Well, except that he did. He did cover versions of “race” hits that were the closest things to Rock n Roll that a lot of 50s parents would allow in the house. Little Richard recorded “Tutti Frutti”, which got zero chart action, and he went back to being a short order chef… until Pat Boone covered it and got enough airplay to jump-start LIttle Richard’s career. I’d say he had as much to do with Rock and Roll as, say, Herman’s Hermits or Stryper; he was the back door that a lot of white kids with strict parents used to get the good stuff later on.
Great idea! I think Dylan should write essays on the influences and references in his best-known songs, too. And why stop with Dylan and music? James Joyce could have saved folks a lot of agony if only he’d taken some time to explain what he was on about in * Finnegans Wake*.
I’m not a passionate fan of “American Pie” nor Don McLean, but I’m not sure what your problem is with him. The poster you quote said McLean is “probably” tired of the matter, but McLean says nothing of this sort in his reply to Cecil.
He simply says “…long ago I realized that songwriters should make their statements and move on, maintaining a dignified silence.” Again, is there something wrong with this point of view?
As for the “debate over the lyrics” being "a major factor in “keeping the song in popular rotation”…what keeps it in popular rotation (albeit primarily on the dwindling number of Oldies stations that still play songs from the early 70s) is the fact that it was #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 for four straight weeks in 1972. Many songs with a less-stellar chart showing are played just as much, if not more.
Was the mystery about the song’s lyrics part of its appeal? Sure…but then you have this statement by a subsequent poster:
I suspect she had some company…that is, some of the song’s fans simply liked the melody and McLean’s singing of it, and the fact that it was quite a bit different from the rest of the songs of the day.
If something is “close to rock and roll,” that still doesn’t make it rock and roll. Pat Boone was a white-bread pop artist who had hits that were played in the rock and roll era. That doesn’t make him any more of a rock ‘n’ roller than Kay Starr, The Mills Brothers, or other pop artists who recorded rock ‘n’ roll songs in an effort to keep up with the musical revolution happening all around them.
It would be a good idea to know what you’re talking about before posting.
Little Richard’s “Tutti-Frutti” peaked at #2 on the R&B charts and stayed there for six weeks. It also rose to #17 on the Billboard Hot 100, a showing only five places below Pat Boone’s cover. Not exactly “zero chart action.”
Not to say that Boone’s covers didn’t help him some, but Little Richard had a successful career in music long before Boone came along.
And once people discovered the real deal, it was all over for Boone as a pseudo rock ‘n’ roller. His cover of “Long Tall Sally” reached #8, while Little Richard’s original reached #6 (#1 for eight weeks on the R&B charts) and was a million-seller.
Boone had two more Top 10 hits with R&B covers (but both were ballads, not rockers), one movie theme, and two Top 10 hits that were covers of country songs. From that point forward, it was strictly pop pap for Boone.
Your history is even more muddled than this…Little Richard worked as a dishwasher, not a short-order chef. And he last did this in early 1952, nearly four years prior to his success with “Tutti-Frutti.” Soon after, he began performing as a professional musician and singer with several groups, and formed his own group, The Upsetters, in 1953.
I’ll make no comment about Stryper, but Herman’s Hermits began as a self-contained rock ‘n’ roll band. They had no prior history as pop singers, and their songs were aimed at the very same audience as The Beatles’ were. They covered rock ‘n’ roll songs that had been hits by others in the beginning, but the originals were several years old at the time and had already been hits. There was no attempt by them to steal another contemporary act’s thunder and muscle them out of the charts.
There is no parallel to be made between Pat Boone and Herman’s Hermits.
Not only did Buddy Holly pioneer the idea of writing and playing your own songs, but he helped establish the standard rock n’ roll band arrangement - two guitars, a bass, and drums. When you look at the influence he had on music in just two years time, it really is incredible. Thinking about what he could have gone on to do is heartbreaking. Ritchie Valens and the Big Bopper were also great losses, of course, but to me, Buddy Holly stands out as someone whose full capabilities we’ll never know.
You’ll have to excuse my credulity on this one. The source of this outrageous fraud was an interview with some hack named… Little Richard.
I think you need to re-read his post, because you totally missed his point. He’s just saying that Don McLean could have easily put this to bed if he really wanted to, but it’s very obvious that he didn’t want to. Not sure why you think AB has some sort of problem with McLean.
Not disbelieving that Richard could have said such a thing — he wouldn’t be the first to tell different stories at different times that have little relationship with the truth (though he could well be the worst for it).
Still, I’d like to see a link to the interview.
Well, “laughing all the way to the bank” isn’t usually a flattering description of someone. Nor is the term “bushwah.”
Again, I’m not a particular fan of McLean, but I support his view, which I believe is shared by most others, that songwriters have no obligation to explain their lyrics, and that interpretation is better left to the individual listener. I see no reason why he would or should have “really wanted to” put this issue to bed.
I also understand the mixed emotions a songwriter/performer must feel when he/she/they become so closely identified with just one of their songs that it overwhelms all of their other artistic efforts.
Jesus, he didn’t say McLean had an obligation to explain his lyrics. He didn’t even imply it. Did you read the words that were written in Amateur Barbarian’s post?
He was responding to someone who claimed that the song’s popularity somehow really bothered McLean. AB was just pointing out that it probably didn’t bother him as much as people think, and that he could put all the debate about the song to rest if that’s what he wanted to do. Since he hasn’t done that, it stands to reason that he isn’t particularly bothered by all the conjecture.
Jesus. Did you read the words written in mine?
You said “Not sure why you think AB has some sort of problem with McLean.” I responded “Well, ‘laughing all the way to the bank’ isn’t usually a flattering description of someone. Nor is the term ‘bushwah.’” Do you disagree with this statement?
And I noted that there was nothing in the personal reply to Cecil in his column about “American Pie”'s lyrics that indicates this…though for all I know he may have made such comments elsewhere.
Further, there is no post in this thread that states that “the song’s popularity somehow really bothered McLean.”
It was another poster who said McLean is “probably tired of the matter.” [emphasis added]
Two points:
-
“Probably tired of the matter” is strictly that poster’s conjecture, but AB responded to it as if it were an established fact.
-
“The matter” is McLean being asked about the meaning of “American Pie”'s lyrics, not the song’s popularity.
The only thing McLean expressed displeasure with in his letter to Cecil was the fact that Casey Kasem stated he got the interpretation of the song’s lyrics he presented on American Top 40 directly from McLean. McLean says that other than acknowledging the reference to Buddy Holly in the first verse, he has never discussed the meaning of the lyrics with anyone, let alone Casey Kasem.
There seems to be a lot of people pulling stuff out of their ass going on here (“probably,” 'bother him," “people think”).
It’s quite clear from McLean’s remarks that he doesn’t want to put any debates to rest, but prefers that people make their own individual interpretations.
I take him at his word when he says this is an artistic decision. Amateur Barbarian implies quite strongly that it’s something less savory than this when he says McLean is “probably laughing all the way to the bank” while making this decision.
If you want to make the argument that this is not a negative characterization, I’d love to hear it.
That is perhaps the stupidest and most long-winded rationalization for misunderstanding someone’s post that I’ve ever seen on this board.
When you’re tired of something, you’re essentially bothered by it. You haven’t won any kind of point by trying to pick that ridiculous nit for all to see.
And this is perhaps the most obvious ignoring of the substance of the matter I’ve ever seen on this board.
Where has Don McLean said he’s “tired” of anything? Please reproduce the quote. As I noted (and you ignored), it was other posters on the board who brought this into the discussion, not anything McLean said.
Where, in the references we’re going by (McLean’s message to Cecil reproduced in his column) has McLean said anything other than “I don’t believe in giving specific interpretations for the lyrics of my songs”?
You could give yourself more credibility by simply answering my questions, rather than ignoring them. Was I wrong (as you accused me of being) for thinking AB “has a problem” with Don McLean because he used the phrases “laughing all the way to the bank” and “bushwah” — or wasn’t I?
Calling me “long-winded” is simply a convenient dodge to cover the fact that you can’t follow the specifics of a discussion.
None of that has anything at all to do with the fact that you went off on a rant about McLean not needing to explain his song, after precisely nobody said that McLean should explain his song.
Whether or not he was fed up, tired of, pissed at, furious about, or any other negative description is beside the point and an exercise in hand-waving. None of those “specifics” have anything to do with the fact that you misread Amateur Barbarian’s post and ascribed opinions to him that he did not express. I’m following your deflections just fine, and they’re becoming more hilarious as the thread progresses, all because you refuse to admit you misread a 2-paragraph post.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think “[McLean] long ago could have written an essay on the influences and references and been done with it” sounds like a fairly strong indication that AB thinks McLean “should” explain his song. Coupled with the “laughing all the way to the bank” and “bushwah” statements, it seems pretty clear to me.
But you’ve dug yourself such a hole by now that the only way you can deal with this is by ignoring it.
Sure it is, now that it’s been shown that he did none of these things despite yours and others’ mistaken indications that he did. It’s no wonder you want to dismiss them now.
I’ve asked you three times now to explain exactly how I “misread” AB’s words. Each time, you’ve refused to do so.
Still no answers to my simple questions. Still no credibility whatsoever. Answer my simple questions instead of ignoring them, and we can put this matter to rest.
Bull. He’s saying that he could’ve easily dealt with it if he wanted, and he obviously doesn’t want to. The rest is your projection.
That’s the most hilariously ironic sentence written in a sea of bullshit that you’ve constantly flung at this thread. Just admit you were wrong and walk away.
That’s because they are moronic questions that have nothing to do with the fact that you misread AB’s post. I don’t give a flying fuck about if McLean is irritated, or bothered, or perplexed, or whatever. Insert whatever words you want to describe it. I couldn’t care less. Call him “mildly curious” for all I care. It doesn’t change the fact that AB never said he should publish the song’s meaning. Saying he could have is not the same as saying he should have. Stop hand-waving and let it go.
It’s obvious that for your purposes, you want to ignore the totality of AB’s post and focus on only one part of it. Dismissing my questions about the other parts of it you won’t acknowledge as “moronic” doesn’t make those parts of his post magically disappear. They’re still there.
When I addressed, at your request, why I thought AB had a “problem” with Don McLean, that’s when you ran the other way. You’re still doing it. I’ll give you credit for being consistent…consistently obtuse.
Fourth Time Around…do the phrases “laughing all the way to the bank” and “bushwah” applied by a poster to Don McLean indicate a favorable or even neutral view of Don McLean…or don’t they?
You don’t think that, coupled with “he long ago could have written an essay on the influences and references and been done with it,” they indicate that in AB’s view, McLean took a less-than-honorable path dictated by avarice rather than artistic choice?
Very simple questions…why do you refuse to answer them?
I’m not running the other way. I didn’t see any evidence that he has a problem with McLean, or that his post was motivated by that. Saying someone “is ____ all the way to the bank” isn’t as negative a statement as you’re making it out to be.
I saw no evidence that he has a problem with Don McLean in that post, and I thought you were projecting. I have no idea what he thinks of McLean outside of those couple of sentences. Maybe he thinks he’s the Devil, but he certainly didn’t say anything particularly bad about him in that post.
Are those answers to your totally irrelevant questions satisfactory to you? Do they give you enough ammunition to try and open up another rabbit hole of bullshit for you to deflect your misreading of his post? Because everyone can see that’s what you’re trying to do.
***…
And in the streets, the children screamed
The lovers cried and the poets dreamed
But not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
…
It is just you.
You know, I really was ready just to let this whole thing go, to pat you on the head as I would your namesake and say “Nice boy, now here’s a chew toy,” and allow you to continue to live in your dream world.
But this is just too rich to pass up. After finally getting you to acknowledge the very existence of AB’s “bank” statement (it took five tries), now you render it with a blank where the key word resides!
Tell me, why did you do that? The only other possible word that could go there is “crying,” and that would be used only if the context was slightly different (e.g., the person in question was making a big show of his/her misery). That doesn’t apply in this case, so why make a secret of the word “laughing”?
Here’s what I’d like you (or anyone else, since “everyone” supports your point of view) to do: find me an example from anywhere else in the world in which the phrase “laughing all the way to the bank” is used to convey a positive image of the person being spoken of. You know, something along the lines of “This guy is laughing all the way to the bank, and I think he’s a really fine, upstanding fellow.”
While you’re at it, maybe you (or your faithful followers) can find some examples of how the term “bushwah” when applied to someone’s statements carries a positive connotation. Let me help you again: something like “What this guy says is pure bushwah, but I really find him to be an admirable human being.”
Your original statement to me was “Not sure why you think AB has some sort of problem with McLean.”
I answered this question…several times, using AB’s own words (the bank phrase and “bushwah”). You have taken the position that “Saying someone ‘is laughing all the way to the bank’ isn’t as negative a statement as you’re making it out to be.”
I’m asking you now to support this statement by giving examples of these terms being used in a way that puts the person in question in a positive light.
In my original post, I also ridiculed the suggestion made by AB that a songwriter might release a detailed explanation of one of his/her song’s lyrics. This is something that is hardly ever done. A songwriter might speak of the inspiration for or origins of a song’s lyrics, but it is very rare that he/she will take metaphorical lyrics and say “When I wrote these obscure lyrics, what they really meant was this.”
The overwhelming majority of songwriters take McLean’s position, that it’s up to the listener to make his/her own interpretation. I said that I took McLean at his word that this is an artistic decision on his part.
AB’s post strongly implies that McLean is motivated by other, more crass (i.e., financial) considerations in making this decision. If you can’t see that his post, taken in its totality, adds up to this…then you truly are living in a dream world.