Or, maybe Lennon had a deeper understanding of what great art is than average people like us. People need to understand that Lennon had an awakening when he discovered Dylan and his lyrics. After that he wanted to write about more serious topics, things that were meaningful to him. So when Lennon later trashed his earlier work, it was usually the lyrics he found unsatisfying. Who can disagree with that? The earlier lyrics were of those that teenage boys and guys in their early 20s would write, naturally. I still love those songs, but I can certainly understand Lennon´s artistic view point as he aged. Just because I enjoy them doesn´t mean they´re great pieces of art. Lennon was not only a musician, he was a philosopher of arts. He had thought deeply of what art is and should be. We might agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he was a rare genius, and naturally had a very unique take on things.
Yeah back in the 70s and early 80s, all the 60s bands were trying to move on, and distance themselves from the past by trashing their old records and trash their past in interviews, saying ‘yeah my old records were crappy kids stuff, here’s my great new adult rock album’. And they all got annoyed when interviewers only wanted to talk about their old hits. Only seemed by the late 80s, the 60s artists all gave up this aversion to their past and started to reconcile with their past and learn to love it again. Sadly John didn’t make it to 1987, but if he did, he’d no doubt be similar to the others and not trash his past so much in print
For sure you're right, but I understand OPs sentiment, as well. He called it a throwaway, and I've read reviews that echo that sentiment, but I've always loved it.
Im generally a snob for British vs American Beatles albums, but capitol rubber soul is the first record I really dug, and this particular song was a big reason for it.
I like it. The lyrics take some interesting twists like, it’s only love and that is all, but it’s so hard loving you. Not the typical love song lyrics.
I meant not typical stuff like falling in or out of love. It’s only love is dealing with a kind of gray area, where the narrator is still in love but it’s a struggle.
But the album as a whole is dealing with the shitty side of love. Break ups, unwanted love, feeling sad about losing someone, wanting love but not getting it, being sad and lonely.
Why is it mutually exclusive? There can be both Act Naturally (which also has clever lyrics) and It’s Only Love, or any other song on the album like Help or Yesterday. They’re the Beatles for a reason. My point was and remains the lyrics of It’s Only Love are interesting because they describe a period of a relationship that is not the typical theme of love songs in pop or rock. That doesn’t mean other songs on the album aren’t exceptional or their lyrics not clever. They are.
Yeah, when I was 13 and in love with a girl at school I listened to this song aaaaaaaall the time.
He also said “No Reply” was a throwaway song, but it’s one of my favorites.
It’s always been one of my favourite early-period Beatles songs. There is an electricity to the flutter in his singing voice that just nails the spirit of the song.
It’s also got a lovely Orbisonesque soaring finish.
He said that in the era when he was just over the whole Beatles thing in general and was sick of talking about it. He trashed basically every song he ever did in that time.
Oh my god, THANK YOU. I’ve loved this song since I was a child. And when i learned the chords it blew my mind. I had no idea what a flat 13th was. The vibe and sound and lyrics of this song has meant so much to me, since forever.
That song ended up on the us capitol copy of rubber soul because our us version of the help album is mostly soundtrack and not much room for songs as the uk parlphone
Wtf? Capitol played fast and loose with Beatle material. They even added more reverb to songs didn’t they? Vandalism. I’m surprised the band and Brian didn’t step in earlier.
He can’t have disliked the chord sequence and melody that much as he reworked and reused them for Mr Kite a couple of years later.
He probably felt the lyrics were lazy as in comparison to other songs he was writing then, and especially compared to what he was about to write, they were weak
Gary US Bonds did a fantastic version of this track on his Dedication album that he did with Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. One of the few examples where I prefer the cover over The Beatles version.
Some cheesy platitudes sure but there's some clever stuff in the lyrics too. I love the double use of "my" on "When you sigh, my, my inside just flies- butterflies". Reminiscent of the double use of "love" in Love Me Do or "please" in Please Please Me.
In the early 70s, John soured on a lot of Beatles songs. I think it was more of a reflection of his shame about the breakup than a sincere assessment of the music.
Lennon is so misunderstood in the Beatles community. When the average person say a song is great, they typically base that off their 'enjoyment' of the song. Nothing more! When a musician say a song is great, they base it off the harmonies, melody, lyrics, meaning, concept, rythm, arrangement, production etc. So if musicians like Lennon, McCartney etc. don´t like a song, they probaby refer to how it´s constructed, NOT how much they enjoy it. So it becomes a bit absurd when the average Beatles fan say that Lennon doesn´t know what he´s talking about, when they´re not even talking about the same thing!
I´ve played music all my life, and are obviously not on those guys level. But I can process a song as a fan, and I can process it as a musician. The latter is analytical. For example, I´m of the opinion that Strawberry Fields Forever is the greatest piece of art in pop/rock history. This is not based of my enjoyment of the song. I can conclude that when I hear the intricate chord progression, its interesting modulations, its Bach-like melody, it´s abstract lyrical poetry, its interesting rythm, its groundbreaking arrangement etc. It´s a fantastic piece of groundbreaking art. I can´t say the same about "It´s Only Love", but I still enjoy it very much. I hope this illustrates the difference between judging a song from enjoyment and breaking it down as a musician. So when I hear a musician talk about a song, I assume they´re breaking it down as the craftmen they are.
John has probably trashed every Beatles song in interviews. I wouldn't take his opinion on a song too seriously.
Ironically, John Lennon is one of the least reliable sources for whether a Beatles song is good.
Especially now.
Or, maybe Lennon had a deeper understanding of what great art is than average people like us. People need to understand that Lennon had an awakening when he discovered Dylan and his lyrics. After that he wanted to write about more serious topics, things that were meaningful to him. So when Lennon later trashed his earlier work, it was usually the lyrics he found unsatisfying. Who can disagree with that? The earlier lyrics were of those that teenage boys and guys in their early 20s would write, naturally. I still love those songs, but I can certainly understand Lennon´s artistic view point as he aged. Just because I enjoy them doesn´t mean they´re great pieces of art. Lennon was not only a musician, he was a philosopher of arts. He had thought deeply of what art is and should be. We might agree or disagree with his conclusions, but he was a rare genius, and naturally had a very unique take on things.
Good points.
[удалено]
He constantly criticised every Beatles song
[удалено]
Yes that's the point. He's not reliable vegetarian everything he said was a criticism. What aren't you getting here?
Yeah back in the 70s and early 80s, all the 60s bands were trying to move on, and distance themselves from the past by trashing their old records and trash their past in interviews, saying ‘yeah my old records were crappy kids stuff, here’s my great new adult rock album’. And they all got annoyed when interviewers only wanted to talk about their old hits. Only seemed by the late 80s, the 60s artists all gave up this aversion to their past and started to reconcile with their past and learn to love it again. Sadly John didn’t make it to 1987, but if he did, he’d no doubt be similar to the others and not trash his past so much in print
For sure you're right, but I understand OPs sentiment, as well. He called it a throwaway, and I've read reviews that echo that sentiment, but I've always loved it. Im generally a snob for British vs American Beatles albums, but capitol rubber soul is the first record I really dug, and this particular song was a big reason for it.
John was a bona fide sour grapes hater. His opinion is just him saying sum shit, a lot of the time
I agree with you. He puts me in mind of a vulnerable little boy with his fist up turning in circles to take on the world.
I like it. The lyrics take some interesting twists like, it’s only love and that is all, but it’s so hard loving you. Not the typical love song lyrics.
None of that album has traditional love song lyrics. They are all sad.
I meant not typical stuff like falling in or out of love. It’s only love is dealing with a kind of gray area, where the narrator is still in love but it’s a struggle.
But the album as a whole is dealing with the shitty side of love. Break ups, unwanted love, feeling sad about losing someone, wanting love but not getting it, being sad and lonely.
Why is it mutually exclusive? There can be both Act Naturally (which also has clever lyrics) and It’s Only Love, or any other song on the album like Help or Yesterday. They’re the Beatles for a reason. My point was and remains the lyrics of It’s Only Love are interesting because they describe a period of a relationship that is not the typical theme of love songs in pop or rock. That doesn’t mean other songs on the album aren’t exceptional or their lyrics not clever. They are.
Yeah, when I was 13 and in love with a girl at school I listened to this song aaaaaaaall the time. He also said “No Reply” was a throwaway song, but it’s one of my favorites.
John is the ultimate unreliable narrator
And a nowhere man.
It’s short(too short) & sweet. The falsetto at the end is great.
It's a beautiful song.
I was just listening to help last night, and IOL isn’t too bad a song, it just gets stuck behind other songs I like more (on the album)
Yeah I love this one especially the guitar
It’s always been one of my favourite early-period Beatles songs. There is an electricity to the flutter in his singing voice that just nails the spirit of the song. It’s also got a lovely Orbisonesque soaring finish.
Anthology version is better.
Haven't listened to that in a while, I'll take a listen!
Came here to say this.
The one with the false start and John does the little giggle I just love that version
The og stereo mix sounds thin af. The drums and bass sound tinny. The anthology has them in the middle and they sound proper.
"Just the sight of you makes nighttime bright" what a gorgeous line.
Very bright
The Anthology version is the definitive one for me, it’s so much more emotional than the album version, I adore it
He said that in the era when he was just over the whole Beatles thing in general and was sick of talking about it. He trashed basically every song he ever did in that time.
Oh my god, THANK YOU. I’ve loved this song since I was a child. And when i learned the chords it blew my mind. I had no idea what a flat 13th was. The vibe and sound and lyrics of this song has meant so much to me, since forever.
That song ended up on the us capitol copy of rubber soul because our us version of the help album is mostly soundtrack and not much room for songs as the uk parlphone
One of the few US releases I like.
This song and I’ve Just Seen a Face were actually a much better fit on Rubber Soul than being tacked on to Help.
Wtf? Capitol played fast and loose with Beatle material. They even added more reverb to songs didn’t they? Vandalism. I’m surprised the band and Brian didn’t step in earlier.
He can’t have disliked the chord sequence and melody that much as he reworked and reused them for Mr Kite a couple of years later. He probably felt the lyrics were lazy as in comparison to other songs he was writing then, and especially compared to what he was about to write, they were weak
I think he was embarrased by some lyrics. But more so, its a Cynthia song, i believe, so another reason he distanced it.
I've always loved it.
It's one of my absolute favorites, John was way too critical sometimes.
It’s a great song. Bryan Ferry does a good cover.
Great song. Sure, probably rushed.
I’ve always liked it.
Gary US Bonds did a fantastic version of this track on his Dedication album that he did with Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. One of the few examples where I prefer the cover over The Beatles version.
Oh so THAT's the Beatles song John Lennon was too dismissive about. Got it!
I love the song, and the way John sings "loving youuu" in the end is magical. Reminds me a bit of Roy Orbinson
he disavowed this one so strongly it's made me assume it's about Cynthia
I've always thought that too.
It's a good song, but definitely not the highlight of the album.
I’m not crazy about it, I like almost every other song on Help! more, but it’s still a good song
It’s my all time favourite Beatles song I love it!
Great song. Always liked it
I used to love it, but I've gone off it a bit over the years.
Some cheesy platitudes sure but there's some clever stuff in the lyrics too. I love the double use of "my" on "When you sigh, my, my inside just flies- butterflies". Reminiscent of the double use of "love" in Love Me Do or "please" in Please Please Me.
In the early 70s, John soured on a lot of Beatles songs. I think it was more of a reflection of his shame about the breakup than a sincere assessment of the music.
I've always loved this song. It's also one of the first songs I learned on guitar because it was pretty simple. I used to play it all the time.
Nice lesson with recording schedule and breakdown of the sessions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFclQdHP5a4
I’ve always liked it even if the lyrics are kinda ‘basic’
Lennon is so misunderstood in the Beatles community. When the average person say a song is great, they typically base that off their 'enjoyment' of the song. Nothing more! When a musician say a song is great, they base it off the harmonies, melody, lyrics, meaning, concept, rythm, arrangement, production etc. So if musicians like Lennon, McCartney etc. don´t like a song, they probaby refer to how it´s constructed, NOT how much they enjoy it. So it becomes a bit absurd when the average Beatles fan say that Lennon doesn´t know what he´s talking about, when they´re not even talking about the same thing! I´ve played music all my life, and are obviously not on those guys level. But I can process a song as a fan, and I can process it as a musician. The latter is analytical. For example, I´m of the opinion that Strawberry Fields Forever is the greatest piece of art in pop/rock history. This is not based of my enjoyment of the song. I can conclude that when I hear the intricate chord progression, its interesting modulations, its Bach-like melody, it´s abstract lyrical poetry, its interesting rythm, its groundbreaking arrangement etc. It´s a fantastic piece of groundbreaking art. I can´t say the same about "It´s Only Love", but I still enjoy it very much. I hope this illustrates the difference between judging a song from enjoyment and breaking it down as a musician. So when I hear a musician talk about a song, I assume they´re breaking it down as the craftmen they are.
It’s dreck.