At the same time we'll be reminded that this quote is not from Yogi Berra. Berra according to legend said, "that restaurant is so crowded, nobody goes there any more."
Berra was made into a caricature because of one or two malaprops he may have uttered - no big deal really. But certain people like Joe Garagiola seized on that, built upon it, used it to create this image of Berra spouting such stuff routinely. Berra seemed to have mixed thoughts about this. He didn't really fight it. At times he openly went along with it. He eventually said "I didn't say half the things I said," giving yet another example of Yogi-isms, I'm sure intentionally. Or is it possible this was another "invented" quote? It's all quite harmless. It's just entertainment, which is what baseball is.
Ralph Kiner was a source of real malaprops. I find these most funny as they're real.
So on nostalgia, how about the flood of attention once again for "The Fab Four," the Beatles? I am age 68, a perfect candidate for being taken in by this. So I admit: I am paying considerable attention. Music defies any kind of scientific analysis. This in an age when science purports to explain everything.
Music begs us to feel nostalgia. The many "ear worm" hits from over time get lodged in our minds, associated with time periods in our lives. The Beatles had remarkable talent, especially John Lennon. If Lennon thought he had the veto power in his collaboration with McCartney, I think that was totally justified. I think if Paul's "Uncle Albert" song had been a Beatles song with Lennon in charge, it would have been better. It would have been more hard-edged. Lennon would not have allowed some of the stupid gimmicky things that McCartney applied. McCartney could be whimsical that way.
McCartney has never been as consistent with his songwriting creations as Lennon was. Too many of the non-hit songs on McCartney's solo albums, like during his "Wings" phase, came across like "filler." Let me put in this way: if an unknown songwriter (like yours truly) had the stuff prepared as "demos," it would not only go nowhere, it might prompt some choice expletives of rejection from a publisher. And boy, people in the music business can be rude. Let's re-phrase that: they can be direct and honest. Maybe these are actually good qualities.
Lennon was so good, he often wrote "idiosyncratic stuff" that on the surface seemed little more than impulsive - no real merit to it. The only way to suggest merit was to "look below the surface" on the lyrics. Yes, to find those "hidden meanings." Meanings that may not have been there at all! Once the critics start mining that, they'll start proclaiming a particular song is classic when really it was nothing special (maybe nothing at all).
What songs might I be thinking of? My, someone my age ought not be putting down "Strawberry Fields Forever." Art is judged by the emotional response by the listener/viewer. Even after several listenings, I cannot stand "Strawberry Fields Forever," yet the song is on "best of" lists. I look at "Lucy in the Sky" the same way.
If the subtle meaning of these songs had anything to do with drugs, as is so often postulated, I'm turned off even more, considerably more. Maybe Lennon thought drugs were mind-expanding. I would assert "that was his opinion." As a young adult I felt considerable peer pressure to never talk down drugs. You just have to understand the 1970s: the youth culture saw themselves as so much more "with it" than their parents.
I really have to ask about the Beatles: were they truly "into" drugs as much as we were led to believe? Was this just an attempt to romanticize the group? To make them cultural symbols when in fact they were simply hard-working musicians, and deserving of much credit for that.
Lennon went along with the drug image to act downright silly, iconoclastic in an abrasive way toward the end of his abbreviated life. He could be negative and caustic in so many of his comments, even about his own work.
Effect of fame
A theory I have sometimes shared is that fame sort of flummoxed Lennon. Words can hardly describe the sheer fame that came to the "Fab 4" over a short period of time. Lennon seemed shocked and rather disbelieving about it. Didn't they start out just wanting to make good music? Of course they did, but their talent was not that far out ahead of many top practitioners in pop music.
The British recording industry was more advanced than in America. George Martin was on the cutting edge of knowing what style of music was going to appeal to the new young generation.
Rock 'n roll had established itself and wasn't going to be stopped despite real controversy. The older generation seemed taken aback. The pulsating rhythm of rock 'n roll and its more layered descendants - African feel for rhythm - was here to stay.
I'm not the first to suggest that the Beatles simply rode the wave of good timing. They were talented guys who got the absolutely optimal amount of support to be catapulted into fame. It was fame to an extent that I think John found ridiculous. Paul absorbed the effect better, I feel. He understood fame and did not feel the need to make sense of all of it. He knew he was an entertainer, not a philosopher by trade. Most practical, he wanted to reap the benefits of music to enrich his own life by material standards and to bequeath eventually to family. Which is certainly the ultimate objective of a pro, you might assert with dead-on logic.
Lennon never lost sight of the more intangible things. He was really more of a talent than McCartney.
Lennon may have gone a little nuts because he appealed to the U.S. boomer population which went off the rails because they saw the absurdity and tragedy of the Vietnam war. The war gave the kids an excuse to detach from the values of their parents. And then years later, long after the Vietnam war had receded as a reality, the boomers had their come to Jesus moment. "We didn't really understand our parents." Well yes they did in some respects, as the U.S. parents never tried hard enough to see the war for what it was. They allowed themselves to be led by John Wayne. And for that they richly deserved acrimony.
Remember the book "The Greatest Generation?" That was the come to Jesus affirmation. Blood is thicker than water. Let's love our parents. It was easier to do when the war had receded into the past.
So Lennon wrote about love and he surely scorned war. But he would have used any philosophical underpinning for his music because he was simply a genius song creator.
I'm sure many have wondered: had Lennon lived, would he have "straightened out" from his deconstructionist, unorthodox times? A conventional personality and personal appearance? We can never know. The silly persona of the 1970s would no longer have been cool. He might not even want to talk about drugs today. Or he'd dismiss the topic as having been overblown once.
To do anything really well, you cannot be "under the influence." You're naive if you think any special genius or spark comes from drug use. It can only be an impediment. And hey, realize that certain celebrities who came to be notorious for alleged drug-influenced behavior probably did their defining work before they dabbled in drugs. A really good example of this was Hunter Thompson. Truman Capote was a dead-serious author with a stolid lifestyle when he wrote "In Cold Blood." Fame transformed him into an almost cartoonish figure. Could he have done the same work then?
"Now and Then" song
And so now we have "Now and Then," the final Beatles single. The song has been so over-analyzed. We're so saturated in it. Which makes me think it will run its course of popularity pretty quickly. Pop music is like that: we get tired of popular melodies and want new stuff.
Lennon has been dead and gone for so long. The nostalgia is waning. Pop music is the domain of the young. That is an indelible rule. Where did ABBA get with their "comeback" a couple years ago?
You like the Beatles? I suggest you simply call up their original stuff. Enjoy.
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment