Ian Macdonald calls I Am The Walrus a "damn you england tirade that blasts education, art, culture, law, order, class, religion, and even sense itself" do most people agree with this or do they think the lyrics are just nonsence, or maybe subconsiously its what macdonald says it is?

I believe Ians description of the song is pretty good. John wrote the song like that on purpose, to go against the grain and tradition of normal song-writing, and I believe he accomplished what he set out to do.

These biographers and musicologists all get flowery in their writing and sometimes say things that are a revelation but more often than not they are just verbaging for their own pride and pleasure.

John was so stoned all the time when he wrote that ... it is impossible to know if he meant ANYthing (tho most of the lyrics hold up to interprative scrutiny).

i would like to believe in ians discription so i just do. i think lennon may not have had that idea completely in his mind but it was probably there somewhere. to listen to it in the way ian discribes it makes it one of the greatest set of lyrics ever written for me. but you can never say wat was going on in johns head.

i think it's just a bunch of words strung together.

Quoted from Sadie4, posted September 11, 2004, 3:29pm at here

well I think that is just Ian's opinion on that particular song. I have a different opinion, and no one can say which one is more valid.

That's exactly right.

Ian is not especially the best author to read...his errors and personal interjections alone negate a lot of the book's worth.  However, if ANYone writes something and it makes YOU think or understand or have an epiphany of your own then it is certainly worthy. 

Basically lyrics that are that wild are always going to be wide open for interpretation and misinterpretation.  Only John can tell us what he meant, because some people have certainly guessed correctly.  But we don't know which ones.

Also I think the question really was: were the lyrics nonsense or did John purposely write them to represent something?  To that I'd say, yes, they meant something...to John.  Possibly the secret to all life, perhaps stoned gibberish.  But I think he did indeed pick and choose which words to use.  Of course, he was well known for being one who went for the totality of the SOUND of a recording...many of his nonsense words sounded good to him so he used them without thought to meaning.

As for Walrus, he clearly used Lewis Carroll as a jumping off point, a literary reference, so it wasn't haphazard nor accidental.  And many of the other lyrics seem carefully conceived as well, yet seemingly haphazard in placement.  Perhaps that is where the disconnected feeling of the song comes from...

(The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus is singing I Will right now on the news behind me.  How bizarre life is!)

Quoted from misterchaz, posted September 11, 2004, 3:59pm at here

The San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus is singing I Will right now on the news behind me.  How bizarre life is!

Phew, glad you said 'news'!!!

Quoted from The_End, posted September 13, 2004, 12:05pm at here

Phew, glad you said 'news'!!!

Of course!  One *never* leaves a real entire Gay Chorus -behind- one.

I think Revolution in the Head: the Beatles records and the sixties - is one of the best Beatles Books out there.
His style of writing, although flowery at times, makes a great read.

Any book will have opinions weaved through the words, its part of the read.

Nevertheless.  There are better books out there than Ian's. 

Of course there's worse ones too.

Yeah revolution in the head is my favourate beatles book as well. Although i only read the anthology and Shout by phillip norman. The Anthology was good but as its written by the Beatles themselves they tend to skip out or forget the more controversial stuff. Shout i liked for imformation on the Beatles before they were famous, but then it seemed to go really quickly from 1964-1970. it also had loads on the buisness side to the Beatles which was a bit boring, and it seemed to have more on Brian Epstein than anyone else which i didnt like, and the worst thing was that he really laid into Paul McCartney which i thought was a bit unfaif. I like revolution in the head best cos Ian seems to really understand the ,usic to me and he made me think about it like i never had before. And i didnt think he got to flowery or egotistical like some critics do, he always seemed to put the Beatles first even when critisisng him. The only thing i didnt like was the way he wrote about across the universe.

i am the walrus was reased durin the worst beatles period (rubber soul onwards) they didn get good again until let irt be was released. Da best is Please please me and dere albums went downhill after that.

BRing back the beatles.

Me and my nan are gonna send a petition to paul to get him to bring the beatles backl together beatles rock!