Topic: Lucy In The Sky... (Read 34667 times)

Kaleidoscope_Eyes · « **Reply #40 on:** March 06, 2007, 02:41:51 AM »

how true

BlueMeanie · « **Reply #41 on:** March 06, 2007, 09:16:55 PM »

That picture is way too advanced for any kid of 4. Even a child that was advanced artistically would not be able to render those images with that degree of subtety at that age. It looks like a very poor attempt by an adult to make a childlike picture. Far too much detail.

raxo · « **Reply #42 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:06:46 PM »

What special thing do all of you see on it that an advanced kid couldn't make? He could have had the whole idea and could have developed it through hours, adding things and someone else's (teacher, for example) ideas? Why not? ... I'm not an expert but I've seen amazing pictures from kids at early age ... and scrwals too ... just like those!!!

P.S. Because we're talking about this picture, aren't we?

Bobber · « **Reply #43 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:19:51 PM »

Indeed, you're not an expert. A kid can have that imagination, no problem. But no way he or she can put that imagination in a drawning. I recently read Julian came home with the picture somewhere late 1966. He was three and a half years old. Again, and I agree sincerely with Blue Meanie: no way a kid of that age can make a drawing like this.

GreenApple · « **Reply #44 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:25:57 PM »

Kids of that age are not very good at getting dimension and balance right. And their colouring tends to slip away from the subject area. For a child to make corrections to it, it would have taken a large piece of paper. We just don't know how big this sheet of paper was. Maybe it was made with assistance from the teacher to the point of close involvement. The teacher may also have suggested the musical connotation aspects to it, if they had known about the fame of Julian's father.

raxo · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2007, 10:28:54 PM »

I've seen lots of drawings from very kids but they were not advanced ones, I'm afraid :-/ ... so I'm not an expert on drawings by advanced kids, as I've admited before, are you one? ... I agree with Kaleidoscope_Eyes here ...Have you taken a look at your own old drawings from school? I've done and I was amasilly surprized! ... so there are very special things on the picture ... for example? what's special about that awful guitar? ??) and about the rest? ... sincerely, I can't see why it's so difficult to believe that it was Julian -about 3 and 3/4 year old- (had to be in early 1967 if Paul was composing with John at home for the new album and if John said once that Paul wanted to record and John had no new stuff ... apart from Strawberry Fields Forever, of course)?

GreenApple · « **Reply #46 on:** March 06, 2007, 11:19:53 PM »

I wonder if this will become like the 'ahhh...' issue with A Day In The Life?

raxo · « **Reply #47 on:** March 06, 2007, 11:21:06 PM »

Oh, please naaaah! :

djinn · « **Reply #48 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:31:53 AM »

Hi;
John gave me a copy of the Hand written song Lucy in the sky!

As far as I remeber

Lucy in the sky was told to John by his son!

The drawings are John's & how he saw things!
Like Deft Ted Danuter & me & the Wrestling dog!

John loved to do drawings as such!

I can't say if his kid did the drawing or not --- not for sure!

I can say this--

There are many kids like Amadaus who wrote concerts full all instruments at at the age of 6!

Eistien had e=Mc2 & dropped out of 3rd grade!

In japan & china --there are many kids who do great things that adults wont-or can't!

(Gifted )comes to mind! Autisum like my son has--he can do computors from age 4 up!

He writes music & storys since age 6!

I know many kids like Bruce & Brandon Lee did many movies & action school & regular school is not something
Normal people did or talked of!

So ask your self--were do you put limits on your self!

I know kids just do things & alot of the time with out questions!

Kaleidoscope_Eyes · « **Reply #49 on:** March 07, 2007, 03:14:24 AM »

I dont see why Julian couldn't have drawn it... It's not a piece of art

Bobber · « **Reply #50 on:** March 07, 2007, 08:51:10 AM »

Quote from: 596

I dont see why Julian couldn't have drawn it... It's not a piece of art

Because it is much too detailed and precise. And then, Julian is a pretty nice boy, but let's be honest. He can't be compared with Mozart or Einstein.

Kevin · « **Reply #51 on:** March 07, 2007, 09:37:41 AM »

I don't know now. I haven't been able to find any other dissenting voices. Everyone in Beatle world (including Pete Shotton who says he was there) verify it.
Maybe Julian just got lucky. As he says he was always bringing home artwork - maybe most were so childish and cr*p that they didn't inspire his dad to write a song. Maybe on this one he just bet the odds and came up with something half decent. If you give a chimp a brush and paint eventually it'll do something concieved as art. I think in this case the burden of proof is on the doubters, and it's going to be a hard case to win.

GreenApple · « **Reply #52 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:27:51 PM »

Quote from: 185

[...] If you give a chimp a brush and paint eventually it'll do something concieved as art. [...]

I saw a documentary about art last year, where an art expert was presented with a painting and told that it was created by a child. The art expert agreed it was true art. Then, the art expert was told that it was created by a chimpanzee. Suddenly, after hearing this, the art expert said that it was not after all true art! Subjective perceptions can also come into these matters.

GreenApple · « **Reply #53 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:50:56 PM »

Wasn't George inspired to write the song Circles after seeing a child's drawing?

Kevin · « **Reply #54 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:52:53 PM »

Quote from: 139

I saw a documentary about art last year, where an art expert was presented with a painting and told that it was created by a child. The art expert agreed it was true art. Then, the art expert was told that it was created by a chimpanzee. Suddenly, after hearing this, the art expert said that it was not after all true art! Subjective perceptions can also come into these matters.

I just read "The Rise and Fall of The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. He took a rather unfortunate line (I thought) that because animal art can fool critics they must share some of our perceptions/abilities etc. I think it just proves, as in the case ypou mentioned, what a bunch of pretentious tossers art critics (and a good few artists) really are.

GreenApple · « **Reply #55 on:** March 07, 2007, 12:59:28 PM »

Quote from: 185

I just read "The Rise and Fall of The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. He took a rather unfortunate line (I thought) that because animal art can fool critics they must share some of our perceptions/abilities etc. I think it just proves, as in the case ypou mentioned, what a bunch of pretentious tossers art critics (and a good few artists) really are.

Not to wander off the subject too much, but I think you're right certainly as far as modern art is concerned - should be relabelled modern curios IMO. Most modern art I've seen merited only a brief look for me. Don't know about the critics, but seems to me that art is good art if you like it. We don't really need art critics to interpret it for us.

raxo · « **Reply #56 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:13:46 PM »

So we need no experts at all

... serendipity then! Go, Julian, go

... I think that even Ringo said once that he was present too when Julian showed the drawing to John :

...

GreenApple · « **Reply #57 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:15:55 PM »

Most artistic album cover ever?

Bobber · « **Reply #58 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:16:43 PM »

Sure. Everybody was there. Even djinn. We all have our own truth on certain matters, obviously. The story can be true of course, but then, what's the evidence that it's this particular drawing?

raxo · « **Reply #59 on:** March 07, 2007, 01:19:14 PM »

And why not? ... if it inspired a song!

For those who hadn't read their Anthology Book ... this is what some of them said about the song and its origin:

           RINGO: 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' and all the madness that went on around it was absolutely bonkers. I was actually with John when Julian came in with this little kid's painting, a crazy little painting, and John (as the dad) said, 'Oh, what's that?' and Julian said, 'It's Lucy in the sky with diamonds.' And then John got busy.

            PAUL: I showed up at John's house and he had a drawing Julian had done at school with the title 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' above it. Then we went up to his music room and wrote the song, swapping psychedelic suggestions as we went. I remember coming up with 'cellophane flowers' and 'newspaper taxis' and John answered with things like 'kaleidoscope eyes' and 'looking glass ties'. We never noticed the LSD initial until it was pointed out later - by which point people didn't believe us.

            JOHN: I saw Mel Torme introducing a Lennon-McCartney show, saying how 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' was about LSD. It never was, and nobody believes me. I swear to God, or swear to Mao, or to anybody you like, I had no idea it spelt LSD. This is the truth: my son came home with a drawing and showed me this strange-looking woman flying around. I said, 'What is it?' and he said, 'It's Lucy in the sky with diamonds,' and I thought, 'That's beautiful.' I immediately wrote a song about it. And the song had gone out, the whole album had been published, and somebody noticed that the letters spelt out LSD. I had no idea, and of course after that I was checking all the songs to see what the letters spelt out. They didn't spell out anything, none of the others. It wasn't about that at all.71

            The images were from Alice in Wonderland. It was Alice in the boat. She is buying an egg and it turns into Humpty-Dumpty. The woman serving in the shop turns into a sheep, and the next minute they're rowing in a rowing boat somewhere - and I was visualising that. There was also the image of the female who would someday come save me - 'a girl with kaleidoscope eyes' who would come out of the sky. It's not an acid song.80

            GEORGE: I liked 'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' a lot. John always had a way of having an edge to his songs. I particularly liked the sounds on it where I managed to superimpose some Indian instruments onto the Western music. There were specific things that I had written, like 'Within You Without You', to try to feature the Indian instruments; but under normal circumstances that wouldn't work on a Western song like 'Lucy', which has chord changes and modulations (whereas tambouras and sitars stay in the same key forever). I liked the way the drone of the tamboura could be fitted in there.

from here: http://wingspan.ru/bookseng/ant/10.html

News:

Author Topic: Lucy In The Sky... (Read 34667 times)

BlueMeanie

Bobber

Bobber

Bobber