Questions about "Abbey Road" album
-
beatlesfanrandy:
John loved Paul, George, and Ringo, and everything they accomplished together. He did not like the way they treated him and Yoko. It wasn't just Yoko, it was him too. Plus, there was a lot of unsavory business with Apple. It was a natural split. It wasn't caused by anybody. It was caused by everybody. It was an organic event as much as John meeting Paul in 1957. It was History, happening as it was supposed to happen. There is nothing that was gonna keep The Beatles together. Yet they never split up spiritually either. There's something to be said for that!
Sorry I don't buy into history happening as some sort of preordained destiny. John stuffing Yoko down everyone's throats had a great deal to do with the disintegration of the band. Their "treatment" of him as you write was more or less a reaction to having this "outsider" thrust in their professional midst. There's only two left and there's not a lot of seeming interaction between them so the degree of their spiritual separation over the years is not easily quantifiable.
-
Erik in NJ:
SurSteven:
I don't think that John planned it that way. It was simply a natural progression of events. They had accomplished everything they could as a band. There was nowhere left for them to go. I am quite glad for all of the good songs that were to follow.
I have to take exception to the statement "They had accomplished everything they could as a band--there was nowhere left for them to go." What on earth do you base this statement on? It's as trite as saying "it was destiny for them to meet" and "everything happens for a reason." Yoko was a major catalyst for the tensions within the band according to several source in and outside of the band. Even with her ubiquitous presence, they certainly did not accomplish everything they could have as a band. If what you're saying is true they had no more good music left in them as a team...sorry I totally disagree with that. I think without Yoko in the mix (the wooden sabot in the works) I think we would have seen more brilliant albums by the Beatles into the 70s and we could have avoided some of the tortured dirges like "I'm So Tired."
yoko was their saviour...they spent half of their teen years and all of their young adult years totally dedicated to this most profound mystical metaphysical and miraculous musical god/life created phenomenon...and it was time for them to take a break and focus a little more on their own lives. Why is that so hard to understand and gratefully accept for some?
-
Savior? I believe Paul and Ringo (and George if he were still here) might just take exception to your notion.
-
... You're smarter than that, Erik
-
Erik in NJ:
beatlesfanrandy:
John loved Paul, George, and Ringo, and everything they accomplished together. He did not like the way they treated him and Yoko. It wasn't just Yoko, it was him too. Plus, there was a lot of unsavory business with Apple. It was a natural split. It wasn't caused by anybody. It was caused by everybody. It was an organic event as much as John meeting Paul in 1957. It was History, happening as it was supposed to happen. There is nothing that was gonna keep The Beatles together. Yet they never split up spiritually either. There's something to be said for that!
Sorry I don't buy into history happening as some sort of preordained destiny. John stuffing Yoko down everyone's throats had a great deal to do with the disintegration of the band. Their "treatment" of him as you write was more or less a reaction to having this "outsider" thrust in their professional midst. There's only two left and there's not a lot of seeming interaction between them so the degree of their spiritual separation over the years is not easily quantifiable.
I saw Ringo and Paul play together at the Beatles Salute, and Ringo said whenever he and Paul play together John and George are right there with them, and Paul agreed and said let's hear it for John and George. That got the night's biggest cheers and it was a totally electric moment. That's "quantifiable" enough, whatever that means. You don't have to believe in it, but they obviously do.
-
Erik in NJ:
SurSteven:
I don't think that John planned it that way. It was simply a natural progression of events. They had accomplished everything they could as a band. There was nowhere left for them to go. I am quite glad for all of the good songs that were to follow.
I have to take exception to the statement "They had accomplished everything they could as a band--there was nowhere left for them to go." What on earth do you base this statement on? It's as trite as saying "it was destiny for them to meet" and "everything happens for a reason." Yoko was a major catalyst for the tensions within the band according to several source in and outside of the band. Even with her ubiquitous presence, they certainly did not accomplish everything they could have as a band. If what you're saying is true they had no more good music left in them as a team...sorry I totally disagree with that. I think without Yoko in the mix (the wooden sabot in the works) I think we would have seen more brilliant albums by the Beatles into the 70s and we could have avoided some of the tortured dirges like "I'm So Tired."
Or The Long and Winding Road.
-
beatlesfanrandy:
John loved Paul, George, and Ringo, and everything they accomplished together. He did not like the way they treated him and Yoko. It wasn't just Yoko, it was him too. Plus, there was a lot of unsavory business with Apple. It was a natural split. It wasn't caused by anybody. It was caused by everybody. It was an organic event as much as John meeting Paul in 1957. It was History, happening as it was supposed to happen. There is nothing that was gonna keep The Beatles together. Yet they never split up spiritually either. There's something to be said for that!
I agree. Add to the mix they'd all grown up, they had become men, and all had different interests pulling them in different directions. Now, with the benefit of hindsight I'm glad they broke up when they did (Not glad it was acrimonious), but glad because they had come full circle. They did everything they set out to achieve. The music they made is the legacy and that is what will last forever. Everything else up for discussion is moot...
-
moptops:
Everything else up for discussion is moot...
Well that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. They were more "man" at 40 then they were at 30. As for The Long And Winding Road, that is a beautiful ballad and not a tortured dirge like "I'm So Tired." Everything else up for discussion there is moot!
-
I have two more questions about the "Abbey Road" album. In the song "She Came in Through The Bathroom Window", what does the phrase "she could steal but she could not rob" mean? And in "The End" what does this mean" "In the end the love you take is equal to the love you make"? It sounds nice but to me it's like the words of the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal". Another nice statement but is it true? No, not all. We may like to think of all people as being equals but in fact they are not created equal at all. Same goes with love, there are no guarantees. Nothing needs to equal anything else. Some give more than others, some take more than others. I guess it's just a nice phrase to end the album with....sounds good anyway.
-
Scarlett14:
I have two more questions about the "Abbey Road" album. In the song "She Came in Through The Bathroom Window", what does the phrase "she could steal but she could not rob" mean? And in "The End" what does this mean" "In the end the love you take is equal to the love you make"? It sounds nice but to me it's like the words of the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal". Another nice statement but is it true? No, not all. We may like to think of all people as being equals but in fact they are not created equal at all. Same goes with love, there are no guarantees. Nothing needs to equal anything else. Some give more than others, some take more than others. I guess it's just a nice phrase to end the album with....sounds good anyway.
Wow! How can I explain this to you when you are so off base? Okay--In the end (when we die) the love we take with us is the same (equal) to the love we gave to others. That's all Paul was saying, do you see? And as for the "she could steal but she could not rob" It rhymes with "job" (it's as simple as that)
-
Nancy R:
Wow! How can I explain this to you when you are so off base? Okay--In the end (when we die) the love we take with us is the same (equal) to the love we gave to others. That's all Paul was saying, do you see? And as for the "she could steal but she could not rob" It rhymes with "job" (it's as simple as that)
Sorry, Nancy, no, I don't see. I'm saying I don't agree with that. I'll give you an example of what I'm thinking from my own perspective.... When we die we can take more (or less) than the love we make. For instance in "Wuthering Heights", Heathcliff was loved by Mr Earnshaw who adopted him and loved him and treated him well. Catherine (Cathy) also loved him and treated him well (except that she did wind up marrying someone else). Heathcliff spent most of his life bent on revenge and hatred because of how his step-siblings treated him (and he wasn't exactly thrilled over Cathy's marriage either). He died a mean, lonely and tortured man. By all rights he should take no love with him - he was a miserable soul who showed no glimmer of kindness toward anyone. But he WAS loved by two people in his lifetime who would have always wished him well. That's what I think you take with you when you die. The love others feel toward you even if you do nothing in return. He was loved, you'd just never know it by HIS actions. It's really not that important. The song could have ended with "whatever good you do in life comes back to you full circle". Another not necessarily true line. Sounds nice though. Regarding the "She could steal but she could not rob" line, if I were a songwriter I would never use meaningless lines like that (if it is in fact meaningless as you say)....that's just taking the easy way out to me. I'd want something true, possibly striving toward profound in its highest form. In Dan Fogelberg's song "Auld Lang Syne"..from the first time I heard that song I knew that was a real life incident he was talking about (and I knew nothing about Dan Fogelberg)...everything about that song rang true and was relate-able in a very human experience way. You could just feel the heartache jumping out at you between the words. Not that every song needs to be born of an actual experience, mind you, but at least have it mean something to somebody.
-
Nancy is right regarding the steal/rob line. Many of the lyrics to Mean Mister Mustard/Polythene Pam/She Came In Through The Bathroom Window were essentially meaningless lyrics with some vague references sprinkled in. "She could steal, but she could not rob" sounds quite good (an oxymoron) and rhymes with the prior phrase, but is essentially meaningless. Take a look at all of the skillfully woven together imagery that is essentially nonsense, but sounds great (Paul was/is quite good at this!): She came in through the bathroom window Protected by a silver spoon But now she sucks her thumb and wanders By the banks of her own lagoon Didn't anybody tell her? Didn't anybody see? Sunday's on the phone to Monday Tuesday's on the phone to me She said she'd always been a dancer She worked at 15 clubs a day And though she thought I knew the answer Well I knew what I could not say And so I quit the police department And got myself a steady job And though she tried her best to help me She could steal but she could not rob Didn't anybody tell her? Didn't anybody see? Sunday's on the phone to Monday Tuesday's on the phone to me Oh yeah "The love you take is equal to the love you make" Sounds profound like a mathematical equation, but it isn't really. A beautiful ending to their last album (if you discount Her Majesty). Don't try to over analyze it--it wasn't written to be analyzed literally but as more of a metaphor.
-
Scarlett14:
Nancy R:
Wow! How can I explain this to you when you are so off base? Okay--In the end (when we die) the love we take with us is the same (equal) to the love we gave to others. That's all Paul was saying, do you see? And as for the "she could steal but she could not rob" It rhymes with "job" (it's as simple as that)
Sorry, Nancy, no, I don't see. I'm saying I don't agree with that. I'll give you an example of what I'm thinking from my own perspective.... When we die we can take more (or less) than the love we make. For instance in "Wuthering Heights", Heathcliff was loved by Mr Earnshaw who adopted him and loved him and treated him well. Catherine (Cathy) also loved him and treated him well (except that she did wind up marrying someone else). Heathcliff spent most of his life bent on revenge and hatred because of how his step-siblings treated him (and he wasn't exactly thrilled over Cathy's marriage either). He died a mean, lonely and tortured man. By all rights he should take no love with him - he was a miserable soul who showed no glimmer of kindness toward anyone. But he WAS loved by two people in his lifetime who would have always wished him well. That's what I think you take with you when you die. The love others feel toward you even if you do nothing in return. He was loved, you'd just never know it by HIS actions. It's really not that important. The song could have ended with "whatever good you do in life comes back to you full circle". Another not necessarily true line. Sounds nice though.
Sounds nice - I think that's what Paul was going for. Not making a big philisophical statement, just a note about if we're good to others we get good back as well. He just phrased it in a nicer way. Even John, who was critical of Paul's lyrics, thought it was a beautiful statement. Keep in mind, everyone in the band knew this was the final song of their final album. It may not have been so much about the world, but about Paul's feelings about his mates and the fantastic journey they had been on. (I am not basing this on anything, just a thought)
-
In what way was John critical of Paul's lyrics? I think I have heard a reference to Yoko as having said "Paul is all moon and June"...is that what you're talking about?
-
John would make disparaging remarks about Paul's "granny music" and simple lyrics. There was a lot of competition between them, and John was more vocal about his disapproval of songs, but John also was Paul's biggest fan. About The End:
In his 1980 interview with Playboy, John Lennon acknowledged McCartney's authorship by saying, "That's Paul again ... He had a line in it, 'And in the end, the love you get is equal to the love you give,' which is a very cosmic, philosophical line. Which again proves that if he wants to, he can think." Lennon misquoted the line slightly; the actual words are, "And, in the end, the love you take/ Is equal to the love you make."
-
John's idea of Paul's Granny music: Your Mother Should Know, When I'm 64, Honey Pie, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da and You Gave Me The Answer. Wonder what he would have thought of some of Paul's later stuff like Kisses On The Bottom?
-
Erik in NJ:
SurSteven:
I don't think that John planned it that way. It was simply a natural progression of events. They had accomplished everything they could as a band. There was nowhere left for them to go. I am quite glad for all of the good songs that were to follow.
I have to take exception to the statement "They had accomplished everything they could as a band--there was nowhere left for them to go." What on earth do you base this statement on? It's as trite as saying "it was destiny for them to meet" and "everything happens for a reason." Yoko was a major catalyst for the tensions within the band according to several source in and outside of the band. Even with her ubiquitous presence, they certainly did not accomplish everything they could have as a band. If what you're saying is true they had no more good music left in them as a team...sorry I totally disagree with that. I think without Yoko in the mix (the wooden sabot in the works) I think we would have seen more brilliant albums by the Beatles into the 70s and we could have avoided some of the tortured dirges like "I'm So Tired."
Keep in mind the "rivalry" aspect. The Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc. were all bout to hit their peak in the early 70s & the press would have a field day saying The Beatles are no longer the best band & cant keep up. That would have motivated the band, imo.
-
Nancy R:
John's idea of Paul's Granny music: Your Mother Should Know, When I'm 64, Honey Pie, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da and You Gave Me The Answer. Wonder what he would have thought of some of Paul's later stuff like Kisses On The Bottom?
70 year old John might have loved it. John had a massive collection of Bing Crosby's works at the Dakota. Knowing John was a huge fan of Der Bingle makes me love him even more.
-
Scarlett14:
In what way was John critical of Paul's lyrics? I think I have heard a reference to Yoko as having said "Paul is all moon and June"...is that what you're talking about?
All of your questions made me wonder if you ever heard John's How Do You Sleep? Which was in response to Paul.
-
oobu24:
Scarlett14:
In what way was John critical of Paul's lyrics? I think I have heard a reference to Yoko as having said "Paul is all moon and June"...is that what you're talking about?
All of your questions made me wonder if you ever heard John's How Do You Sleep? Which was in response to Paul.
oh yeah... "The sound you make is muzak to my ears" And that might be the most pleasant line in that song. I really hate that he recorded that song (and that George played on it too).