Quoted from harihead

relevance).

Gould approaches . Knowing that the song "And Your Bird Can Sing" was written about Frank Sinatra certainly boosts my appreciation.  

WOW !!! had NO idea about that ... an 'Ol Blue Eyes diss ?That took guts !! The words are so cutting in "Bird" (--no doubt, that was John) Cheers!..even though I'm half Italian myself, AND from the same homestate as Sinatra, I've always felt he was just a glorified thug. I must confess though, George seemed to have more favorable opinions on old Frank--(you'll hear that a bit on the Dark Horse album)..and don't forget, F. S. gave Harrison the ULTIMATE compliment saying "Something" was "the greatest love song written in the last 50 years (at the time)"

-km

You would love this book, MMM. The story is, Frank took a swipe at the Beatles first-- and John will not be swiped at! "Bird" was a favorite term of Old Blue Eyes, hence the lyric. I think Frank (as many other established performers) was forced to eat crow (heh) when the Beatles turned into an enduring musical phenomenon, not just a fad as most people (including the Beatles) had started out believing. I just adore their brazen "Oh, yeah?" attitude. That is a special gift of youth; may it never die!

Quoted from harihead

You would love this book, MMM. The story is, Frank took a swipe at the Beatles first-- and John will not be swiped at! "Bird" was a favorite term of Old Blue Eyes, hence the lyric. I think Frank (as many other established performers) was forced to eat crow (heh) when the Beatles turned into an enduring musical phenomenon, not just a fad as most people (including the Beatles) had started out believing. I just adore their brazen "Oh, yeah?" attitude. That is a special gift of youth; may it never die!

that is nothing short of awesome, Hari! I know what you meant when you said most ppl including the Beatles themselves never dreamed of the success they would ultimately reach. There's a bit of old footage from late '63 or early '64 (used in "The Compleat Beatles", I believe) that has the boys talking about where they would be years from now. It's so ironic now, Ringo for instance, saying things in his souse accent like "I hope to open up a lady's hair salon"--I'm paraphrasing, of course, but something along those lines. They had NO IDEA....
it seems almost endearing in retrospect that they would think like that, in such modest terms. It's charming to see things like that preserved on film. It was an innocent time.
As for Sinatra eating crow...........YES !!!!!   The best revenge is SUCCESS...and we'll all agree The Fab had a hefty portion (ya think Kev ? lol) another "rat pack" type to eat crow was Dean Martin--like I described in another post, he pretty much thought the Stones were a joke....yeah RIGHT, Dino...did HE sell as many records as Jagger & Co.??  Dont think so. Vindication is sweet *snicker* *snicker* *snicker*

Here There & Everywhere: My Life Recording the Beatles

^Just like George M is there talking to you in this book....Really enjoyed it.

Quoted from The walrus

I so want to get cynthia's Book 'John'. I was about to get his sister Julia's book but changed my mind.

I would say to you don't waste your money, but you probably already bought it.  I stopped reading it after being half-way through - the book offered up no "secrets" or revelations into John Lennon's personal life at all, really.  She talked about what the Beatles did, which you can find out everywhere else.  Pah.

Hi there. I'm new.

The Sinatra connection is merely Gould's theory, and while anyone's interpretation is "valid" (the ear cares about the actual music a lot more than the lyrics anyway), this brings to mind the problem I tend to have with any lone person's "definitive" version of the Beatles' musical story: The new slants are presented as facts, case closed, no argument allowed, whereas they're just good guesses. Gould doesn't seem to realize that "bird" is slang for "girl" in the UK, and he ignores certain words that certainly sound directed to a woman rather than an overrated lounge singer ("Look in my direction/I'll be around").

Here's a long-winded review. I agree that Can't Buy Me Love is, for the most part, outstanding, but it's marred by the usual useless bits of criticism, and Gould places too much importance on the lyrics, ignoring a lot of the melodies, harmonic climates, arrangements, etc. that made the Beatles music appealing. He thinks "Cry Baby Cry" sucks just because of the lyrics, for instance, and doesn't even address its catchy chord progression.

Still, this six-hundred-page surprise is exceptionally insightful and well written. It even startles you with brilliant bits of humor when you're least expecting them. In spite of getting a few lyrics wrong (doesn't he have the songs handy?), he's written a book about the Beatles and their impact for (gasp) intelligent adults who appreciate the watertight application of a wide vocabulary.

Regrettably, as with too many books that center on the work of musical artists, it's tarnished by negative criticism of many songs -- even entire album-sides, written off with incongruent flippancy. Nobody would suggest that every piece of music the group recorded is fantastic, but this berating adds nothing, merely warding off the reader a bit and detracting from the astute bulk of the book.

Why does everyone who writes a Beatles volume feel that he must intermittently assume the musically cynical, aloof and utterly useless role of "music critic"? It's not as if it changes people's tastes, or the way the music sounds coming out of the speakers.

The irrelevant disapproval periodically pulls the book down from its otherwise enlightening and highly erudite bearing into the realm of isolated and quite useless subjectivity. And the charm of the early recordings is, for some reason, utterly lost on the author. We honestly don't care which songs you don't like, Mr. Gould; the title and presented notion of your book, not to mention the majority of its prose (thankfully), don't indicate snide personal opinions, isolated from the substance; rather, a historical and sociological context-painting of the Beatles' music. You do this remarkably well, so you don't need to resort to imitating the hack writers of Rolling Stone and other immensely overrated periodicals.

Speaking of the misquoted lyrics, why not get pedantic about a few other bits while I'm at it, on behalf of like-minded fanatics: In "Paperback Writer," the background vocals are "frere jacques," not "paperbacker" sung merely "to the tune" of that French song. And Paul sings the first line of the "Lucy" chorus, not John - listen carefully. The collage of cut-up tapes in "Mr. Kite" is not heard after John introduces Henry the Horse, but rather at the end of the song, after he sings "topping the bill." Apart from the song citations, the normal slang is "old stamping ground," in keeping with the horse metaphor, not "stomping" (in spite of erroneous popular usage). And a "meteoric rise" doesn't exist, since meteors fall, not rise. Finally, LSD is not an acronym -- just initials. An acronym is a set of initials that actually spell out a word.

Anyway, the author's immaterial tracts of criticism aside, the book is superb, and this is coming from an extremely picky reader/writer whose favorite Beatles books include their own Anthology, Recording the Beatles, the Complete Beatles Recording Sessions, An Oral History and the incredibly good Many Years From Now (the best non-technical books tend to consist mainly of interview sections, rather than merely the author's removed take - for obvious reasons).

If the occasional inaccuracy doesn't annoy the reader too much, this book pleasantly separates itself from the ever-growing stack of "I wasn't there" accounts with a writing style that gloriously refuses to dumb itself down, insight worth its weight in syllables (for once), and a rare capacity for making dyed-in-the-skull music sound fresh. It's unquestionably worth reading - more than once, in fact, given the sheer amount of gossip-free historical and musical perception - to anyone who likes the Beatles' music and is interested in the environmental circumstances under which such revolutionary work buds, blossoms and thrives.

(Damn, I have some nerve.....sharing my Amazon review as my first post! What a dork, huh.)

Welcome to DM's Chris. Funny enough, a certain 'jongould' signed in a couple of days ago.

Thanks. Well, if it's really him (is this a particularly popular forum? I signed up because it was the only one I could find that had that whole, y'know, "literacy" thing going on), I certainly hope he's more graceful about what he surely must have anticipated would be overly picky reading than Spitz was to the Beatles Magazine bird. As it were.

It is him. I've sent him an e-mail and he confirmed. He admitted he's a bit tired talking about the book over and over again, but is willing to answer questions! Oh, and he said he would like to thank Harihead for her kind review.

Quoted from Chris

Speaking of the misquoted lyrics, why not get pedantic about a few other bits while I'm at it, on behalf of like-minded fanatics: In "Paperback Writer," the background vocals are "frere jacques," not "paperbacker" sung merely "to the tune" of that French song. And Paul sings the first line of the "Lucy" chorus, not John - listen carefully. The collage of cut-up tapes in "Mr. Kite" is not heard after John introduces Henry the Horse, but rather at the end of the song, after he sings "topping the bill." Apart from the song citations, the normal slang is "old stamping ground," in keeping with the horse metaphor, not "stomping" (in spite of erroneous popular usage). And a "meteoric rise" doesn't exist, since meteors fall, not rise. Finally, LSD is not an acronym -- just initials. An acronym is a set of initials that actually spell out a word.

I love this bit. I can be a picky little sod!!

Welcome to the forum Chris.

Quoted from Chris

. Gould doesn't seem to realize that "bird" is slang for "girl" in the UK, and he ignores certain words that certainly sound directed to a woman rather than an overrated lounge singer ("Look in my direction/I'll be around").

  

You seem to ignore the existence of lyrical ambiguity, in the sense that artists are not averse to using double entendre or even dual-connotation in their symbolism..hence, Hari's point that Lennon's "bird" use might refer equally to a Sinatra "swipe" AND the English colloquial term for "girl"...why limit an artist of John's stature to only one meaning? Both are equally valid and can comfortably "cohabit" a song verse.

btw welcome, Chris.

were all Beatle pedantics here

picky sod #2,
MMM

Quoted from 829

You seem to ignore the existence of lyrical ambiguity, in the sense that artists are not averse to using double entendre or even dual-connotation in their symbolism..hence, Hari's point that Lennon's "bird" use might refer equally to a Sinatra "swipe" AND the English colloquial term for "girl"...why limit and artist of John's stature to only one meaning? Both are equally valid and can comfortably "cohabit" a song verse.

Excellent point. In fact, I suppose that where Lennon's concerned, ambiguity's the norm, rather than the exception.

Solid. This is my kind of forum.

Thanks for the comments, BM.......O-bloooooooooooo-ter-ate them!

Quoted from Chris

Solid. This is my kind of forum.

yes..@ dmbeatles, the Fab are respected, dissected,inspected,never negleted or corrected, collated,annotated, never repudiated...but MOST OF ALL, loved and listened to..

-mmm

Welcome to the forums Chris!
lots of Beatles people on the horizan!