DM's Beatles forums
Beatles forums => Songs => Topic started by: KEROUAC on December 04, 2014, 03:35:33 PM
-
Anyone know the earliest mention by Paul that Blackbird was about the civil rights movement? The earliest mention I can find is ....2002. There seems to be a lot of revisionism that goes on with Paul. Quite often "facts" which suddenly appear and are provided by Paul or one of Paul's sources (Hello Barry Miles) just so happen to be good for Paul's image.
We all know that Paul doesn't like John going down in history as the "right on" Beatle and this is why he works on the presentation of the facts. There is also this fairly recent suggestion that he co wrote Being For the Benefit of Mr Kite. I'm also a bit sceptical about Paul's involvement in Avante Garde. Most of us accept it now because Paul's friend Barry said so in his book. Next we'll find out She's a Woman was about the feminist movement.
Sorry I sound like I'm being really nasty to Paul here and I love Paul, he is a God to me. But i don't like the sneakiness. Particularly when it also affects the memory of John who can't speak up. You know what John said..."You better see right through that Mother's eyes".
-
I was certainly aware of the reference in the70's. I'm sure my 1975 edition of The Illustrated Record mentioned it, but whether Paul himself said this (which I very much doubt) or indeed the link was intentional I know not.
I thought Paul's hanging out with the alternatives in the mid sixties was reasonably well documented and not mere conjecture.
I accept Paul's revisionism can be irksome, but we need to remember the great contempt in which he was held by the "serious" music scene for so much of his solo career. And thanks in no small part by Lennon's own aggressive and public post-Beatle anti-Paul revisionism.
-
Never heard of this civil rights thing.
I must say I feel that Johns image is that of the fighter for peace on Earth. Surely Yoko has had a manipulative hand in this, for Johns peace action lasted only three or four years or so. I can imagine Paul getting fed up with the image of John as the ultimate Beatle, the one who fought for peace and all that, and the Beatle who made excellent solo albums. The way Paul is reacting is, as always, somewhat clumsy.
-
I don't think there's any doubt Paul was right into all the trendy musical scenes during his single years in London. Including the avant garde movement. And Paul for instance did the tape loops for Tomorrow Never Knows. It's not just Paul attesting to this.
That said he doesn't half go on about it. But as Kevin says he was treated pretty roughly by music critics and fans particularly after John was shot.
I only relatively recently saw the blackbird/civil rights connection as well. And I was a bit sceptical. But if references to it do go back to the 70s then I suppose it's legit
I do get sceptical as well that Paul is claiming all these authorships (or at least major contributions) to some of johns best songs. Who knows the truth but with John unable to confirm it does strike me as a little opportunistic of Paul.
-
I recall Macca joking to Donovan that the song was about Diana Ross on the "No. 3 Abbey Road NW8" bootleg...
-
I do get sceptical as well that Paul is claiming all these authorships (or at least major contributions) to some of johns best songs. Who knows the truth but with John unable to confirm it does strike me as a little opportunistic of Paul.
As a matter of fact, Paul and John have agreed on their credits on most songs, who wrote what and how much. There are just one or two songs they haven't agreed on. In My Life is one of them.
-
As a matter of fact, Paul and John have agreed on their credits on most songs, who wrote what and how much. There are just one or two songs they haven't agreed on. In My Life is one of them.
In My Life was one I had in mind. It's probably the main example.
And of course Paul might be being accurate. John was hardly the most reliable witness. Particularly when quoted in the 70s with Yoko in his ear.
-
As it was recorded just a couple of months after Martin Luther King was shot, I'd be more surprised if The Beatles hadn't been alluding to the issue of civil rights!
While no one in the Top Ten might address such issues now (e.g. Iraq, Syria, civil rights for that matter) in a pop song, the 60s music scene was a very, very different, and infinitely more interesting, place.
-
I've heard the civil rights claim a few different times through the years. Who knows.
Paul did get flogged a good bit after Johns death for his music. I wonder how it would have played out if Paul was the one that got murdered?
-
I wonder how it would have played out if Paul was the one that got murdered?
Not a fun thought. Having to reconcile never seeing Paul live would be tough, I know I wouldn't know the difference.
John's legacy wouldn't be the same either. He would have likely been ripped apart be the press and some of the public. Kind of how Paul has been but for different reasons.
-
Ok I''ll stand corrected if it was noted in the seventies. I'd be interested in the source though.
It's interesting regarding Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite that if you look at who allegedly wrote what on Sgt Pepper Paul already wrote the majority of it. I make it Paul 8, John 3, 1 50/50 and George 1. Is that right?
-
Anyone know the earliest mention by Paul that Blackbird was about the civil rights movement? The earliest mention I can find is ....2002.
Paul McCartney "Blackbird/We Can Work It Out/Here,There And Everywhere/Eleanor Rigby" Live-2002 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaiGYEXAo6g#)
-
I had heard the song was about race relations, but no idea the inspiration was this specific:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/paul-mccartney-meets-women-who-inspired-beatles-blackbird-at-arkansas-concert/ar-BBsuUQb?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U218DHP (http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/paul-mccartney-meets-women-who-inspired-beatles-blackbird-at-arkansas-concert/ar-BBsuUQb?)
-
I had heard the song was about race relations, but no idea the inspiration was this specific:
I didn't know that either Kathy. Thanks for sharing that.
-
Yeah, that's very interesting but I'm still not sure this song was originally about civil rights. I can't recall anything much about the Little Rock 9 in England in the fifties.
-
I was listening to this in the car today. It certainly doesn't seem to be about the civil rights movement, although who am I to question Paul? Neither the melody nor the lyrics seem -- to me -- to be referencing civil rights. But I could be completely off target.
-
I can see a definite allegorical connection to the civil rights movement. I can certainly see Paul making statements about the past that reflect a cloudy power of recollection, but I don't see why he would make this up. But people have puzzled me with untruths before so anything's possible.
-
I can see a definite allegorical connection to the civil rights movement. I can certainly see Paul making statements about the past that reflect a cloudy power of recollection, but I don't see why he would make this up. But people have puzzled me with untruths before so anything's possible.
I think Paul himself may be confused and has maybe convinced himself that it was about civil rights.
If we look at the facts.... to begin with, at the time, as far as I know, Paul never mentioned civil rights.
The song was written in Rishikesh before Martin Luther king was killed.
And Taylor and Carr in their book say the song is "held by many to be a sympathetic gesture towards the then re emergent Black Power movement". Well just who are these "many" and how do they know these things?
The main symbol of black power for me was at the Mexico olympic games when two American black athletes gave black power salutes on the podium. But this was in October 1968 and the song had already been recorded in June!
Feel free to disagree but if so please try and provide some quotes or dates to back up your viewpoint.
-
Feel free to disagree but if so please try and provide some quotes or dates to back up your viewpoint.
There aren't any. I'm not arguing with anyone's opinion anyway, just stating that for me, the lyrics could fit his assertion. I haven't considered it much further than that!
-
Didn't Charles Manson interpret this song as a message to black people to arise against the white establishment?
-
^^^^^
According to Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter, yes.
-
Didn't Charles Manson interpret this song as a message to black people to arise against the white establishment?
So you're saying Paul agrees with Charles Manson?
Wow!
Luckily most people no longer remember Manson.
-
So you're saying Paul agrees with Charles Manson?
Wow!
Luckily most people no longer remember Manson.
I'm sure Paul's own interpretation does not go so far. But I'm mentioning Charles Manson just because it's the first reference I remember about "Blackbird" as a kind of social statement. Perhaps a bit of that interpretation remained in the colective unconscious, even in Paul's.
By the way, why do you think Manson shouldn't be remembered? If we don't want awful things to be repeated, then we shouldn't forget them.
-
So you're saying Paul agrees with Charles Manson?
No, I was saying that Manson had his own unique, and very twisted, interpretation of the White Album. The songs were released first; Manson's crazed perception of them came later.
-
No, I was saying that Manson had his own unique, and very twisted, interpretation of the White Album. The songs were released first; Manson's crazed perception of them came later.
I think zipp was talking to me, but I agree with you.
As I said, the only relation between Manson's and Paul's interpretations would be the sort of social statement; but that doesn't mean that both interpretations are the same, of course. I thought this didn't need to be clarified.
-
Didn't Charles Manson interpret this song as a message to black people to arise against the white establishment?
Yep. And most of the other songs on The White Album. Helter Skelter was his term for the actual Black revolution against whitey
Sosrry i posted this before reading the above comments lol
-
No, I was saying that Manson had his own unique, and very twisted, interpretation of the White Album. The songs were released first; Manson's crazed perception of them came later.
Yes, but Paul's current interpretation of his own song, saying it's about the fight for black freedom, in some way resembles Manson's.
And when I said ' Luckily most people no longer remember Manson.' I meant it's lucky for Paul because who would want to be associated in any way with this dangerous psychopath?
But this Manson debate is a bit of a digression. The main question is still : At what point did Paul start saying Blackbird was a song about civil rights? Does anybody have a quote from the sixties or seventies where he says this?
-
Even if Paul's and Manson's interpretations were the same, that black people had to fight for their freedom, the main difference would be how to do it. Manson's reaction was murdering the white establishment, and I'm sure Paul would never suggest that way.
But I tend to agree with zipp. Although "Blackbird" had already been related to civil rights in the past, not only by Manson, apparently Paul brought this interpretation too many years after. Actually I think it's valid for him to adopt the interpretation he wants, even if he didn't mean that when he wrote the song (but in that case he should clarify this).
In fact I do the same, I don't care too much about writer's original interpretations of songs, I just take the message that means something to my life. Words are words, they don't change, but the meaning always depends on the listener, especially when the lyrics are vague, as it usually happens in songs.
-
But I tend to agree with zipp. Although "Blackbird" had already been related to civil rights in the past, not only by Manson, apparently Paul brought this interpretation too many years after. Actually I think it's valid for him to adopt the interpretation he wants, even if he didn't mean that when he wrote the song (but in that case he should clarify this).
OK. I've checked with Many Years From Now and Paul already says there that he chose the title "Blackbird" instead of "Black Woman Living in Little Rock" so he already referenced Little Rock at that time.
So I now tend to believe him.
He also explains that in his songs he usually wouldn't be specific so that the bird became "symbolic, so you could apply it to your particular problem". I think this is true of other Beatle compositions. When they came out nobody knew what Hey Jude was about or Norwegian Wood was about etc.
But Many Years From Now is from 1997. Concerning Blackbird did Paul mention civil rights or Little Rock before then and if not why not?
-
But Many Years From Now is from 1997. Concerning Blackbird did Paul mention civil rights or Little Rock before then and if not why not?
Extactly my point
-
Born 1942 (very important, that bit).
Beatle.
In London - in the 60s.
Martin Luther King killed in April '68.
Song called.....erm.....'Blackbird'.....written, recorded and released by the end of the year.
If any person, let alone a Beatles fan, thought it 'didn't' have anything to do with civil rights.....really?
Wow!
-
Could be. Not so obvious based on the lyrics, but I suppose there are a few words that can relate to this matter. Maybe Paul didn't want to be overtly political with it, in which case he did a good job with it.
:)
-
Born 1942 (very important, that bit).
Beatle.
In London - in the 60s.
Martin Luther King killed in April '68.
Song called.....erm.....'Blackbird'.....written, recorded and released by the end of the year.
If any person, let alone a Beatles fan, thought it 'didn't' have anything to do with civil rights.....really?
Wow!
You haven't answered the main question. Why did Paul never say this song was about civil rights for nearly thirty years?
He told us all about the story behind Hey Jude and Julian Lennon and the newspaper article behind She's Leaving Home, for example, but nothing about this song except that it was inspired by a real blackbird.
So your assumptions are just that. Applying after-the-fact political correctness to something we can legitimately doubt.
-
In the turbulent times of 1968, you're doing him a grave dis-service if you don't think that, by releasing a song called 'Blackbird' by the biggest group in the world, he wasn't, even obliquely, referencing civil rights.
You must think he was really thick.
We're not talking about the music scene of 2016!
-
In the turbulent times of 1968, you're doing him a grave dis-service if you don't think that, by releasing a song called 'Blackbird' by the biggest group in the world, he wasn't, even obliquely, referencing civil rights.
You must think he was really thick.
We're not talking about the music scene of 2016!
I actually think Paul was too intelligent to do anything so obvious in 1968 as to write a song solely about civil rights.
Your assumptions are simplistic.
Nobody at the time said this song was about civil rights. NOBODY!
-
If we talk about a metaphorical meaning, I think that the most easy interpretation is that the "blackbird" could be any person and the "broken wings/sunken eyes" could be any problem. I think relating this song only to black people just because of the color of the bird is too simplistic, unimaginative and even racist.
-
Of all the statements made by Paul regarding Blackbird, the only one I'm certain of is his explanation that Johann Sebastian Bach's Bourrée in E minor inspired his guitar picking style for this song as well as Michelle earlier on. He used a two-finger picking style with simultaneous picking of bass and treble strings.
Here's how Ian Buchanan taught me to play the Bourrée...
http://youtu.be/4TKzNYayMHQ (http://youtu.be/4TKzNYayMHQ)
-
Nobody at the time said this song was about civil rights. NOBODY!
If we talk about a metaphorical meaning, I think that the most easy interpretation is that the "blackbird" could be any person and the "broken wings/sunken eyes" could be any problem.
Right. In 1968 we thought they were more "clues." ;D
-
Nobody said the song was about civil rights in 1968 because, obviously, if you as a Beatle in 1968, that's '1968', release a song called 'Blackbird', no one has to say it's about civil rights, even if, on Paul's part, it is an (subtle) implication and not written large.
It's like declaring, 'You know that 'Merry Xmas Everybody' by Slade? It's about Christmas.'
Or.....erm.....maybe you didn't know it was about Christmas?
-
Nobody said the song was about civil rights in 1968 because, obviously, if you as a Beatle in 1968, that's '1968', release a song called 'Blackbird', no one has to say it's about civil rights, even if, on Paul's part, it is an (subtle) implication and not written large.
It's like declaring, 'You know that 'Merry Xmas Everybody' by Slade? It's about Christmas.'
Or.....erm.....maybe you didn't know it was about Christmas?
So you're saying because it has "black" in the title it must be about black people. How about Baby's in Black?
-
In terms of developments in pop music, the gap between pop music and the industry around it from 1964 and 1968 is greater than that between 1972 and 2016.
Definitely, if The Beatles (at the dawn of magazines like Crawdaddy and Rolling Stones and Oz, remember), in 1968, put out a song, a few months after Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech, called 'Blackbird', it's impossible to believe any adult wouldn't think, 'hmmm, nice song, Paul, hmmm, 'Blackbird', wonder if he's hinting at something other than one of our little feathered friends?'
The reason why it wasn't the hottest topic when the White Album came out is probably because there were 29 other songs to take in (i.e. the size of Amy Winehouse's whole career!), John had just taken his kit off for 'Two Virgins,' and by January, they were encamped in Twickenham Studios and the time (quick moving time the 60s - absolutely NOT like the music scene today) had largely gone.
-
Definitely, if The Beatles (at the dawn of magazines like Crawdaddy and Rolling Stones and Oz, remember), in 1968, put out a song, a few months after Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech, called 'Blackbird', it's impossible to believe any adult wouldn't think, 'hmmm, nice song, Paul, hmmm, 'Blackbird', wonder if he's hinting at something other than one of our little feathered friends?'
No this is your personal take on things. Nothing to do with 1968. Or are you Charles Manson in disguise?
Now, come on, just give us one quote from Paul or the other Beatles from that period to say this song is about civil rights. Then we can start talking.
As for Rolling Stone, (not Rolling Stones by the way), well yes I used to buy it in the sixties. Here's what they said about Blackbird in 1968 :
"Blackbird" is one of those beautiful Paul McCartney songs in which the yin-yang of love is so perfectly fitted: the joy and sorrow, always that ironic taste of sadness and melancholy in the lyric and in the minor notes and chords of the melody (remember — "Yesterday," "Eleanor Rigby," "Good Day Sunshine," prominently among many.) The irony makes it so much more powerful.
Not only irony: these songs and "Blackbird" share other qualities — the simplicity and sparseness of instrumentation (even with strings) make them penetrate swiftly and universally. This one is done solely with an acoustic guitar. And of course there is the lyric: "Take these sunken eyes and learn to see; All your life you were only waiting for this moment to be free."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/beatles-19681221#ixzz493AjnkXT (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/beatles-19681221#ixzz493AjnkXT)
-
Nobody said the song was about civil rights in 1968 because, obviously, if you as a Beatle in 1968, that's '1968', release a song called 'Blackbird', no one has to say it's about civil rights, even if, on Paul's part, it is an (subtle) implication and not written large.
It's like declaring, 'You know that 'Merry Xmas Everybody' by Slade? It's about Christmas.'
Or.....erm.....maybe you didn't know it was about Christmas?
I understand the implication, but I don't think it's too obvious. Only the word "black" gives some credit to that unidimensional interpretation. I still think that an universal interpretation is more suitable, which can include civil rights but doesn't need to exclude other issues.
But well, I was born ten years later and in a different culture, so I accept that my mind may see this theme with different eyes than those from US/UK in 1968. In fact, here in Argentina the song titles were translated to Spanish on records during the 60's; and "Blackbird" was not literally translated as "Pájaro Negro" but as "Mirlo", which is the actual name of the same bird here. So that's another reason to have a different view about the song.
(http://mla-s1-p.mlstatic.com/vinilo-rock-the-beatles-el-album-blanco-disco-lp-19291-MLA20168899620_092014-F.jpg)
-
I still think that an universal interpretation is more suitable, which can include civil rights but doesn't need to exclude other issues.
Well said.
They don't translate the titles here in France but if they did it would be like you a masculine word (le merle).
So why should French, Spanish and...English listeners assume this bird is a woman as in Paul's tardy explanation?
The blackbird in the song has never seemed to me to be a man or a woman. As you say it has universal meaning for everybody. No need to limit it to one sex or one race.