Smart Girls

[Landlocked]

You reminded me of when David Leaf came down to my office after a meeting with Don Zimmermann, then president of Capitol Records. He showed me a cassette of unreleased Beach Boys songs that he had given to him to evaluate for possible release. Next to We're Together Again, Don wrote, "This is not a song."

Really? Ha, that's great. I mean, in a way it's unfair, because you look at stuff contemporaries of the Beach Boys have put out on albums and the same description is true. Seriously, Beatles? "Wild Honey Pie"?
[/quote]

"Wild Honey Pie" is more of a song than "Revolution 9."

[runnersdialzero]

"Ding Dang", "We're Together Again", "Revolution 9" etc. are indeed songs. Things don't have to have a "proper" rock/pop arrangement, verse/chorus structure, and be 3:30 to be considered a song.

Kinda upsetting that this Zimmermann fellow had the balls to say something was not a song. Hate to throw out the tired ol' "Let's see you do better" thing, as inability to do better doesn't mean you can't be critical, but it feels very appropriate for Mr.Zimmermann's attitude and all these other suits who think they know music yet probably never wrote a second of it in their life.

[keysarsoze001]

You reminded me of when David Leaf came down to my office after a meeting with Don Zimmermann, then president of Capitol Records. He showed me a cassette of unreleased Beach Boys songs that he had given to him to evaluate for possible release. Next to We're Together Again, Don wrote, "This is not a song."

Really? Ha, that's great. I mean, in a way it's unfair, because you look at stuff contemporaries of the Beach Boys have put out on albums and the same description is true. Seriously, Beatles? "Wild Honey Pie"?

"Wild Honey Pie" is more of a song than "Revolution 9."
[/quote]

Well, sure, but at least with that you could say it was deliberate experimentation. "Wild Honey Pie" was more like mucking about.

[Landlocked]

"Ding Dang", "We're Together Again", "Revolution 9" etc. are indeed songs. Things don't have to have a "proper" rock/pop arrangement, verse/chorus structure, and be 3:30 to be considered a song.

Kinda upsetting that this Zimmermann fellow had the balls to say something was not a song. Hate to throw out the tired ol' "Let's see you do better" thing, as inability to do better doesn't mean you can't be critical, but it feels very appropriate for Mr.Zimmermann's attitude and all these other suits who think they know music yet probably never wrote a second of it in their life.

No, "Revolution 9" is not a song because it lacks the distinguishing feature of a song, and that is singing. It's just instrumentation and loops. Not a song.

And it's crap. The Beatles thought a little too highly of themselves, methinks, when they put this one together. I guess they heard Varese or something and in a stoned stupid thought that they could just throw anything together and garner more respect from the avant-garde crowd. Maybe it worked, since people defend this piece to this day. In my opinion, though, "Revolution 9" is about artistically profound as "Kokomo." I'm not a luddite, I dig "Poeme electronique," "Peripetie," and "Chromatische Phantasie," but I think the Beatles overreached with this non-song.

(Just to clarify, I'm not implying there's a musical connection per se between the aforementioned pieces and "Revolution 9," just that they all similarly depart from classical, accepted musical vocabulary. However, I believe those three are examples of music that was difficult, jarring, and groundbreaking that was actually worthwhile, whereas "Revolution 9" was just a bunch of guys in a studio splicing together the first things they got their hands together without much thought to craftsmanship. Innovation for the sake of innovation.)

[keysarsoze001]

Yes, true. Whereas I don't think Brian was trying to be anything with "Ding Dang". He wrote it as another song, same as any other during that period, really.

[runnersdialzero]

No, "Revolution 9" is not a song because it lacks the distinguishing feature of a song, and that is singing.

So "Pet Sounds" is not a song.

The Beatles thought a little too highly of themselves, methinks, when they put this one together.

"Revolution 9" was just a bunch of guys in a studio splicing together the first things they got their hands together without much thought to craftsmanship. Innovation for the sake of innovation.)

No arguments here. Still don't agree at all with the idea that it's not a song, though. I took much more issue with the claims that "Ding Dang" and "We're Together Again" weren't songs, anyway.

[keysarsoze001]

I was mostly being glib with my statement about "Ding Dang". I wouldn't part with it on that album for the world. But it does work better in context than it ever could on its own, I think.

As for "Revolution 9", that whole album just sort of peters out somewhere around "Long Long Long". Side 4 doesn't come close to living up to the prior three sides. When I listen to it on my iPod, I swap out "Revolution 1" for the single version and "Revolution 9" with "Hey Jude", cause those were the A sides around the same time. Helps enormously, although no matter what you put before it, ending with Ringo on "Good Night" will always be a somewhat foolish way to end a double-album.

That said, intelligent chicks are dynamite.

[lance]

How is 'WE're Together Again" NOT a song? I don't get that at all. I can sort of see an argument for Ding Dang n ot being a song, or at least not finished and Revolution 9, well, I like it a lot but I wouldn't call it a song, but We're Together Again? I mean what does it lack?

[Landlocked]

No, "Revolution 9" is not a song because it lacks the distinguishing feature of a song, and that is singing.

So "Pet Sounds" is not a song.

The Beatles thought a little too highly of themselves, methinks, when they put this one together.

"Revolution 9" was just a bunch of guys in a studio splicing together the first things they got their hands together without much thought to craftsmanship. Innovation for the sake of innovation.)

No arguments here. Still don't agree at all with the idea that it's not a song, though. I took much more issue with the claims that "Ding Dang" and "We're Together Again" weren't songs, anyway.

I agree with your first point. "Pet Sounds" isn't a song. Just as an example, here's the first sentence on the Wikipedia entry for "song": "In music, a song is a composition for voice or voices, performed by singing."

No singing, no song. So "Ding Dang" is definitely a song, "Pet Sounds" definitely is not. I mean, would you call the "Moonlight Sonata" a song? (Hint: you shouldn't!)

[runnersdialzero]

I was mostly being glib with my statement about "Ding Dang". I wouldn't part with it on that album for the world. But it does work better in context than it ever could on its own, I think.

I know ^_^ no worriez.

[lance]

No one has ever sounded as authentically snot-nosed hot-rod mullet-rock teenager as Mike Love in the sixties. I mean, a great actor playing a teenager singing about their new car might produce a sound something like Mike Love's but Mike Love was THE REAL THING.

[Lonely Summer]

You reminded me of when David Leaf came down to my office after a meeting with Don Zimmermann, then president of Capitol Records. He showed me a cassette of unreleased Beach Boys songs that he had given to him to evaluate for possible release. Next to We're Together Again, Don wrote, "This is not a song."

 
[/quote]  I'd like to know Bob Zimmerman's opinion of "We're Together Again'.

[The Heartical Don]

"Ding Dang", "We're Together Again", "Revolution 9" etc. are indeed songs. Things don't have to have a "proper" rock/pop arrangement, verse/chorus structure, and be 3:30 to be considered a song.

Kinda upsetting that this Zimmermann fellow had the balls to say something was not a song. Hate to throw out the tired ol' "Let's see you do better" thing, as inability to do better doesn't mean you can't be critical, but it feels very appropriate for Mr.Zimmermann's attitude and all these other suits who think they know music yet probably never wrote a second of it in their life.

No, "Revolution 9" is not a song because it lacks the distinguishing feature of a song, and that is singing. It's just instrumentation and loops. Not a song.

And it's crap. The Beatles thought a little too highly of themselves, methinks, when they put this one together. I guess they heard Varese or something and in a stoned stupid thought that they could just throw anything together and garner more respect from the avant-garde crowd. Maybe it worked, since people defend this piece to this day. In my opinion, though, "Revolution 9" is about artistically profound as "Kokomo." I'm not a luddite, I dig "Poeme electronique," "Peripetie," and "Chromatische Phantasie," but I think the Beatles overreached with this non-song.

(Just to clarify, I'm not implying there's a musical connection per se between the aforementioned pieces and "Revolution 9," just that they all similarly depart from classical, accepted musical vocabulary. However, I believe those three are examples of music that was difficult, jarring, and groundbreaking that was actually worthwhile, whereas "Revolution 9" was just a bunch of guys in a studio splicing together the first things they got their hands together without much thought to craftsmanship. Innovation for the sake of innovation.)

Nice to see someone mentioning the 'Chromatische Phantasie'. It's one of the most difficult pieces of music I know.  It's not really listenable, the way the music of Charles Ives still is, to name but one. Yet it's brilliant.

[hypehat]

"Ding Dang", "We're Together Again", "Revolution 9" etc. are indeed songs. Things don't have to have a "proper" rock/pop arrangement, verse/chorus structure, and be 3:30 to be considered a song.

Kinda upsetting that this Zimmermann fellow had the balls to say something was not a song. Hate to throw out the tired ol' "Let's see you do better" thing, as inability to do better doesn't mean you can't be critical, but it feels very appropriate for Mr.Zimmermann's attitude and all these other suits who think they know music yet probably never wrote a second of it in their life.

No, "Revolution 9" is not a song because it lacks the distinguishing feature of a song, and that is singing. It's just instrumentation and loops. Not a song.

And it's crap. The Beatles thought a little too highly of themselves, methinks, when they put this one together. I guess they heard Varese or something and in a stoned stupid thought that they could just throw anything together and garner more respect from the avant-garde crowd. Maybe it worked, since people defend this piece to this day. In my opinion, though, "Revolution 9" is about artistically profound as "Kokomo." I'm not a luddite, I dig "Poeme electronique," "Peripetie," and "Chromatische Phantasie," but I think the Beatles overreached with this non-song.

(Just to clarify, I'm not implying there's a musical connection per se between the aforementioned pieces and "Revolution 9," just that they all similarly depart from classical, accepted musical vocabulary. However, I believe those three are examples of music that was difficult, jarring, and groundbreaking that was actually worthwhile, whereas "Revolution 9" was just a bunch of guys in a studio splicing together the first things they got their hands together without much thought to craftsmanship. Innovation for the sake of innovation.)

But.... how is it different?

Are you being a snob? I don't see any difference between a talented/trained composer creating pieces like that and a pop musician doing the same. You seem to. But John clearly spliced that sh*t together with no rhyme or reason, because he's a popstar, never listened to this sort of thing at all, obviously never spent a lot of his free time over the last two years before Revolution #9 making tape loops, and wasn't at all involved in Avant Garde scenes of the period.

I'm struggling to think what else you would have wanted John/Yoko/The rest to do with Revolution #9, is all.

[keysarsoze001]

I'm pretty sure Revolution 9 was primarily John. We now know that Paul had been messing with tape loops and getting into the Avant Garde scene a lot more than John did around that same time, but he didn't release any of that stuff. I think John's means of entry was basically through Yoko, and that's where his exposure to it ended as well, unless something was introduced to him through her.

[runnersdialzero]

I'm struggling to think what else you would have wanted John/Yoko/The rest to do with Revolution #9, is all.

Tossing the master tape into an active volcano.

[anazgnos]

No, "Revolution 9" is not a song because it lacks the distinguishing feature of a song, and that is singing.

So "Pet Sounds" is not a song.

The Beatles thought a little too highly of themselves, methinks, when they put this one together.

"Revolution 9" was just a bunch of guys in a studio splicing together the first things they got their hands together without much thought to craftsmanship. Innovation for the sake of innovation.)

No arguments here. Still don't agree at all with the idea that it's not a song, though. I took much more issue with the claims that "Ding Dang" and "We're Together Again" weren't songs, anyway.

I agree with your first point. "Pet Sounds" isn't a song. Just as an example, here's the first sentence on the Wikipedia entry for "song": "In music, a song is a composition for voice or voices, performed by singing."

No singing, no song. So "Ding Dang" is definitely a song, "Pet Sounds" definitely is not. I mean, would you call the "Moonlight Sonata" a song? (Hint: you shouldn't!)

Your point would seem to be borne out by the wikipedia entry for "Pet Sounds" (instrumental) not referring to the piece as a song.  However, a series of terrible errors have been made, because at the bottom of the page the article is indicated as being part of the following categories:

    1966 songs
    The Beach Boys songs
    Psychedelic rock songs
    Experimental rock songs
    Rock instrumentals
    Songs written by Brian Wilson
    Songs produced by Brian Wilson

When obviously the only category it actually belongs to is "Rock instrumentals".  I know you'll want to correct this gross oversight as soon as possible.

[Landlocked]

I'm struggling to think what else you would have wanted John/Yoko/The rest to do with Revolution #9, is all.

Tossing the master tape into an active volcano.

  Pretty much.

hypehat, we can agree music is subjective, right? All that matters about it is that it tickles your fancy, correct? Well, with that in mind, I of course have no scientific, objective way of comparing "Revolution #9" with some of the other dissonant, experimental pieces I listed. It just comes down to how the sounds enter my brain through my ears, and how I interpret all the nuances. What I hear in "Revolution #9" is someone throwing anything together with no rhyme or reason. I hear someone who was very interested in the possibilities of tape loops, but didn't have a sophisticated understanding of them. That's to be expected when you're a pioneer, of course; the Wright Brothers were the first in flight, but you could hardly expect them to have created an F-15 fighter jet.

I appreciate that they were probably the first pop/rock group to do something that ambitious. However, I think it's as unlistenable to now as it was then, because it accomplished nothing except its own novelty. There's no durability to it. I can listen to groundbreaking pieces of music from other eras of the 20th century that were extremely jarring and dissonant in their times because they endure. There's something about them, a combination of innovation and inspiration. I hear the former in "Revolution #9" but not the latter. Like I said earlier, all I hear is random garbage thrown together with no thought to craftsmanship. John Lennon was a talented songwriter, no doubt, but I think he overstepped his artistic boundaries by trying to go too "avant-garde" for his own good.

[Landlocked]

No, "Revolution 9" is not a song because it lacks the distinguishing feature of a song, and that is singing.

So "Pet Sounds" is not a song.

The Beatles thought a little too highly of themselves, methinks, when they put this one together.

"Revolution 9" was just a bunch of guys in a studio splicing together the first things they got their hands together without much thought to craftsmanship. Innovation for the sake of innovation.)

No arguments here. Still don't agree at all with the idea that it's not a song, though. I took much more issue with the claims that "Ding Dang" and "We're Together Again" weren't songs, anyway.

I agree with your first point. "Pet Sounds" isn't a song. Just as an example, here's the first sentence on the Wikipedia entry for "song": "In music, a song is a composition for voice or voices, performed by singing."

No singing, no song. So "Ding Dang" is definitely a song, "Pet Sounds" definitely is not. I mean, would you call the "Moonlight Sonata" a song? (Hint: you shouldn't!)

Your point would seem to be borne out by the wikipedia entry for "Pet Sounds" (instrumental) not referring to the piece as a song.  However, a series of terrible errors have been made, because at the bottom of the page the article is indicated as being part of the following categories:

    1966 songs
    The Beach Boys songs
    Psychedelic rock songs
    Experimental rock songs
    Rock instrumentals
    Songs written by Brian Wilson
    Songs produced by Brian Wilson

When obviously the only category it actually belongs to is "Rock instrumentals".  I know you'll want to correct this gross oversight as soon as possible.

It's not borne out of the Wikipedia article, so you can redact your snark, thank you very much. It's borne out of a basic understanding of musical forms. I only used the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry due to convenience, and therefore, laziness. Mea culpa.

To give you a non-user-edited definition, here's one from the Virginia Tech Music Dictionary: "song; Any composition designed to be sung, either accompanied or unaccompanied."
http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/

Therefore, like I said, "Pet Sounds" is not a song if it doesn't have singing. No need to debate any further, because regardless of what you, Brian Wilson, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster himself says, it ain't a song any more than it's a sonata or a fugue.

[anazgnos]

I'm not unfamiliar with the strictest definition of "song", I just don't see this kind of hardcore prescriptivism about it every day.

[Aegir]

So... "Fire" is not a song but "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" is because it has vocals? even though it's the same exact thing?

[keysarsoze001]

Off topic and glib and not at all useful, but now I want to name a band Hardcore Prescriptivism.