Youd think that people would have had enought of silly love songs.
But I look around me and I see it isnt so.
Some people wanna fill the world with silly love songs.
And whats wrong with that?
Id like to know, cause here I go again

Geez, I never would have guessed.

On another occasion he said he wrote it at a ski lodge with George while they were joking about faking speaking french in order to come off as French studs. Their phony gibberish made it into the song.

I loved the National Lampoon's Beatles Quiz 30 or so years ago:

Q. When did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs?

A. 1962-present.

Crown_of_Shoes: On another occasion he said he wrote it at a ski lodge with George while they were joking about faking speaking french in order to come off as French studs. Their phony gibberish made it into the song.

Sont des mots qui vont très bien ensemble,
Très bien ensemble?

Bufu: I loved the National Lampoon's Beatles Quiz 30 or so years ago:

Q. When did Paul McCartney write Silly Love Songs?

A. 1962-present.

I came in here to post this *exactly*.

GET OUT OF MY MIND.

Begs to differ.

/that's not Yoko, children.

Oh big deal. he could only get laid by girls named "Michelle" with that, and there's only about 10 million of them who'd like to sleep with a Beatle.

Paul was the cute one.

'Nuff said.

DarthBrooks, you make my heart smile!

At least Paul got laid by someone not old enough to be his mother.

Well, mostly, anyway.

heh. You know what?

Good for both of them. They found what they could do really well and went with it.

And Lennon - who was a misogynist idiot from a crap area with an awful background and had the benifit of a quick wit - tended to write the kind of "peace songs" that give people who actually do something that helps keep the peace a bad name.

He is possibly one of the most overrated human beings in history.

/Yeah, I'm one of the rare musicians who does anything but the Beatles style of songwriting. I enjoy quite a lot of their stuff, but elevating John Lennon like that is disingenuous at best.

Crown_of_Shoes: On another occasion he said he wrote it at a ski lodge with George while they were joking about faking speaking french in order to come off as French studs. Their phony gibberish made it into the song.

Except, of course, if you speak French - it isn't gibberish. It's French.

Paul died in '64.

paulseta: And Lennon - who was a misogynist idiot from a crap area with an awful background and had the benifit of a quick wit - tended to write the kind of "peace songs" that give people who actually do something that helps keep the peace a bad name.

He is possibly one of the most overrated human beings in history.

/Yeah, I'm one of the rare musicians who does anything but the Beatles style of songwriting. I enjoy quite a lot of their stuff, but elevating John Lennon like that is disingenuous at best.

You're such a rare musician that no one has ever heard of you. Way to go. To call yourself a musician (rare or otherwise) is, perhaps, disingeneuous at best. All humans can compose something - whether anyone else wants to listen to their hummings is another issue altogether.

You also earned an eternal ignore from me. As a fellow/sister musician, I'm not going let myself be tempted to make rude comments about your completely non-famous musical career - I'm just going to ignore you.

Fortunately, I don't have to ignore your non-existent, non-Beatles-inspired compositions, as no one covers them and they aren't anywhere.

humming nowhere man

paulseta: And Lennon - who was a misogynist idiot from a crap area with an awful background and had the benifit of a quick wit - tended to write the kind of "peace songs" that give people who actually do something that helps keep the peace a bad name.

He is possibly one of the most overrated human beings in history.

/Yeah, I'm one of the rare musicians who does anything but the Beatles style of songwriting. I enjoy quite a lot of their stuff, but elevating John Lennon like that is disingenuous at best.

And injecting your music into a Beatles thread without a concrete sample is beyond reproach? Granted I've played in my share of crap rock bands but I wouldn't throw down without a sample of said craprock. (Hypocrite brap still haven't figured out how to convert said craprock into mockable interwebby format)

Atypical Person Reading Fark

brap


Umm... guys, I wasn't at any time saying my music was any good, let alone better. I was just qualifying the rest of my statement with the fact that I noticed a lot of musicians do get heavily influenced by The Beatles. I am not one of them. There's no more to be taken from that statement.

As I also said, I enjoy a lot of their stuff, just don't see them as the be all end all.

And Atypical Person Reading Fark - I really really hate to say it, but I have been covered by others and done pretty well out of my music career - not anthing like 1,000,000th of a fraction of *them*... but I have done ok. Like most people here, I am not using my real name in a Tfark handle.

Most guys start writing pop songs to get teh punanni. Some of them go on to bigger subjects, like "why am I here?", "what's the meaning of all this?" and "why can't I find a drummer who isn't homeless?"

That was the nature of the Beatles. Macca wrote love songs, George got a bone thrown to him once in awhile, Ringo wrote about horticultural habits of octopi, and John wrote the rest.

It was a great partnership.

paulseta: I noticed a lot of musicians do get heavily influenced by The Beatles. I am not one of them.

That's kind of like saying that Western culture isn't influenced by Christianity.

Oh, I'm never going to live that one down, am I?

One of the very first members of Fark, never had a problem with anyone until I disparage The Beatles. I must admit, I never saw that coming.

Oddly enough, one of our family friends worked on a lot of their stuff as an engineer. Some of what I think of them is based in part of what he's told me.

Why we rock.
Paul knew.
John forgot.

Bufu: DarthBrooks, you make my heart smile!

quit playin grabass and get in the game!

No hate here, just conversin'.

I too have been covered by others. Granted half the time it has been disgruntled concertgoers literally trying to smother the life out of me by piling on my vocal chords but that's beyond the point.

The other half has been sentimental crap rock bands slaughtering my original vision whilst not paying the piper - but that's another not entirely interesting story.

Like I said nothin' but love.

Let it be know, I'm talking SMALLLLLLL potaters, no self-inflation intended. Although my myth is HUUUUGGGE.

DarthBrooks: /that's not Yoko, children.

That is, in fact, May Pang, Yoko's assistant, whom she paid well to have an affair with John.
/Way hotter than Yoko imho

I read somewhere, 20 years ago or so, that Paul McCartney wrote "Silly Love Songs" because some record company executive told him not to have any silly love songs on the new album he was doing for Wings. That nobody wanted to hear them anymore.

And Paul McCartney was all, Dude, I am a farking Beatle..., you are telling me how to write music? WTF?

And so we got a truly silly love song.

I do not know if this story is true, but it pleases me to believe it is.

The Beatles, as a band, were not especially talented. McCartney and Lennon have been quoted as saying the lyrics had no meaning--they just sounded good with the music. The music was good, but heavily manufactured by the studio. Just like the hundreds of popular bands today.

Sun God: The Beatles, as a band, were not especially talented. McCartney and Lennon have been quoted as saying the lyrics had no meaning--they just sounded good with the music. The music was good, but heavily manufactured by the studio. Just like the hundreds of popular bands today.

To say that they're 'not especially talented' is a bit of a stretch. Their fan base (these days obviously) ranges from country music fans to metalheads to emo whiny farks to jazz aficionados to people who liked Hanson.
To top it off, they're respected by the best of the best in terms of musician-ship. That takes talent.

I think you're confusing talent with speed.

Um, guys, the article never says that McCartney admits anything. It says that his new biographer says that.

Big difference. Not that he didn't really do exactly that.

But he didn't say that he did.

Notice who has lived longer.

So McCartney was the smart one.

Beatle Troll is Beatled.

SunTzuX: DarthBrooks: /that's not Yoko, children.

That is, in fact, May Pang, Yoko's assistant, whom she paid well to have an affair with John.
/Way hotter than Yoko imho

Indeed, and a tasty little dish she was. I can remember seeing her photo in Rolling Stone and thinking that John was stepping up. When I found out she was paid to do it, I still felt like John got the better part of the bargain. Plus she wrote a tell-all book and made even more money off the project.

As for the fundamentals of rock and why rockers do it, leave it to Andy Partridge of XTC to sum it up: "We formed a band to drink beer, meet women, and make money."

You can't write off Paul completely. I love some of his white album stuff. Some of his stuff had an edge. I wouldn't argue though that John was pushing them forward more than Paul. However Paul added plenty in his own way. The Beetles were stronger as a unit. Paul counter John...John countered Paul. For awhile, when they were not even working together, some of that still shows in their songs.

I sure miss John not being around. Wonder what he would be doing now. It good to watch Imagine the documentary. He was hardly perfect and pretty full of himself at times. But being human is messy in one way or the other for all of us.

I was listening to Tomorrow Never Knows a few days ago... Still clicks for me. Hey I like spacey stuff.

Paul McCartney is a self-important twat.

baked beans: Paul died in '64.

I heard he blew his mind out in a car.

paulseta: He is possibly one of the most overrated human beings in history.

"All you need is love" - John Lennon

"Love is all you need? Yeah, try living off it." - Keith Richards

/stones FTW

baked beans: Paul died in '64.

you mean '66

but it doesn't matter
cuz RAM is still the greatest album of all time

paulseta: And Lennon

....He is possibly one of the most overrated human beings in history.

/Yeah, I'm one of the rare musicians who does anything but the Beatles style of songwriting. I enjoy quite a lot of their stuff, but elevating John Lennon like that is disingenuous at best.

Post-Beatles, Lennon popped out what? 3 or 4 songs that anyone can even name? Meanwhile McCartney went on to do #1 albums just about annually. I do admit Double Fantasy had some good work on it. But apart from McCartney, Lennon's was the Paris Hilton attention-whore kind of fame, not the fame from actually accomplishing anything except getting yourself on the front page.

fenrael23: Paul McCartney is a self-important twat.

Huh? Oh yeah, he's out running himself off in front of the cameras all the time, isn't he?

So there was something for everyone on the albums. So what? John liked to explore psychadelic sounds like with Tomorrow Never Knows while Paul was writing old dance hall stuff like Honey Pie. If they all went Zack de la Rocha on their albums nobody would've bought 'em back in the late 60s.

Most of my favorite Beatles songs were written by George Harrison.

Hal Jalykakik: Most guys start writing pop songs to get teh punanni. Some of them go on to bigger subjects, like "why am I here?", "what's the meaning of all this?" and "why can't I find a drummer who isn't homeless won't spontaneously combust?"


FTFY

It's a song about attempting to romance a woman with only a minimal command of her language -- not even knowing "je t'aime." What do you expect?

/Sunday, monkey play piano song...play piano song...

That headline is full of fail. While John was living the life of the country squire and taking weeklong acid trips --and after ca. late 1965, constantly threatening to leave the band-- Macca was in London hanging out with artists, writers, poets and classical musicians of the day. Stockhausen didn't end up on the cover of Sgt. Pepper's because of John Lennon. Yes, Tomorrow Never Knows is awesome, but all that backwards tape stuff? Paul. The lead guitar? Paul. Revolution 9? Big deal, Paul had done The Carnival of Light tape collage a year earlier.

Etc. etc. Paul was in the mix with what was going on in London, John hated all that "arts-y" stuff, but he went along with it lest "the cute Beatle" be seen as the driving force of the band he started. They needed each other --John to curb Paul's sappy side, Paul to give John a kick to move beyond just re-writing Chuck Berry songs-- and it was great while it lasted.

Sun God: The Beatles, as a band, were not especially talented.

Nonsense, total rubbish. They had 2 great lead singers, a fine singer who sang great harmonies (George), two of the best pop songwriters ever and a third one who once he got the space turned out some incredible songs (George), a terrific rhythm player (John), one of the best rock bassists ever and a drummer who is held in high regard by his fellow musicians. Were they the Mahavishnu Orchestra? No, of course not, but that's not a knock on The Beatles either.

McCartney and Lennon have been quoted as saying the lyrics had no meaning--they just sounded good with the music.

You mean like 98% of all pop music lyrics?

The music was good, but heavily manufactured by the studio.

That's like a neutron star of dumb. The test of time is that if you sit down with an acoustic guitar or a piano and play those songs, they still hold up. How bizarre to ding The Beatles for expanding what a recording studio could do beyond just sticking some mics in a room and having a band play live and capturing that on tape.

mavrick45 baked beans: Paul died in '64.

you mean '66

My favorite "Paul is dead" clue: George pointing to the lyric "Wednesday morning at 5 o'clock" on the back of Sgt. Pepper's.

It's silly to assign one motivation to a bunch of guys who played and wrote music together for more than ten years. (At least John, Paul and George did.) Their motivations all changed as they achieved success, got married, got divorced, got taxed, sought spiritual things, learned to record things in new ways, etc.

I've been reading a great book recently called "A hard day's write: The stories behind every Beatles song" by Steve Turner. It says that the tune of Michelle was originally written while the group was still based in Liverpool to make fun of French beatnik singers and had been performed by Paul at parties for several years to "Charles Aznavour-style Gallic groanings" until 1965, when John asked him to write proper lyrics for the song so they could put it on their next album. Paul worked with a Jan Vaughan, the wife of the guy who introduced Paul to John on the lyrics. She was a French teacher who helped him with the lyrics. John suggested the "I love you" middle section and the tune was inspired by Chet Atkins' playing style and showed off the "F7#9 chord" Paul had just learned at a Liverpool music store.

May > Yoko

but yoko has bigger boobies

but May is more hawt

Macca's new album is going to be one of his best ever.

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Crown_of_Shoes: On another occasion he said he wrote it at a ski lodge with George while they were joking about faking speaking french in order to come off as French studs. Their phony gibberish made it into the song.

Except, of course, if you speak French - it isn't gibberish. It's French.

I'm fairly sure that it is gibberish.