Say Something *NEW* about the Beatles...

but that's not true. they had a lousy reissue campaign, with questionable remastering, no bonus tracks and perfunctory packaging.

I don't know which Beatles thread to post this in, so this'll have to do. I've been listening to "Sgt. Pepper" lately (40th anniversary and all) and there is a line in "She's Leaving Home" that has bugged me for many years. The line in question?

"Fun is the one thing that money can't buy."

My reasons for hating this line are thus:

1. Not three years before, the Beatles themselves informed us that money cannot buy love.
2. Of all the things that money can't buy, Macca lists FUN as the ONE THING that MONEY CAN'T BUY? Fun would seem to be one of the easier things to procure through the use of currency. Go see a movie or something, for Christ's sake.

God, I'm a nerd but I had to get this off of my chest.

that line bothered me too

oh wells

i enjoyed reading johan kugelberg's beatles are so awesome piece in the old issue of ugly things with kim fowley on the cover the other day.

As if Paul actually believed every line of lyric that he wrote. I always thought he was more into the idea of putting words together that sound good with the song, rather than emphasizing his words.

To be fair, the speaker in the other song mostly emphasizes that money can't buy HIM love, weakly suggesting that it can't buy YOU love as a sort of trailing afterthought.

Also the original 45 pressing had "YMMV" etched along the run-off groove.

xx-post

Agreed, fully! However, the rest of the song is so evocative (especially for Paul) and carefully put together that I'm surprised he chose such a cop-out line to conclude the whole story (and then stuck poor John with the task of delivering it).

how do you know john didn't write that line?

Well, I don't.

also, how can you say "so evocative for paul" when he was writing stuff like for no one and and eleanor rigby and penny lane around that time??

I don't think it's so bad if you hear it in the voice of rich parents trying to figure out why their daughter ran away after trying to buy her off for years.

paul says in 'many years from now' that they wrote it together: "(john) was doing the Greek chorus, the parents' point of view: 'we gave her most of our lives/we gave her everything money could buy'."

also, how can you say "so evocative for paul" when he was writing stuff like for no one and and eleanor rigby and penny lane around that time??

Those are also especially evocative for Paul. They're the exception, not the rule. For the record, I'm one of the biggest Macca supporters I know - I just had issues with that one line.

And Pete, I do think the line makes sense if you imagine the parents saying it - something that's reinforced by the fact that John sings all of the parents' lines. I'd never noticed this before. I do believe you've saved the song for me!

paul says in 'many years from now' that they wrote it together: "(john) was doing the Greek chorus, the parents' point of view: 'we gave her most of our lives/we gave her everything money could buy'."

See, this is why I love ILM. I can now listen to this line with contentment.

you're content because john wrote it??

I'm content because I'd never imagined that particular line as the parent trying to rationalize their daughter's departure - "oh well, fun is the one thing we couldn't buy for her."

parent -> parents

indeed - problem solved!

Man, I was on fire on this thread.

also, how can you say "so evocative for paul" when he was writing stuff like...

Ah, I think you misread Davey D. He meant that the line was evocative for paul! Since he knows that it was, obv "Davey D." is Paul.

...when he was writing stuff like for no one...

oh come on, even though Davey could only describe his own feelings about the lyrics, I'm sure he was aware that there was an audience out there as well.

1st comment is funny but you lost me on the 2nd one!

I don't know if this has been said, but the version of "I'm Looking Through You" is much, much better on Anthology 2, not just for the superior arrangment and sonics, but because it doesn't yet have the bridge, which is weak musically, and which corners the song into being about love, when it can be about many other kinds of relationships otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eedLQ006ciM

Bridge:
Why, tell me why, did you not treat me right?
Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight

I prefer the Anthology versions of 'Something' and 'Can't Buy Me Love'. 'Something' has more of a sitar-y guitar and a new verse, and 'Can't Buy Me Love' has a call and response structure that works really well, too bad it was scrapped.

IIRC john wrote all of the parents' chorus and took it largely from things his famously cranky aunt mimi used to tell him ("never a thought for ourselves...")

There is nothing new to say about The Beatles. But their music is still great nevertheless. Both as a listen in itself, and as a source of musical influence for new generations of musicians to come.

You are a true patriot.

musical influence for new generations of musicians to come.

That could very well be needless wishful thinking, Geir. I say let young people create their own music.

They will anyway.

Ah, I think you misread Davey D. He meant that the line was evocative for paul! Since he knows that it was, obv "Davey D." is Paul.

Have you heard my amazing new album, Memory Almost Full? It like, a stunning return to form, or something, y'know?

I don't know if this has been said, but the version of "I'm Looking Through You" is much, much better on Anthology 2, not just for the superior arrangment and sonics, but because it doesn't yet have the bridge, which is weak musically, and which corners the song into being about love, when it can be about many other kinds of relationships otherwise.

I agree about the bridge cornering the song lyrically, but I prefer the original arrangement. Anthology 3's version of "Ob-La-Di" completely slays the White Album version, though.

It's been a long time since I've heard it, but I seem to remember the acoustic version of "All Things Must Pass" on "Anthology 3" being pretty amazing.

1st comment is funny but you lost me on the 2nd one!

Insert commas in your mind before and after "like".

In my early teens the family had a CD player that had buttons for intro and repeat. You could program a single song and use both buttons so that it'd play the first ten seconds endlessly. I discovered this worked rather well with "Girl," such that you get asked "Is there anybody going to listen to my story all about the girl who came to stay?" over and over. What was once a rhetorical question starts to seem rather desperate after a while.

You know, I read recently that Paul wrote "for no-one" while on holiday abroad (switzerland?) with Jane Asher.

Must have been one hell of a downer holiday!

I say let young people create their own music.

Yes. But based on the legacy of The Beatles. Just like Beethoven created his own music based on the legacy of Mozart and Haydn.

The bridge is the best thing about "I'm Looking Through You"

The 'pre-' version without the bridge is better.

but geir there have already been generations that have done something with the legacy of the beatles. i don't know how long you expect it to go on.

It reads like a Minor Threat song without the bridge.

Stephen King shot John Lennon.

but geir there have already been generations that have done something with the legacy of the beatles.

Not as much as it ought to. Other than progrock, pomp pop and Britpop, not a lot of post 60s music has built that much on The Beatles.

(And powerpop obv)