Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DaveRam]

As with a lot of Beatles songs i find  " For No One " quite ambiguous is it about lost love or wanting to possess someone ?
Paul sings the song in a very dispassionate way almost cold ? Which makes me think it's more about possession than love ?
What do you think of this song ?

[Kevin]

I have a special affection for this song - it was the first time I connected with a song on a personal level. I'd just broken up with my first real girlfriend (ie the 1st girl that let me sleep with her*)  and my heart had been ripped out. I heard this song and thought "my God - he understands! This is about me!!"
I think Paul's distance vocally helps the song - stops it being overtly sentimental or maudelin.  Same with Yesterday - he resists any attempt to overwork it. A perfect song, better than God Only Knows in my book. And that horn solo - superb.

*Where are you now Shona? Not too fat I hope.

[DaveRam]

I think it's quite a dark song Kevin, it's beautiful in it's execution and your right much better than  "God Only Knows "
It's a song that as always intrigued me it's bittersweet which i like.
It's a very mature song for such a young man to pen  ? it's got perception like Hey Jude ? but i still think it's got a dark underbelly like it's creator ?

 " Shona go put the kettle on for me "

[Kevin]

Lots of people see this darkside in Macca's work - but I don't think I get it. I remember Indica saying he thought "When I'm 64" and "Yellow Submarine" were both quite sinister. There seems to be something I'm not hearing.
I agree he can be chauvinistic, but in the 60's that was par for the course (Just Like A Woman/Yesterdays Papers/Run For Your Life.)
Not sure about the "mature for his age" bit.He was 26, probably when most people are at their creative peak.

[BlueMeanie]

I can't see a dark side in anything McCartney's ever done, to be honest. Especially not 'For No One'. It's bittersweet, boy meets girl, falls in love, loses girl, breaks heart. I do wonder if their was anything personal in it, or if it was written about someone else, as it's not a subject that he hadn't visited before. One of my favourite McCartney songs.

[DaveRam]

I never been sure about Paul sometimes i think sentimental old bugger and other times i think i bet you could be a right bastard ? it's the control freak i see in him and that sometimes comes out in his  work . Take a song like " Lovelist Thing " one of the bonus tracks on  " Flowers In The Dirt " thats very sinister  ?
When i say mature i mean the lyric seems to be that of a much older man who's been in the relationship a long time?

[Kevin]

I never been sure about Paul sometimes i think sentimental old bugger and other times i think i bet you could be a right bastard ? it's the control freak i see in him and that sometimes comes out in his  work . Take a song like " Lovelist Thing " one of the bonus tracks on  " Flowers In The Dirt " thats very sinister  ?
When i say mature i mean the lyric seems to be that of a much older man who's been in the relationship a long time?

My big criticism of Paul (musically) is that he seems very disingenious. He's an excellent songwriter, but you never feel that he's writing from the heart. It always feels like he's doing his job. "You want sentimental? - I can do sentimental. You want heavy? - I can do heavy. etc."
Sometimes I'm not sure whether his ability to turn his hand to any genre is an asset or a liability.

[DaveRam]

Thats true Kevin, he does'nt often show his true feelings in song Maybe I'm Amazed, Here Today and Riding To Vanity Fair are the exceptions were he does lift the vale and tells us what he's thinking ?
But as a rule i think your right about him been disingenious , lets give them a storey song but lets not tell them anything about how i feel .

[BlueMeanie]

Thats true Kevin, he does'nt often show his true feelings in song Maybe I'm Amazed, Here Today and Riding To Vanity Fair are the exceptions were he does lift the vale and tells us what he's thinking ?
But as a rule i think your right about him been disingenious , lets give them a storey song but lets not tell them anything about how i feel .

Paul once said that he could write a song about anything, it didn't have to have been personal, he could have read something in a book or newspaper. Whereas John always said that it had to come from within, he couldn't just make up a love song, for instance, if it hadn't happened to him. So you never really know whether Paul's songs are genuine or not. Though the one's you mentioned are good examples.

[Kevin]

Though I'm not familiar with all his solo work, I think it would be a safe bet to say that you could listen to all of Pauls work 1962-2007 and not really pick out the man behind it all. Could you (just from listening to his music) pick out when he was depressed, or when the band broke up or when Linda died? Whereas listening to John there is at least some approximation to the life behind it. (which always give John that credability edge of being the Beatle that was real )
Though that doesn't mean he always produced the better music.

[BlueMeanie]

Though I'm not familiar with all his solo work, I think it would be a safe bet to say that you could listen to all of Pauls work 1962-2007 and not really pick out the man behind it all. Could you (just from listening to his music) pick out when he was depressed, or when the band broke up or when Linda died? Whereas listening to John there is at least some approximation to the life behind it. (which always give John that credability edge of being the Beatle that was real )
Though that doesn't mean he always produced the better music.

It's hard to find more than a few songs of his that are obviously personal. I suppose it's possible that he's accepted early on that his life is going to be under intense personal scrutiny, and so to give the media even more fuel by writing about it would be a little suicidal. In fact, I may have just realised what it is about his music that I don't like. He writes great melodies, and hooks, and can string lyrics together in his sleep. And that's the thing, his lyrics generally sound like that's what he's done! They're empty and impersonal And for someone who's been as prolific as he has, that's quite a damming statement. You rarely feel that he's 'spoken' to you, or from the heart. There have been exceptions of course, but generally the content of his songs leave me a bit wanting.

It's lucky that I can say that here and only come away with a black eye, or a bloodied nose. Most other forums would string me up for blasphemy.

[An Apple Beatle]

Really great thread....i feel it's a good general commentary about relationship breakdown and to me I have always interpreted from Paul that he has cleverly left in that ambiguity for us to dissect....Infact, ambiguity has been a great part of The Beatles lyrical success. To sing 'You & She' in that way sounds that either he is talking to a good old friend or sharing with you, your thoughts. 'I want her, I need her, I think she needs me etc etc' would sound weedy in context to the great melody, chords and of course that dis-enchanted, perhaps neutral voice. And the melancholic horn part....well it's wistful perfection. Like you Kevin, I felt a great personal closeness to Paul when relating his lyrics to some of my earlier female experiences.
Could maybe have been inspired after a good old drunken chat with a close friend, complaining about his woes.

Been so long now since i read my old biogs but was it attributed to the break-up of him & Asher?

[Kevin]

....Infact, ambiguity has been a great part of The Beatles lyrical success.

I'd go as far as to say an essential part.

[harihead]

I'm enjoying this thread also.

Been so long now since i read my old biogs but was it attributed to the break-up of him & Asher?

Not a breakup, but a lack of closeness that Paul occasionally complained about. John speculated that it had been an argument. In "I'm Looking Through You", Paul said it was when Jane was busy with her job and wouldn't take his phone calls. It makes perfect sense that Jane would end up in some of his songs, since it was a 5-year relationship that never quite got together.

Paul once said that he could write a song about anything, it didn't have to have been personal, he could have read something in a book or newspaper. Whereas John always said that it had to come from within, he couldn't just make up a love song, for instance, if it hadn't happened to him.

I'm surprised John would say that, since he and Paul "wrote to order" for many years, and many of these completely made-up songs were big hits. But then, John delighted in contradicting himself. (John did prefer, at least in retrospect, those songs that were personally meaningful.)

In Paul's autobiography he points out at least twice that he writes songs that were completely made up, whereas George had to feel the subject was somehow personally meaningful (he was distinguishing his style from George's). Paul was pleased to be able to write songs based on nothing; I guess he saw it as being extra flexible.

I happen to like personal meaning in a song, which is why I suppose I'm drawn first to George (who was always sharing his thoughts) and then to John (who often shared his thoughts, but sometimes in a cagey way). Paul has written some great tunes that I find really moving. "For No One" is one of those, so is "Elanor Rigby". But even great songs like "Let Me Roll It" and "Nineteen Hundred And Eighty Five" just can't hold my interest because there's just not enough to them. It's like, I would have to make up the whole meaning myself; the lyrics themselves don't culminate in anything.

I guess it's like appreciating some forms of modern art. People say, "Ah, I see in this smeary canvas a great conflict between good and evil!" I might say, "I wish the artist had taken drawing lessons". When someone shares their ideas with me, I prefer to know what the ideas are. So often Paul's music to me is sort of like popcorn. It might be a pleasant experience, but it doesn't fill me up.

[Kevin]

. So often Paul's music to me is sort of like popcorn. It might be a pleasant experience, but it doesn't fill me up.

Oooh I like that. But try watching a movie while eating a chinese. It's filling, but it messes up your shirt, and what the f*ck do you do with the chopsticks afterwards?
That doesn't work does it?
I'll be back.

[BlueMeanie]

It might be a pleasant experience, but it doesn't fill me up.

That's hit the nail smack on the head. I never get a thrill out of Macca's solo stuff, though I like a lot of it. I think the only exceptions - and I admit to not knowing it all - are those that Dave mentioned: Maybe I'm Amazed, Here Today, and Riding To Vanity Fair. Though my feelings about Lennon are not unknown here, there's more of him in POB (heavy going, and self indulgent though it is) than McCartney has done in a lifetime of solo work.

[Kevin]

To me POB shines likes a beacon from all their solo works. I still find some of McCartneys stuff very satisfying though. Band On The Run and Venus and Mars mostly. When I hear Letting Go, or that point in BOTR (song) when the accoustic guitars crash in on the third part - it takes my breath away. While there is something lacking, I prefer his studied craftsmanship of this period to the dull personal musings of either George or John. They're like eating baked beans, full of substanence but drearily plain. C'mon.

[BlueMeanie]

As a songwriting craftsman he can't be faulted (well, there's always Mull Of Kintyre). But sometimes I hear a cracking tune from him, and think - what a shame about the lyric. Not that all pop music has to have great lyrics. Some of the best pop songs of the last 30 years have had some pretty nonsensical lyrics. That itself has even added to the quality of the song, at times. I think we probably expect to much from him.

[Kevin]

I've always thought the true strength of The Beatles was them having two excellent, complimentary songwriters. If you miss John's lyrics on a Paul solo record you sure as hell miss Paul's melodies and inventiveness on John's. You miss them both on George's.
I only buy solo stuff if I like it (as opposed to Beatle obsessive collecting.) 1970 seperates two very different worlds for me.

[BlueMeanie]

Yep, I've never bought any of the solo stuff when it came out. I'm a Beatles fan, but the solo stuff has to be worthy for me to part with the hard earned. Always wait at least six months and get them cheaper. Or six years!!