the meaning is *you*", which I believe is trying to say that what
we falsely assume is *in* words ("meaning") is actually something
we bring to their table, as it were. We bring the meaning. And
it's our individual meaning, living purely in the context of our
relative understanding (never mind how we're feeling in a given
moment). It may happen to overlay with the meaning others bring,
but even then, who can say given we're all coming at meaning from
a completely different inner conceptual context (aka mind)?

> I have no idea what most of my favorite songs are
> about. Never cared to examine that. If I want somebody's
> opinion about social issues or about other aspects of life,
> I wouldn't ask some musician. I may as well ask my plumber
> before I ask John Lennon, or Bob Dylan.

I always ask my wife, because then I know I'm getting The Truth
instead of heresy. ;-)

My all time favorite is "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away". It
happened to mean something more personally relevant when I was
younger, which as basically a sort of teenage personal pity party
for not garnering the attention of girls the way others seemed
to. But the music itself has remained a constant #1 for me, first
and foremost the vocal. Oh my God, that vocal....

(FWIW, I put it on continuous loop (well... kept manually hitting
the "back" button given my car CD player didn't have the notion
of automatic replay..) between the funeral home and where my mom
was laid to rest. I can't say whether it was "fitting" from others'
points of view, but doing that really helped cement a lot of memories
from that day.)

> I once put "St. James Infirmary" by Bobby Bland on a
> playlist I was making for having sex too, thinking that
> it was something romantic. My girlfriend had to tell me
> that it's about a guy going down to the clinic because he
> got VD from his woman.

That makes me think I'd like to read accounts of some of your
Valentine's Day experiences. ;-)

--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com