NumberNineDream

Yeah, I know ... I never thought it was unliked. So thought I'd explain why I personally do: It's not much into the melodies, or into the lyrics, but there's something else about it ... it just that it does suck you in this hypnotizing cycle, to the point that even The Beatles when recording it didn't mean it to be this long, they just forgot to stop. The Bob Dylan influence in that song is not in the lyrics it's in the music, and this hypnotizing riff was adopted by John Lennon in many future works like Remember, God or I Found Out. It's not something you need to like, it's just the thing that made me love John Lennon and that finally introduced me to The Beatles.

__________________

Awesometastic

Many. The length is not necessarily a bad thing. It's whether you do anything with the length. Like a Rolling Stone and Hurricane are the first long Dylan songs that come to mind. They aren't draggy, needlessly repetitive, and continue to develop new lyrical ideas the whole way through. She's So Heavy and Revolution 9 do not.

Because does not use the same riff as Sun King. Give it another listen. You Never Give Me Your Money uses a melodic motif that is reused in Golden Slumbers and Carry That Weight, but on the whole it is a much stronger motif than the one used over and over again in Because and She's So Heavy. You'll also notice that those songs don't just hang on that motif the whole time. They all develop and move to different places.

There's also nothing inherently wrong about hanging out on the same riff or chord structure or motif or what have you for a whole song, as long as something is being coherently developed. Take the Funkadelic song "Maggot Brain" for instance. It actually runs a very similar riff throughout the whole song. But over that riff it develops a very emotional and beautiful guitar solo, so it's fine. But Because and She's So Heavy never really go anywhere and the lyrics are inane.

It's music criticism; it's inherently subjective. This all just my opinion, man. In general, though I think you always need to have something interesting going on in a song. My problem with Tomorrow Never Knows is that it throws away what the Beatles were best at - melody, harmony, lyrics - and doesn't really replace it with an adequate substitute. I don't listen to the Beatles for their avante garde experimentalism. That's why I listen to Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, Brian Eno, etc. Avante Garde was not their thing. I listen to them because they were a great pop band.

It's not that it's a cover that I have a problem with and I'm not criticizing the songwriting on it. It's an ok rock song in like a Chuck Berry or Little Richard vein, but the Beatles have just spent the last forty minutes playing some of the most complicated, beautiful, and ORIGINAL pop music ever. To close with a cover that sounds just like everything they were doing two years before ... well it sticks out like a sore thumb.

First, this is a music discussion board. I'm sorry my music discussion offended you, but I thought that was the point.

Second, I absolutely LOVE the Beatles. I think they are the greatest pop ensemble ever. But that doesn't mean they are infallible. The vast majority of their stuff is incredible, but I don't have to love everything to be a fan.

Third, I have listened to John's solo stuff. It bores the pants off me. This might come from my music major background, but John was really not that sophisticated a musician. The really sophisticated stuff tended to come from McCartney and Harrison. Without them, his music is just a pale shadow of what he was producing as a Beatle. As was McCartney's because just as Lennon needed him for his musical knowledge, he needed Lennon to challenge him and keep him from composing only syrupy bubble gum pop.

Thus the only Beatle with a worthwhile solo career is Harrison. And Ringo, if you count his tenure as the conductor of Thomas the Tank Engine and add the excellent song Photograph (which Harrison mostly wrote for him too) to the equation. But in all seriousness, really the only one to match what they did as a Beatle, and to continue to grow as an artist was Harrison.

storymilo

Well I can respect that. I guess it just never clicked with me.

I do like Lennon's solo work though.

Awesometastic

Again, neither are bad songs. They are the weakest on the album for me though. I think the great thing about the Beatles is that all their stuff was so varied, and for the most part, so good, that anyone can listen to them and come away with vastly different, but all equally valid and defensible opinions. I mean, ask people for their favorite Beatles album and you'll get valid arguments for every album from Hard Days Night all the way to Abbey Road. How many other bands can do that?

Awesometastic

I have nothing to do with the average Beatles fan. My musical opinions are quite often outliers because I tend to look at music a little differently and more analytically than most people. I'm definitely not a "true" Beatles fan, just a guy who likes the vast majority of their stuff. A lot.

NumberNineDream

I can agree with that, marvelous work there.

All I meant is, if there's something you don't like, you can't just judge it as obnoxious and use it as an argument, then say ay well it's meant to be a discussion. Cause the whole rest of the discussion will be "I hate that so it's ugly", and not much can be debated there cause it is only your opinion that you're somehow you're trying to transform into fact.

And because everything that you felt were massive holes in those songs, I on the other hand felt they were the strong points of them. That's why there's no point it telling you that, cause it's obvious that we just have a very different way of looking at it, and there's bo right and wrong.

However, kudos on your musical knowledge, you do look like a very promising add to MB.

__________________

Awesometastic

Like I said before, it's all my opinion. Point out which specific parts you disagree with, and I'll tell you exactly why I think that. So if I said, "the lyrics are stupid" and you don't agree, tell me, so I can tell you WHAT about the lyrics I don't like. That doesn't mean you have to feel the same as me; music is subjective, so you probably won't. But I will gladly defend any point I post with reasoned argument if you tell me what I'm arguing.

And again, if the saaaaame six lyrics and the saaaaame guitar riff for seven minutes bothers me, that doesn't mean they bother anyone else. But that's the nature of criticism: we can only share our own critiques and criticisms; we never know how anyone else will react to any given thing.

bungalow

Stupid meaningless attempts at faux-depth? That sentence is a stupid meaningless attempt at real critical writing. Your whole post was, actually. And I could only read the words "interminable", "vapid" and various derivations of "melodic/unmelodic" so many times before I stopped taking you seriously completely and reached the same conclusion as NumberNineDream...

Awesometastic

Ok then, if the lyrics aren't stupid and meaningless, what do they mean?

Lennon loved his dimestore philosophizing, but very little of what he said in his songs was truly profound. I like him, but Leonard Cohen he is not.

In the future, to make you happy, I'll try not to use big words or talk about aspects of melody when criticizing music.

bungalow

Using big words is fine...you just sound like a windbag. And the lyrics to Tomorrow Never Knows could mean a variety of things, depends on who is interpreting them really.

"Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream"

By "turn off your mind" I believe Lennon is referring to the incessant chatter that occurs in the mind--constantly analyzing objects, people, and situations without allowing us to reflect on them as they are--without our subjective value judgments. To "turn off" this chatter would allow us to relax, and accept the present moment as it is and be content with it.

"It is not dying"

To actually stop the mind and allow yourself to float downstream is a frightening concept to many people. Lennon is offering reassurance that disassociation from yourself is not death or anything to be frightened of.

"Lay down all thought, surrender to the void"

Again Lennon is asking us to stop our constant internal conversation, but in this line he also mentions that we are "surrendering" to something. A "void" that is greater than we are. I believe the "void" he is referring to is the emptiness and stillness of the world as it is, unimpeded by our thoughts. All things are inherently meaningless--Lennon is asking us to recognize this. The "void" is also probably a reference to psychedelic/mystical experiences which can result in "ego death"--when this occurs one literally does feel as though they are floating through some sort of inter-dimensional space, perhaps, a "void" if you will.

"It is shining"

Maybe a reference to a "nimitta" in Buddhism or something analogous in other religious traditions--basically a mental object that one experiences after intense meditation when the mind is singularly focused on the initial object of meditation. These mental objects are often described as balls of light/stars/etc. The "shining" here could also mean the liberating insight gained from clearing the mind. These interpretations sort of go hand in hand.

"That you may see the meaning of within"

All of these things that Lennon has asked us to do will allow us to see the "meaning of within." The true nature of reality/ourselves/everything.

"It is being"

Very simple...all things simply are. Everything is.

"That love is all that love is everyone"

Perhaps this is the insight that Lennon has gained from turning off his mind, or perhaps he is proposing this as the true nature of reality. Perhaps both. Either way Lennon sees all things as a manifestation of love energy. Love is everything and everyone and therefore love is the only thing that is important. All you need is love indeed...

"It is knowing"

Love is omniscient.

"That ignorance and hate may mourn the dead"

Maybe Lennon is saying that "ignorance", or the inability of humans to see the true nature of all things and the root cause of all suffering on the planet, and "hate" or actions driven by human aversion, another root cause of suffering, will mourn the loss of those who have taken Lennon's advice. The human ego is constantly trying to delude us for its own satisfaction, and these delusional thoughts inevitably lead to suffering. The pleasure that the ego seeks also leads to suffering but humanity is unable to recognize this often times and so continues to dwell in and construct thoughts based on egotistical delusions. Recognize this and you can be free from delusion. You will experience "ego death", you will be one of "the dead."

"But listen to the color of your dreams"

Another psychedelic reference probably, as people often report "hearing" or feeling colors--a visual phenomena. By color Lennon also probably means substance. Listen to the substance of your dreams--be mindful of the things that your dreams can teach you about the world. "Dreams" may also be a reference to psychedelic/mystical experiences.

"It is not living"

I don't know. Maybe Lennon is saying that we are not "living" if we don't follow his advice here. Or maybe he is saying that we are not living if we do follow his advice. Because living implies the duality between "life/death", and because these dualities are also meaningless, following Lennon's advice will lead one to the conclusion that one is not living. To think of yourself as "alive" is to again differentiate yourself from your surroundings, from things that aren't "alive" and because these distinctions are meaningless you cease to view yourself as living when Lennon's advice is truly taken to heart.

"Or play the game of existence to the end of the beginning"

Likely a reference to the Buddhist view of reincarnation. Failure to experience ego death, to wholly turn off your mind and gain insight into the true nature of reality will result in rebirth on this plane of existence--over and over until one finally reaches Nibbana.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certainly not meaningless. Seeing them as such is indicative of fault on your end, not Lennon's.