Interesting… Thanks, WordMan and Señor Mostaza.
Nice video. I think it’s the only time you see George alone on the stage-left mic and John and Paul on the right one.
On this video, with his All-Starr Band, he introduces the song saying “I’d like to do a number I used to do with that other I band I used to be with; that’s right Rory Storm and the Hurricanes”
Couple of things:
-
The practical reason for this vocal alignment would be that Paul is singing the high harmony of the background vocals, John is singing the middle, and George is singing the low harmony. To the extent that they could hear their own voices through the air, it would be weird to have Paul and George singing together, as there would be a gap between their parts. And at times when performing “Boys” live, George’s background harmony was dispensed with altogether, so it made sense to keep the two primary parts together on one mic.
-
This is an example of the “record the music in advance and sing live over that backing track” method of TV performance. Note that Ringo’s sticks never actually contact his snare drum, and that the lead guitar break that’s heard doesn’t always correspond to what George’s fingers are doing.
Well, it’s one thing to change one word of a title (e.g., “Devil in HER Heart” rather than HIS). But I’m not aware of a song whose entire title is one word having that word changed in a second version…though it would be very interesting to find one.
The other issue with this particular song is that you would also have to change the last phrase of the chorus (“what a bundle of joy”) to something else if you sang “I talk about girls”!
Good one! I should have thought of it.
However, the change involves the omission of one consonant and didn’t necessitate any other lyrical substitutions for the sake of rhyme, so it’s somewhat less radical than a change from “Boys” to “Girls” would be.
Yes, I guess they changed that bit around to make it a bit less gay, but you seem to be forgetting the chorus:
Well, I talk about boys,
Don’t ya know I MEAN boys,
Well, I talk about boys, now,
Aaahhh, boys,
Well, I talk about boys, now,
What a bundle of joy!
I am not very seriously suggesting that Ringo or the rest of The Beatles intended this to be seen as a gender bending song in the way that Bowie very definitely did intend a few years later (or even The Who with “I’m a Boy” as soon as 1966). Nevertheless, as someone who was around in 1963-4, I will assert with some confidence that your claim that “Not a soul who was around in 1963-64 on either side of the Atlantic gave this interpretation a thought,” is nonsense on stilts! People knew that homosexuals existed in those days, and Ringo and the rest of The Beatles probably knew better than most (and very likely had a more progressive attitude on the subject attitude than most), having grown up in the port city of Liverpool, having worked in the red-light district of Hamburg for some time, and having Brian Epstein as a manager. Actually, it would not at all surprise me to learn that Ringo first began performing the number to please the crowd when The Hurricanes were playing gay clubs (or clubs with a lot of sailors in) in Hamburg, or even Liverpool.
Interesting theory…I’ll let better informed folks than me take that one on!
As for how they could have done it as “Girls…”…
“…Best darn thing in the world.”
Maybe? No?
-
You “seem to be forgetting” (as you neglected to quote) the question I posed in the post you responded to, which was: “The same ‘pronoun changes’ you speak of were made in ‘Boys,’ too: ‘My girl says when I kiss her lips….’ How does this line in Ringo’s version square with your gay interpretation?”
-
I have a theory about why Ringo sang the chorus as you quoted it above: BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE LYRICS TO THE FREAKIN’ SONG as originally sung by The Shirelles!
Honestly…you’re trying WAY too hard here.
I’m seriously not sure why you’re suggesting anything at all in this thread.
And by the way, “I’m a Boy” is about a young lad whose mother dresses him up in girls’ clothes. There is absolutely no indication that this lad (who sings the song in the first person) is in any way happy about this state of affairs (as seen by the listing of decidedly masculine things that he yearns to do)…but it’s something that’s quite beyond his control. I would say The Who “intended” this to be a song about a mother with serious issues of her own, rather than a boy with gay ones.
I was around in those days too. Of course I’m aware that people knew of the existence of homosexuality then. But I am moved to dial back my original statement only slightly. I’ll be happy to replace “not a soul” with “an infinitesimally small percentage of The Beatles’ core target audience” if you like.
Your first sentence is certainly true — but it has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of Ringo’s (and later The Beatles’) decision to incorporate “Boys” into his/their repertoire.
Your last sentence is sheer speculation on your part, and not supported, to my knowledge, by anything in the billions of words written about The Beatles over the years.
And again, you “seem to be forgetting” the excerpt from Mark Lewisohn’s book that was quoted earlier:
The simplest explanations are usually the best. I’m not sure why you persist in seeing something when nothing is there.
Funny thing: in a discount store earlier today, I saw a Spanish-language book about The Beatles (apparently aimed at very young readers) whose cover featured a cartoonish drawing with them in this same alignment.
The caricatures weren’t very good, but it was still pretty clearly John and Paul on one mic and George, by himself, on another.
EDIT: Found it! See the cover here.
