DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Songs => Song Of The Week Series => Topic started by: nimrod on May 08, 2014, 03:20:04 AM
-
"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is a song by the Beatles, sung by Paul McCartney on their album Abbey Road. It was written by McCartney, though credited to Lennon–McCartney. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is a pop song with dark, eccentric lyrics about a man named Maxwell who commits murder with a hammer.
The song was written in October 1968, intended for the album The Beatles, but missed off due to time constraints. It was rehearsed again three months later, in January 1969, at Twickenham film studios during the Get Back sessions but would not be recorded for another six months.
Linda McCartney reports that Paul had become interested in avant-garde theatre and had immersed himself in the writings of Alfred Jarry. This influence is reflected in the story and tone of the song, and also explains how Paul came across Jarry's word “pataphysical”, which occurs in the lyrics.
Beatles guitarist George Harrison described the song in 1969 as "one of those instant whistle-along tunes which some people hate, and other people really like. It's a fun song, but it's kind of a drag because Maxwell keeps on destroying everyone like his girlfriend then the school teacher, and then, finally, the judge."[this quote needs a citation] Lennon described it as "more of Paul's granny music". In 1994, McCartney said that the song merely epitomises the downfalls of life, being "my analogy for when something goes wrong out of the blue, as it so often does, as I was beginning to find out at that time in my life. I wanted something symbolic of that, so to me it was some fictitious character called Maxwell with a silver hammer. I don't know why it was silver, it just sounded better than Maxwell's hammer. It was needed for scanning. We still use that expression now when something unexpected happens."
On 9 August 1967 Kenneth Halliwell killed his lover Joe Orton with nine hammer blows to the head, and then overdosed on sleeping pills. Their bodies were discovered late the following morning, when a chauffeur arrived at the door of their Noel Road flat in Islington to collect Orton for a meeting with The Beatles regarding a screenplay he had written for them.
The recording subsequently drew comment from the band: Lennon said "I was ill after the accident when they did most of that track, and it really ground George and Ringo into the ground recording it", adding later "I hate it, 'cos all I remember is the track ... [Paul] did everything to make it into a single, and it never was and it never could have been."
Harrison characterised the song as "fruity" and commented "we spent a hell of a lot of time on it", and later "after a while, we did a good job on it". McCartney recalled: "The only arguments were about things like me spending three days on Maxwell's Silver Hammer. I remember George saying, 'You've taken three days, it's only a song.' – 'Yeah, but I want to get it right. I've got some thoughts on this one.' It was early-days Moog work and it did take a bit of time"
Personnel
Paul McCartney – lead and backing vocals, overdubbed electric guitar, piano, Moog synthesizer
George Harrison – backing vocal, electric guitar, six-string bass
Ringo Starr – backing vocal, drums, anvil
George Martin – organ
Mal Evans – anvil
Wonder if this is the only song in history with a credit for an Anvil player ?
-
I liked the bizarre story in the song as a youngster. This hammer that seemed to be protecting Maxwell whenever he was in bother. Musically I thought it was catchy and fun. I find it a bit tedious now. It's not a song that bears repeated listening. I'm afraid it's a bit of a skipper.
-
Side One of 'Abbey Road' is truly eclectic and, given the gems sprinkled all around it like 'Something', I've always rather liked 'Maxwell'. It wouldn't get in my Beatles Top 50, yet serves its purpose perfectly on the album.
However, speaking from a London standpoint, I can't vouch for the rest of the world, this song (along with 'Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da', 'Yellow Submarine' and 'Octopus's Garden') is the go-to track for anyone who wants to slag off the group.
-
Agree with the above. Not one that I care much for.
:)
-
I like some things about it, but the chorus is weak and annoying.
-
Side One of 'Abbey Road' is truly eclectic and, given the gems sprinkled all around it like 'Something', I've always rather liked 'Maxwell'. It wouldn't get in my Beatles Top 50, yet serves its purpose perfectly on the album.
However, speaking from a London standpoint, I can't vouch for the rest of the world, this song (along with 'Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da', 'Yellow Submarine' and 'Octopus's Garden') is the go-to track for anyone who wants to slag off the group.
Yes Ive found that, people cite Maxwell & Obla Di as 'the kind of rubbish the Beatles spewed out'
I could never actually stand this song, it drives me crazy and brings the album down imo
Your typical rock music fan in 1969 whilst drooling over the rest of the album thought this was positively gruesome, Im not surprised the rest of the group hated it also. Spending 4 days on this would be enough to drive anyone to drink !!
Paul is a mega talented songwriter as he has proved, but occasionally he worked on inexplicable tripe like this (The Frog Chorus ?)
-
Yes Ive found that, people cite Maxwell & Obla Di as 'the kind of rubbish the Beatles spewed out'
I could never actually stand this song, it drives me crazy and brings the album down imo
Your typical rock music fan in 1969 whilst drooling over the rest of the album thought this was positively gruesome, Im not surprised the rest of the group hated it also. Spending 4 days on this would be enough to drive anyone to drink !!
Paul is a mega talented songwriter as he has proved, but occasionally he worked on inexplicable tripe like this (The Frog Chorus ?)
Four days? Heavens. John was smart to call in sick. George seems remarkably upbeat about it in the quotes, all things considered.
-
Wonder if this is the only song in history with a credit for an Anvil player ?
;D
Giuseppe Verdi - Il Trovatore - Anvil Chorus (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMMVHAINFM#ws)
I like Maxwell's Silver Hammer well enough. The Abbey Road Medley is the highlight of the album for me though.
-
I like this one because it's kind of weird and twisted. Paul could be pretty creepy at times.
-
I'd never thought of 'Maxwell' in relation to the White Album, but it would have made more sense on that record.
I wonder why songs like 'Come And Get It', 'Goodbye', 'Every Night' or 'Maybe I'm Amazed' (all stronger Paul songs) didn't nudge themselves above 'Maxwell' in the pecking order for Abbey Road?
Still, you have to ask yourself, 'Is Abbey Road absolutely fabulous?', and the answer is clearly 'Yes'!
-
I'd never thought of 'Maxwell' in relation to the White Album, but it would have made more sense on that record.
I wonder why songs like 'Come And Get It', 'Goodbye', 'Every Night' or 'Maybe I'm Amazed' (all stronger Paul songs) didn't nudge themselves above 'Maxwell' in the pecking order for Abbey Road?
Still, you have to ask yourself, 'Is Abbey Road absolutely fabulous?', and the answer is clearly 'Yes'!
Yep. Love abbey road.
Did Paul ever intend Come and Get it for anyone but badfinger? The demo of it a just him (again) so it doesn't suggest he was trying to get the others interested in it.
Paul must really have fancied this song though. If he tried it on the White Album, Let it Be and finally on Abbey Road.
-
;D
Giuseppe Verdi - Il Trovatore - Anvil Chorus ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEMMVHAINFM#ws[/url])
I like Maxwell's Silver Hammer well enough. The Abbey Road Medley is the highlight of the album for me though.
I think side two is a joy from beginning to end. First side has it's lower points. Mainly maxwell. I don't mind octopus. Has some great guitar by George.
-
I'd never thought of 'Maxwell' in relation to the White Album, but it would have made more sense on that record.
I wonder why songs like 'Come And Get It', 'Goodbye', 'Every Night' or 'Maybe I'm Amazed' (all stronger Paul songs) didn't nudge themselves above 'Maxwell' in the pecking order for Abbey Road?
It sounds (from Johns comments) like Paul wanted this to be a single, but the others vetoed that, Paul obviously loved it though.
Thats what I mean about Paul in my earlier comments though, to you & me and most Beatle fans (and even Lennon) he had much better songs as you name above, but there was this strange & silly side to him that made him admire this kind of immature stuff - what John called his 'granny music', Im assuming he lumped it in with songs like Honey Pie (I also cite C Moon)
Besides the ones you mention Id have preferred Step Inside Love, a great song imo he gave to Cilla but his demo is on anthology....he should have spent 4 days on that !
-
I'd never thought of 'Maxwell' in relation to the White Album, but it would have made more sense on that record.
I've always thought it would be well suited to the White Album.
I like this song, although it's not a top Beatle favorite for me. The juxtaposition of the sunny tune and the dark nature of the lyrics was jarring the first few times I heard it.
-
However, speaking from a London standpoint, I can't vouch for the rest of the world, this song (along with 'Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da', 'Yellow Submarine' and 'Octopus's Garden') is the go-to track for anyone who wants to slag off the group.
I think "Yellow Submarine" doesn't deserve to be mentioned among those songs; it's a child-like classic, and I don't find it annoying at all. Put "The Long And Winding Road" in that place. Anyway, I can't say I hate any Beatles song.
With regard to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", in my opinion it's the worst song from Abbey Road and a huge let down after great songs like "Come Together" and "Something". I prefer other "fillers" like "What Goes On" or "Wait".
-
I loved this song as a little kid. I guess the melody got me and I wasn't too concerned about the lyrics. As an adult though it suddenly dawned on me that, yeah...this is a dark song! Like Kathy mentioned I always think about how Paul cloaked dismal lyrics in a bright melody, just like he did in "Another Day". So John was absent from most but not all of the recording of this? I wonder then if it's true that Paul's little laugh as he delivered the word "writing" was precipitated by John mooning him when he sang "behind". I read that somewhere. I suppose I wouldn't classify this as a top favorite but Abbey Road wouldn't be Abbey Road without it.
-
Get Back Sessions January 1969...
The Beatles - Maxwell's Silver Hammer - Demo Quality Restored!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Fa0Mz92RLM#ws)
-
^^^
I love hearing these demos. And this picture makes me laugh! Poor Ringo; they ran out of helmets so he had to put his boot on his head. I need to look for this one to add to my collection. LOL
-
(http://i56.tinypic.com/rsc2mu.jpg)
They certainly made a bold fashion statement in 1969
-
They certainly made a bold fashion statement in 1969
Indeed! Thanks Barry.
-
Yep, Nimrod, why not polish up 'Step Inside Love', an absolute jewel on Anthology 3? A stronger song I'd have thought than 'Maxwell'.
I'm sure I remember reading in the much-missed Beatles Monthly (around March-May 1969?) that 'She Came In Through The Bathroom Window' was due to be a single.
That makes no sense when you hear the Abbey Road snippet but complete sense when you hear the full Anthology 3 version, and it's my favourite song in the whole Anthology series.
-
Not only is this a horrible song on the album, its one of the Beatles worst songs ever written in my opinion. Its annoying, plods along, an atmosphere killer, too long, and down right crappy. Terrible song.
-
Yep, Nimrod, why not polish up 'Step Inside Love', an absolute jewel on Anthology 3? A stronger song I'd have thought than 'Maxwell'.
I'm sure I remember reading in the much-missed Beatles Monthly (around March-May 1969?) that 'She Came In Through The Bathroom Window' was due to be a single.
That makes no sense when you hear the Abbey Road snippet but complete sense when you hear the full Anthology 3 version, and it's my favourite song in the whole Anthology series.
I read somewhere that Paul originally titled it Come Inside Love.
Changed it for some reason ???
-
Not only is this a horrible song on the album, its one of the Beatles worst songs ever written in my opinion. Its annoying, plods along, an atmosphere killer, too long, and down right crappy. Terrible song.
(http://i.imgur.com/MgHBO4V.gif)
-
To be honest, I don't remember this song! I must have listened to it once in my whole life and it obviously didn't impress me as I did not listen to it again.....!
-
Paul's explanation for 'Step Inside Love' was that the phrase was what neighbours in Liverpool would say when inviting someone inside their house.
But 'Come Inside Love' would work just as well, 'Step Inside Love' probably just sounded better as a title to him.
-
Come Inside Love would have worked as quite a dirty double entendre.
-
This song isn't so bad. It was Paul's Mack The Knife...
BOBBY DARIN - Mack The Knife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg85tWH97jo#)
-
Paul's explanation for 'Step Inside Love' was that the phrase was what neighbours in Liverpool would say when inviting someone inside their house.
But 'Come Inside Love' would work just as well, 'Step Inside Love' probably just sounded better as a title to him.
I like the sound of it too. Neat bit of trivia, that!
-
Come Inside Love would have worked as quite a dirty double entendre.
ha2ha
-
Come Inside Love would have worked as quite a dirty double entendre.
Yes. Quite. They were more innocent times back then. But nobody could sing it with a straight face today.
-
When I first heard this as a kid I always envisaged Max's hammer being independent of him. Just appearing and whacking whoever was bumming max out. (Not sure how Joan fits in that, unless the hammer was jealous).
When I grew up and realised it was him wielding a hammer, that completely changed the feel to me. Mac is basically a serial killer with a hammer. Quite a departure lyric wise for our Paul.
I suppose juxtaposing the sinister lyrics with jaunty music hall was cute in a way. I still can't claim to want to listen to it though.
-
When I first heard this as a kid I always envisaged Max's hammer being independent of him. Just appearing and whacking whoever was bumming max out. (Not sure how Joan fits in that, unless the hammer was jealous).
When I grew up and realised it was him wielding a hammer, that completely changed the feel to me. Mac is basically a serial killer with a hammer. Quite a departure lyric wise for our Paul.
I suppose juxtaposing the sinister lyrics with jaunty music hall was cute in a way. I still can't claim to want to listen to it though.
On 9 August 1967 Kenneth Halliwell killed Joe Orton with nine hammer blows to the head and then overdosed on Nembutal sleeping pills. Halliwell died first. Their bodies were discovered late the following morning, when a chauffeur arrived at the door of their Noel Road flat in Islington to collect Orton for a meeting with The Beatles regarding a screenplay he had written for them.
Maxwell = Hallwell
Joan = Joe
-
When I first heard this as a kid I always envisaged Max's hammer being independent of him. Just appearing and whacking whoever was bumming max out. (Not sure how Joan fits in that, unless the hammer was jealous).
When I grew up and realised it was him wielding a hammer, that completely changed the feel to me. Mac is basically a serial killer with a hammer. Quite a departure lyric wise for our Paul.
I suppose juxtaposing the sinister lyrics with jaunty music hall was cute in a way. I still can't claim to want to listen to it though.
A silver hammer. Click here (http://uploads.ungrounded.net/239000/239712_the_Maxwell_Edison_Story.s.swf) for the video.
(It's a cartoon with a bit of violence)
-
A silver hammer. Click here ([url]http://uploads.ungrounded.net/239000/239712_the_Maxwell_Edison_Story.s.swf[/url]) for the video.
(It's a cartoon with a bit of violence)
Ok. A blingy serial killer then. ;)
-
Ok. A blingy serial killer then. ;)
Clang...Clang!
Wait! Could it be? No, I don't think so.
-
Indeed! Thanks Barry.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2zf99c4.jpg)
-
Steve Martin...
Maxwell's Silver Hammer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTNIqJE80nQ#ws)
From the crappy film Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
-
John was smart to call in sick.
John recorded his own version in January 1969...
The Beatles Maxwell's Silver Hammer Sung By John Jan 1969 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K06q3k9qFaU#)
-
From the crappy film Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
I went and bought this in protest:
(http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee372/KelMar1963/_57_zps41a146e1.jpg)
Mine is in better shape.
-
John recorded his own version in January 1969...
Classic. Do you think that was done when Paul had nipped out to the loo? Can't hear any bass.
-
Classic. Do you think that was done when Paul had nipped out to the loo? Can't hear any bass.
I reckon so, Moog. John doesn't look all too happy here...
The Beatles - Maxwell's Silver hammer (from let it be) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkNKahFCz20#ws)
-
I reckon so, Moog. John doesn't look all too happy here...
No. I'm not sure he was giving it his all during the whistling break.
Mal looks to be enjoying himself though.
-
Maxwell isn't my favorite song but... I like to be entertained more than R&R philosophized and a song like this is if nothing else interesting. At the chorus I really like when the acoustic guitar (Paul-George?) comes in and adds incredible texture. Georges electric guitar is fantastic and add his bass and backup singing and for someone who doesn't like the song he sure adds so much to it! In the LIB rehearsal film from the earlier post his foot is sure keeping time to it as well. Moog is well done as and added instrument not dominating but giving the song something rarely heard up to this point in music. If John chose to be sick so be it, it came out good anyway!
I think Paul gets it as I here a little bit of laughter on one of the verses.
I had this on this winter and my wife Nancy was getting ready in the other room and she came in suddenly and a little surprised /agitated said" this songs about a guy that goes around killing people with a hammer!!!"
Yup!
-
Come Inside Love would have worked as quite a dirty double entendre.
...the song was subsequently banned in South Africa under claims of prostitutes using the hook line as an invitation call. “It could have been worse,” said The Beatles road manager Tony Bramwell, “Paul’s original idea was to call it ‘Come Inside Love.’” ;D
10 Stories Behind Beatles Songs (http://listverse.com/2010/05/16/10-stories-behind-beatles-songs/)
-
I had this on this winter and my wife Nancy was getting ready in the other room and she came in suddenly and a little surprised /agitated said" this songs about a guy that goes around killing people with a hammer!!!"
Yup!
I hope you just grinned and kept sharpening a knife or something.
-
I hope you just grinned and kept sharpening a knife or something.
;D
-
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2s6lbpx.jpg)
-
I had this on this winter and my wife Nancy was getting ready in the other room and she came in suddenly and a little surprised /agitated said" this songs about a guy that goes around killing people with a hammer!!!"
That was my exact same reaction the first time I heard the song! Took a minute for the lyrics to sink in.
-
I like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and always have done. Along with "Octopus's Garden" it provides a nice catchy counterbalance to the intensity of side one from Abbey Road.... and reminds us of The Beatles' wonderful eclecticism. Sure it would probably be more at home on the patchwork quilt we know and love as The White Album. But this was 1969, and in the teeth of prog rock and the heavy, intricate era of virtuoso musicianship and po-faced, labyrinthine, multi-layered, over-extended self indulgence it is a refreshing nod towards their eternal penchant for fun and mischief and the simple accessibility which always underpinned their work. A hammer & anvil was a great little touch, in just the same way that the comb & paper sprinkled simple genius onto Lovely Rita, or clanking anchor chains added to the texture of Yellow Submarine.
I'm not convinced John was absent throughout the recording. Surely he and George ARE Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery ("Maxwell must go free!")?? Few but Paul could set the actions of a psychopathic murderer to such a bouncy melody. I could personally sit through this far more easily than "Come Together" or the dreadful (in my opinion) "Oh! Darling", or indeed the at times seemingly interminable "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" which I don't mind but really have to be in the right mood for. Perhaps this comes down to the fact I am NOT a musician. Like most people who like The Beatles, I cannot play a musical instrument but I CAN sing along with them, and like millions of others I enjoy doing so. Maxwell is so infectiously easy to warble along with! This is why I never cared for those boring groups who were clever musicians but crap vocalists (e.g. The Yardbirds).
So there! :P
-
I agree that the Led Zeppelin/lead guitarists angle is tiresome but The Yardbirds' run of As and Bs up to '68 is as enjoyable as any.
-
I like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and always have done. Along with "Octopus's Garden" it provides a nice catchy counterbalance to the intensity of side one from Abbey Road.... and reminds us of The Beatles' wonderful eclecticism. Sure it would probably be more at home on the patchwork quilt we know and love as The White Album. But this was 1969, and in the teeth of prog rock and the heavy, intricate era of virtuoso musicianship and po-faced, labyrinthine, multi-layered, over-extended self indulgence it is a refreshing nod towards their eternal penchant for fun and mischief and the simple accessibility which always underpinned their work. A hammer & anvil was a great little touch, in just the same way that the comb & paper sprinkled simple genius onto Lovely Rita, or clanking anchor chains added to the texture of Yellow Submarine.
I'm not convinced John was absent throughout the recording. Surely he and George ARE Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery ("Maxwell must go free!")?? Few but Paul could set the actions of a psychopathic murderer to such a bouncy melody. I could personally sit through this far more easily than "Come Together" or the dreadful (in my opinion) "Oh! Darling", or indeed the at times seemingly interminable "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" which I don't mind but really have to be in the right mood for. Perhaps this comes down to the fact I am NOT a musician. Like most people who like The Beatles, I cannot play a musical instrument but I CAN sing along with them, and like millions of others I enjoy doing so. Maxwell is so infectiously easy to warble along with!
I agree with a lot of what you say and it's nice to see someone defending this song for a change.
All the songs on Abbey Road are treated with care and imagination which is partly why it's a classic album.
Some of the songs may be weak (Mean Mister Mustard for example) but it doesn't seem to matter.
-
I'm not convinced John was absent throughout the recording. Surely he and George ARE Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery ("Maxwell must go free!")??
I think you're right. Definitely sounds like John in the backing.
-
I think you're right. Definitely sounds like John in the backing.
I think he was maybe absent for a couple of days during the recording due to the car crash, but he made it eventually
thats what I read anyway
-
I like "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and always have done. Along with "Octopus's Garden" it provides a nice catchy counterbalance to the intensity of side one from Abbey Road.... and reminds us of The Beatles' wonderful eclecticism. Sure it would probably be more at home on the patchwork quilt we know and love as The White Album. But this was 1969, and in the teeth of prog rock and the heavy, intricate era of virtuoso musicianship and po-faced, labyrinthine, multi-layered, over-extended self indulgence it is a refreshing nod towards their eternal penchant for fun and mischief and the simple accessibility which always underpinned their work. A hammer & anvil was a great little touch, in just the same way that the comb & paper sprinkled simple genius onto Lovely Rita, or clanking anchor chains added to the texture of Yellow Submarine.
I'm not convinced John was absent throughout the recording. Surely he and George ARE Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery ("Maxwell must go free!")?? Few but Paul could set the actions of a psychopathic murderer to such a bouncy melody. I could personally sit through this far more easily than "Come Together" or the dreadful (in my opinion) "Oh! Darling", or indeed the at times seemingly interminable "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" which I don't mind but really have to be in the right mood for. Perhaps this comes down to the fact I am NOT a musician. Like most people who like The Beatles, I cannot play a musical instrument but I CAN sing along with them, and like millions of others I enjoy doing so. Maxwell is so infectiously easy to warble along with! This is why I never cared for those boring groups who were clever musicians but crap vocalists (e.g. The Yardbirds).
So there! :P
Holy crap, a Mr. Mustard sighting. Great to hear from you.
I hate MSH, but admit that I don't care for the other three songs you listed either, and understand your side completely.
-
This is the wonderful thing about music though isnt it, one mans 'weak' song is anothers mans gem, you listen to something , you form an opinion, which could change but usually doesnt..
I was thinking about this comment form zipp;
Some of the songs may be weak (Mean Mister Mustard for example) but it doesn't seem to matter.
what makes a song weak ? is it weak ? to some MMM may be a really good song, it seems to have an interesting time signature, an interesting melody (the way it goes down in pitch and then goes right back up in pitch.... and an interesting subject, a strange character called Mr Mustard, so when John was kinda ribbing Paul about Maxwell he was being hypocritical when in the next breath he writes a song about Mr bloody Mustard ha2ha
I dont really agree about songs being 'weak' or 'strong', surely it either appeals to you or it doesnt, I wouldnt describe Maxwell as 'weak' in fact it has a really good melody, and very singalongy, and clever in its concept.
I listened to an album the other day by a band called Ocean Colour Scene, a band that had enormous success and apparently are 'Beatle-esque'... sadly it didnt appeal although some of the melodies I quite liked, I guess a lot depends on the overall sound, and A LOT of people love them, I couldve said I thought they were a bit weak, but one mans weakness is another mans strength......we all like different things, English people hate Australian beer !
anyway what am I blathering on about here ? if Id written Maxwell Id be so goddam proud of it so maybe Im the hypocrit ?
please dont shout 'YES' too loudly ;D
-
I've been pondering that similar question lately Nim. What makes a song strong or weak. It's very hard to pin down. And you're right that if it appeals to some people then how would you call it weak.
I think it largely comes down to what you want from music. I've never had much interest for instance in that sort of 70s US rock style. Like Foreigner or Bob Seger for instance. I don't hate it I just don't find it interesting at all. It seems to lack harmonic variety and subtlety in melody. But what it does have is a strong driving beat, chunky heavyish instrumentation, catchy if not overly fascinating melody and usually strong vocals. So people who look for those things in music will love it. Similarly the Beatles charms might mostly escape people looking for that (except for the odd song). So you can't really say that Old Time Rock and Roll is a better or worse song than I am the Walrus (although I know which I prefer by a long way)
That said I wonder if you can objectively compare quality of songs in a similar style. For instance songs that lack any real imagination or don't stray beyond musical and lyrical cliche are probably going to suffer in comparison to more classic songs of the genre. We implicitly do that when we refer to some songs as filler. Couldn't we say Ticket to Ride for instance is a "better" song than You Like Me Too Much. That's not to say everyone will prefer the former over the latter. Only that Ticket to Ride has qualities that YLMTM doesn't.
-
Music is a mystery moog, I also don't like 70's rock like Foreigner etc but I love the simplistic 70's rock that Mark Bolan made with T Rex, Hot Love, Get It On, I Love To Boogie were great songs and yet just built around a simple riff.
Then again I admire complexity, take Roseanna by Toto, very NOT simple, complicated but still great for me.
I just think it either appeals or it doesn't.
Theres a thread on here about Bob Dylan, whilst I respect his songwriting and his importance, I just cant listen to his records, he just sounds miserable and a bit boring to me.
Singer/songwriter ? Give me Neil Diamond anyday ;D
Its a mystery mate !!
-
That was my exact same reaction the first time I heard the song! Took a minute for the lyrics to sink in.
Well, now that you have that figured out, who was the girl who came in through the bathroom window?
-
Music is a mystery moog, I also don't like 70's rock like Foreigner etc but I love the simplistic 70's rock that Mark Bolan made with T Rex, Hot Love, Get It On, I Love To Boogie were great songs and yet just built around a simple riff.
Then again I admire complexity, take Roseanna by Toto, very NOT simple, complicated but still great for me.
I just think it either appeals or it doesn't.
Theres a thread on here about Bob Dylan, whilst I respect his songwriting and his importance, I just cant listen to his records, he just sounds miserable and a bit boring to me.
Singer/songwriter ? Give me Neil Diamond anyday ;D
Its a mystery mate !!
It is indeed. And it can hinge on such subtle things. I recall two recorded versions of Buffalo Soldier by Bob Marley. On one I loved his vocal and it made the song. The second there were subtle differences in his delivery and it was like... Meh
-
It is indeed. And it can hinge on such subtle things. I recall two recorded versions of Buffalo Soldier by Bob Marley. On one I loved his vocal and it made the song. The second there were subtle differences in his delivery and it was like... Meh
Yeah actually, that reminds me, I love Long & Winding Road on Let It Be, but I don't like it where he re-records it, is it on Broadstreet ?
anyway his inflection on the words is different with emphasis in different places, it doesn't grab me the same.
-
Yeah actually, that reminds me, I love Long & Winding Road on Let It Be, but I don't like it where he re-records it, is it on Broadstreet ?
anyway his inflection on the words is different with emphasis in different places, it doesn't grab me the same.
Pretty sure on Broadstreet. Paul seems to have developed a crooners inflection. I noticed when he did the acoustic version of Eleanor Rigby on Anthology. He sounds more like a lounge club singer in the way he delivered it. It's amazing the difference it makes. And not in a good way imo. Although I dot always notice it on his new stuff.
-
Pretty sure on Broadstreet. Paul seems to have developed a crooners inflection. I noticed when he did the acoustic version of Eleanor Rigby on Anthology. He sounds more like a lounge club singer in the way he delivered it. It's amazing the difference it makes. And not in a good way imo. Although I dot always notice it on his new stuff.
Crooner ? Paul ? Kisses On The Bottom ? surely not ha2ha
-
Crooner ? Paul ? Kisses On The Bottom ? surely not ha2ha
I have the utmost respect for Paul. But I've never wanted to listen to that record.
-
Me neither. I've avoided Frank Sinatra all my life and I'm not going to start to listen to crooning now.....even by Paul!
The prime consideration for me is WHEN a song was recorded. The production of recorded sound was so much better in the mid-60s than the 1980s, is it any wonder that a version of 'Eleanor Rigby' from 1984 (urgh!) is going to pale alongside the one from 1966?
I'm listening to a Chuck Berry compilation at the moment that covers 1955-61, and, as ramshackle and ragged as much of the instrumentation and vocals are, it has an immediacy and punch that I simply don't hear on modern recordings.
That's the principle reason why this music has endured over the years.
-
Pretty sure on Broadstreet. Paul seems to have developed a crooners inflection. I noticed when he did the acoustic version of Eleanor Rigby on Anthology. He sounds more like a lounge club singer in the way he delivered it. It's amazing the difference it makes. And not in a good way imo. Although I dot always notice it on his new stuff.
The prime consideration for me is WHEN a song was recorded. The production of recorded sound was so much better in the mid-60s than the 1980s, is it any wonder that a version of 'Eleanor Rigby' from 1984 (urgh!) is going to pale alongside the one from 1966?
Paul sounded OK to me. So did the string quartet...
Paul McCartney - Eleanor Rigby [O.S.T.] 1984 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8dBH7ne8hg#)
-
Me neither. I've avoided Frank Sinatra all my life and I'm not going to start to listen to crooning now.....even by Paul!
The prime consideration for me is WHEN a song was recorded. The production of recorded sound was so much better in the mid-60s than the 1980s, is it any wonder that a version of 'Eleanor Rigby' from 1984 (urgh!) is going to pale alongside the one from 1966?
I err disagree with you there obs, I have tons of early/mid sixties records and most of them to me sound like sh*t, tinny, hardly any bass, too much reverb on the vocals, they were made to sound ok on a little record player with a 5" speaker (like 90% of the population had in those days) the exception to this seems to be The Beatles, which makes me wonder at how good George Martin was ! (Abbey Rd still sounds very fresh and new !)
Recording as they did on 4 track means tracks were bounced together to free up more tracks, that means a lot of instrumentation was 2nd generation as it had been bounced from its own track to a track together with the bass and or piano, 4 tracks is very limiting for a band, you always end up with compromise, I think Abbey Rd is so good and clean because they suddenly had 8 track
I think the best ever recorded album (imo anyway) WAS from the 80's, Alan Parsons 'Eye In The Sky'........he obviously made the transition from Engineer (he was engineer on Dark Side Of The Moon) to artist and made sure HIS records sounded absolutely superb. Upon saying that you have to have some good gear to appreciate it.
Its fair enough if you prefer the 60's sound though mate, we all like different things.... just giving my opinion :P
I think the early/mid sixties Stones records for example sound crappy
-
I think the best ever recorded album (imo anyway) WAS from the 80's, Alan Parsons 'Eye In The Sky'........he obviously made the transition from Engineer (he was engineer on Dark Side Of The Moon) to artist and made sure HIS records sounded absolutely superb. Upon saying that you have to have some good gear to appreciate it.
Oooh! That was a good one wasn't it, Kev. Recorded in Abbey Road Studios too.
-
I err disagree with you there obs, I have tons of early/mid sixties records and most of them to me sound like sh*t, tinny, hardly any bass, too much reverb on the vocals, they were made to sound ok on a little record player with a 5" speaker (like 90% of the population had in those days) the exception to this seems to be The Beatles, which makes me wonder at how good George Martin was ! (Abbey Rd still sounds very fresh and new !)
Recording as they did on 4 track means tracks were bounced together to free up more tracks, that means a lot of instrumentation was 2nd generation as it had been bounced from its own track to a track together with the bass and or piano, 4 tracks is very limiting for a band, you always end up with compromise, I think Abbey Rd is so good and clean because they suddenly had 8 track
I think the best ever recorded album (imo anyway) WAS from the 80's, Alan Parsons 'Eye In The Sky'........he obviously made the transition from Engineer (he was engineer on Dark Side Of The Moon) to artist and made sure HIS records sounded absolutely superb. Upon saying that you have to have some good gear to appreciate it.
Its fair enough if you prefer the 60's sound though mate, we all like different things.... just giving my opinion :P
I think the early/mid sixties Stones records for example sound crappy
I think the stuff about a lot of the sixties stuff like the Beatles and Beach Boys was how good it sounds despite all the limitations you mention Nim. Revolver for instance when they were still using four track sounds great to me.
But fact is I can get better overall sound than recordings from 40 to 50 years ago on my computer at home. You can even make it sound like a crappy sixties recording if you want to go low-fi. Doesn't mean the songs are better of course.
I remember the crappy transistor radio speaker test from when bands I was in used to do demos in the 80s. I suppose now the test is to convert it to MP3 and listen through cheap ear buds.
-
Oooh! That was a good one wasn't it, Kev. Recorded in Abbey Road Studios too.
I love to listen to that on my expensive headphones Baz, the sound is so pure, I remember buying the vinyl in 81 I think and being a bit amazed at the sound.
-
My expensive headphones are the Audio-Technica ATH-M50S Professional Studio Monitor Headphones, Kev...
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2e16jpz.jpg)
They were $120 What do you have?
-
That was Phil Spector's goal when he produced his Wall of Sound stuff, incidentally. He was marketing his music towards teenagers who owned crappy transistor radios or cheap plastic record players.
-
Well, all I can say that it was via the medium of 'crappy transistor radios' and 'tinny' recordings that the greatest era for popular music flourished, the 50s and 60s, NOT in the sickly sheen of the decades afterwards.
And the greatest way to hear those records was via a jukebox in a steamy and noisy coffee bar.
Perhaps the message is not to go the way of the audiophile i.e. to listen to music as it was listened to in the 60s.
I knew a guy at University who had a fantastic hi-fi, it took up so much of his 10ft by 10ft student room that he barely had anywhere to sleep. One problem, and something he freely admitted to.....the records he had were dire.
The great 60s producer Joe Boyd (early Floyd, Nick Drake, early Fairport) swears that the greatest era for recorded sound was actually the 1930s, and specifically the blues records made in that decade, an opinion I have a great respect for.
In other words, one black guy, one guitar, one room, one microphone above his head.
Less is more, and in 2014 artists like Robert Johnson are far more marketable, influential and famous than the Alan Parsons Project.
-
My expensive headphones are the Audio-Technica ATH-M50S Professional Studio Monitor Headphones, Kev...
They were $120 What do you have?
I have some Seinhousers (can never spell that ;D) and some Dr Dre Studio's
-
The great 60s producer Joe Boyd (early Floyd, Nick Drake, early Fairport) swears that the greatest era for recorded sound was actually the 1930s, and specifically the blues records made in that decade, an opinion I have a great respect for.
In other words, one black guy, one guitar, one room, one microphone above his head.
Less is more, and in 2014 artists like Robert Johnson are far more marketable, influential and famous than the Alan Parsons Project.
[/quote
look at it another way though, if we were all like you and only wanted stuff from the 30's & 60's there would be no record companies, record shops, artists or anything now because we would all just buy stuff that was made in the fabulous sixties.....no market for anything else !
It would be an extinct industry.
Im glad you love your Robert Johnson records but to me he sounds as boring as batsh*t, in fact, he sounds in some pain, sitting through an album of that would seriously give me a migraine............give me Alan Parsons Project any day. ha2ha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd60nI4sa9A)
-
In that case, Nimrod, you must find it tough to relate to The Beatles' era.
It's actually the reissue market that has kept the Record Industry going all these years.
Whilst kids can download singles for 50p or whatever it might be, the industry are busily shifting Beatles'/Dylan/Stones' box sets and the likes for three figure sums (see Record Store Day).
I'd prefer to be sitting on the profits of 0.1% of the Beatles' back catalogue than 50% of the back catalogue of whoever is currently at No. 1.
-
The fact that 'he sounds in some pain' is exactly what makes his music great. But I agree that it's hard to sit through an entire album, I have the Complete Collection CD and I almost never listen to it from start to finish.
-
In that case, Nimrod, you must find it tough to relate to The Beatles' era.
It's actually the reissue market that has kept the Record Industry going all these years.
So you dont accept that some 70's albums were the biggest sellers of all time ?
Dark Side Of The Moon, Rumours, Thriller, Back In Black, Fragile etc
I have no idea what kind of insult you are trying to concoct with your 'you cant relate to the Beatles era' comment, I grew up listening to The Beatles, I got the albums when they came out. I played them hundreds of times, I disected them and tried to understand them..... I actually find that remark pretty offensive to be honest
Since you joined this forum you just keep telling us over and over again how you hate anything post 60's, its like a record thats stuck and keeps repeating the same thing over and over....and over, I think we get it, you dont have to keep harping on about how crappy it all is since the 60's, Pink Floyd are NOT Pink Floyd, they are THE Pink Floyd according to you because thats what they were called in 1966 etc etc etc etc
Some of us like post 60's music, some of us love it in fact, I dont want to be told over and over and over again how rubbish it is
I love Aussie rock from the early 80's, The Divinyls, Cold Chisel, Dragon, The Angels, Billy Thorpe......I love a lot of Manchester bands that made records in the 90's, Joy Division, Stone Roses, The Smiths but I suppose I have to hear how rubbish it all is as its not 60's, oh and none of it sold much.
Some modern music is just as important to my 20 year old son as The Beatles were to me, but I suppose you would tell him how its erm....rubbish
Change the record mate, its getting very tedious 4ac
-
Bang, bang...
-
The fact that 'he sounds in some pain' is exactly what makes his music great. But I agree that it's hard to sit through an entire album, I have the Complete Collection CD and I almost never listen to it from start to finish.
ok I get it, he's a blues singer singing about his woman leaving and missing the train bla bla, and he has to sound depressed and in pain
well, guess what, he succeeded ha2ha
Blues became great for me when these guys took it on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OLK_HSyy1U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OLK_HSyy1U#)
-
Nimrod, you're really touchy.
My comment wasn't an insult.
I simply meant that if you can't relate to the kind of music The Stones, The Beatles et al related to as teenagers (and returned to repeatedly throughout their careers), how can you relate to their joy at hearing it in the mid-50s for the first time, their complete obsession with it, and their subsequent channelling of it into their own recordings in the 60s?
NOT an insult, a perfectly reasonable comment.
-
Nimrod, you're really touchy.
My comment wasn't an insult.
I simply meant that if you can't relate to the kind of music The Stones, The Beatles et al related to as teenagers (and returned to repeatedly throughout their careers), how can you relate to their joy at hearing it in the mid-50s for the first time, their complete obsession with it, and their subsequent channelling of it into their own recordings in the 60s?
NOT an insult, a perfectly reasonable comment.
Im not touchy, I get irritated sometimes by people who just keep going on and on about the same thing in every post in every thread they post in. (not that Ive come across many)
The way I see it that statement is derogatory, you are suggesting I cant relate to music of the 50's, this of course is complete hogwash, like a lot of your 'statements' I am 61 years old and have been a music fan since I could sit on a toilet, I love music, I am a musician, I have done hundreds and hundreds of gigs, both in bands and as a solo performer, I have recorded a whole album of original music playing all the instruments, just the idea of me not being able to relate to 50's popular music I find very insulting.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, you think music of the 70's and later is crap compared to the 60's, you think artists like David Bowie, Neil Youngs solo career, Pink Floyd, ELO, The Eagles etc etc etc were no good, ok thats fine I have no problem with you having that opinion ......its just you seem to say it all the bloody time, now you had a go at me which annoyed me and Im now retaliating, but I dont want to keep going on about this (irony) so lets change the subject.
Ive been listening to Maxwell and Ive decided I like it, sorry Paul, its a great song, George is great, so is Ringo. There you go I havent listened to it for 25 years and Ive changed my mind about it ha2ha
-
Hey, I've just realised that I told Mr Mustard that Mean Mister Mustard was weak.
-
No offence taken at all zipp. It's not my favourite song but I do like it.... someone mentioned John's hypocrisy at slating "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" then presenting stuff like "Mean Mister Mustard" but truth be told John was openly dismissive of Abbey Road side two which he called "pop opera". "Mean Mister Mustard" and "Polythene Pam" were half finished scribbles that John came up with in India, I don't think he had much time for them, he never did have much patience with those "fictional character" songs which Paul so excelled at. John preferred to write from within about himself, he couldn't bear to seriously promote something as detached as, say, "Another Day" about some imaginary person posting letters or falling asleep on a bus or whatever. Shame really, some of this frivolity might have counterbalanced some of the raw intensity he was so adept at. And those snippets from India on side two of Abbey Road prove he could do it, even if he did find it very twee.
-
No offence taken at all zipp. It's not my favourite song but I do like it.... someone mentioned John's hypocrisy at slating "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" then presenting stuff like "Mean Mister Mustard" but truth be told John was openly dismissive of Abbey Road side two which he called "pop opera". "Mean Mister Mustard" and "Polythene Pam" were half finished scribbles that John came up with in India, I don't think he had much time for them, he never did have much patience with those "fictional character" songs which Paul so excelled at. John preferred to write from within about himself, he couldn't bear to seriously promote something as detached as, say, "Another Day" about some imaginary person posting letters or falling asleep on a bus or whatever. Shame really, some of this frivolity might have counterbalanced some of the raw intensity he was so adept at. And those snippets from India on side two of Abbey Road prove he could do it, even if he did find it very twee.
Good points Mr Mustard but I slightly disagree with you...."fictional character" songs
'The King of marigold was in the kitchen cooking breakfast for the Queen"
" A lucky man who made the grade, He blew his mind out in a car"
"For the benefit Of Mr Kite there will be a show tonight"
"The Hendersons will all be there"
"The Duchess of Kilcaldy"
and of course...
"The girl with Kaleidoscope eyes" ;D
-
I would agree nim that John sometimes populated his songs with the occasional (usually outlandish/incredible) character but you'll notice they usually tended to make brief - sometimes fleeting (a single line) - cameo appearances, whereas Paul could construct an entire song about someone else (often believable/mundane personalities) and the minutiae of their lives, however bleak or humdrum ("Eleanor Rigby", "Another Day", "She's Leaving Home", "Mr Bellamy" etc). John's characters were often just a passport into a realm of free association stream of consciousness which left the character itself behind ("Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds").
Off the top of my head I cannot readily call to mind any complete self contained story in the third person penned by John, unless you consider those disguised real life examples (we all know "Sexy Sadie" was really the Maharishi - even Mr Kite had been a real circus act and the song was simply cribbed off a poster in a moment of boredom)... as Lennon himself once pointed out: "I write about me because I know me." Perhaps "Mustard" and "Pam" were the closest he came to fleshing out dreamt up people, and whilst he seemed to dismiss them as fillers it would have been fascinating to have seen him develop this style; it clearly held no real appeal for him. Interestingly Paul had almost the reverse approach; preferring to express himself through a procession of imaginary folk going about their day to day lives checking parking meters or staging a gunfight in a wild west saloon or whatever... he rarely switched on the intimate "personal" light, but when he did (in all its spiteful, seething glory - "I'm Looking Through You" for example) the results were powerful and riveting.
John was always best when you sensed the imprint of McCartney; Paul invariably shone when Lennon's aura was present but they dovetailed together so brilliantly partly because, in the end, they at times approached songwriting from entirely opposite directions.
-
I would agree nim that John sometimes populated his songs with the occasional (usually outlandish/incredible) character but you'll notice they usually tended to make brief - sometimes fleeting (a single line) - cameo appearances, whereas Paul could construct an entire song about someone else (often believable/mundane personalities) and the minutiae of their lives, however bleak or humdrum ("Eleanor Rigby", "Another Day", "She's Leaving Home", "Mr Bellamy" etc). John's characters were often just a passport into a realm of free association stream of consciousness which left the character itself behind ("Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds").
Off the top of my head I cannot readily call to mind any complete self contained story in the third person penned by John, unless you consider those disguised real life examples (we all know "Sexy Sadie" was really the Maharishi - even Mr Kite had been a real circus act and the song was simply cribbed off a poster in a moment of boredom)... as Lennon himself once pointed out: "I write about me because I know me." Perhaps "Mustard" and "Pam" were the closest he came to fleshing out dreamt up people, and whilst he seemed to dismiss them as fillers it would have been fascinating to have seen him develop this style; it clearly held no real appeal for him. Interestingly Paul had almost the reverse approach; preferring to express himself through a procession of imaginary folk going about their day to day lives checking parking meters or staging a gunfight in a wild west saloon or whatever... he rarely switched on the intimate "personal" light, but when he did (in all its spiteful, seething glory - "I'm Looking Through You" for example) the results were powerful and riveting.
John was always best when you sensed the imprint of McCartney; Paul invariably shone when Lennon's aura was present but they dovetailed together so brilliantly partly because, in the end, they at times approached songwriting from entirely opposite directions.
Yes good points MM, Sexy Sadie, She Said She Said and Dr Robert were based on real people, I can see what you mean, Paul would construct a whole personna
Nice to see you contributing again :)
-
Interestingly Paul had almost the reverse approach; preferring to express himself through a procession of imaginary folk going about their day to day lives checking parking meters or staging a gunfight in a wild west saloon or whatever... he rarely switched on the intimate "personal" light, but when he did (in all its spiteful, seething glory - "I'm Looking Through You" for example) the results were powerful and riveting.
I think Paul switched on the 'intimate "personal" light' quite frequently...
And I Love Her
Things We Said Today
Every Little Thing (but sung by John)
I've Just Seen A Face
Yesterday
You Won't See Me
Here, There And Everywhere
For No One
Got To Get You Into My Life
All inspired by one particular muse.
-
John was openly dismissive of Paul's made up stories. As Mr Mustard says he wanted to write from within. I wonder what he'd make of Paul's more recent stuff which seems to be plumbing the personal vein quite well.
-
I, too, am not going to continue on this theme after this post.
Sorry to offend your sensibilities, but your comments about the blues don't show any empathy towards British teenagers' regard for black music in the 50s and early 60s, but then you probably had to be John, Paul, Mick or Keith's age. Those ten years make SUCH a difference, it might as well be a hundred years.
A word of advice next time you should run into Eric, don't start with the gambit, 'Never liked any of those old black guys doing blues music, it didn't really begin for me until you did it.'
There's just the slightest chance 'he' might take offence.
-
A word of advice next time you should run into Eric, don't start with the gambit, 'Never liked any of those old black guys doing blues music, it didn't really begin for me until you did it.'
There's just the slightest chance 'he' might take offence.
of all the things in life I have that need worrying about, upsetting Eric Clapton is very near the bottom of the list ha2ha
-
Just as well, he, or one of his minders, would probably put you in the middle of next week!
-
Never had a problem with the song. Certainly prefer it to 'Honey Pie' & 'Goodnight'.
Perhaps the weakest song on Abbey Road. But deserves it's place there. Can understand why John didn't like it.
-
Never had a problem with the song. Certainly prefer it to 'Honey Pie' & 'Goodnight'.
Perhaps the weakest song on Abbey Road. But deserves it's place there. Can understand why John didn't like it.
Well, of course "Goodnight" is a John Lennon song, and is imo anyway, a fabulous song with equally fabulous orchestration. (John could write crooners too) ;D
-
Seems like it's a love-it-or-hate it song. I fall firmly in the former category; I think it's playful and quirky.
-
Seems like it's a love-it-or-hate it song. I fall firmly in the former category; I think it's playful and quirky.
Me too, Kathy. I especially like Paul's little moment of laughter with "so he waits behind". :)
-
Any song that begins with my late mum’s name is awesome! icon_love She liked it too lol
-
Any song that begins with my late mum’s name is awesome! icon_love She liked it too lol
Aww!