|
Post by mistermustard on Apr 20, 2011 3:03:31 GMT
So I was listening to Anthology 3 again the other day and one of my favourite George Harrison songs played and, because I've been on the site here a little more frequently once again, I heard this song through a different mental filter. As I was unable to locate a thread about this song already--seriously, there are almost too many posts to go through all fine tooth comb-style--I figured it was worth bringing up.
What I am wondering is who feels guilty and who is being spoken to? I have theories, but it would be interesting to see if anyone has any special knowledge of this song, and thus preventing that proverbial goose (reptile?) chase...
Here are the lyrics at any rate:
Not guilty For getting in your way While you’re trying to steal the day. Not guilty And I’m not here for the rest, I’m not trying to steal your vest.
I am not trying to be smart, I only want what I can get. I’m really sorry for your ageing head. But like you heard me said: Not guilty.
No use handing me a writ While I’m trying to do my bit.
I don’t expect to take your heart. I only want what I can get. I’m really sorry that you’re underfed. But like you heard me said: Not guilty.
Not guilty For looking like a freak, Making friends with every sikh. Not guilty For leading you astray On the road to mandalay.
I won’t upset the apple cart. I only want what I can get. I’m really sorry that you’ve been misled. But like you heard me said: Not guilty.
|
|
|
Post by mistermustard on Apr 21, 2011 17:35:09 GMT
Okay, I figured I'd bump this thing along a little...
Beyond the who's & why's presented by this song, there is something else to take from it...why was it an outtake? Perhaps the search for clues should be reigned in to the work done by the band in the late 60s. After all, that is when the proverbial iron was hot. I believe that the strongest and most obvious clues are most likely in the songs and album artwork released. We can't really think of the placement of clues in any kind of new media way.
There was no internet for people to talk about the clues. MTV didn't exist yet. Hell, there was barely a music magazine industry for information to be inserted. So why would so much time and attention be given to inserting clues into forms that weren't going to be widely consumed (excepting their movies of course)? I don't think it would have been. The clues are in the music and artwork. An that takes us to another issue about the music...the outtakes.
Listening to a song like Not Guilty, you hear that it is a good (great?) Harrison track. So why would it not have been included? Perhaps the clues were too obvious? Has anyone else listened to the "Black Album," the bootleg album from the White Album sessions? How much of the "new" Beatles could be discovered there? Quite a lot I believe. Just listen to F/Paul's alternate lyrics to Get Back--it's a completely racist tirade.
There's more to the songs than we think there is and the fact that each interpretation can be differently has obscured the meaning. Perhaps if a consensus could be generated we could start to discern the "true" meanings of these songs.
|
|
|
Post by romanruins on Apr 24, 2011 4:14:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mistermustard on Apr 29, 2011 17:19:19 GMT
hey roman,
I'm quite sure that's the main point to the song...but like everything else around here, what can be read between the lines? I believe it's a far better song than Savoy Truffle, yet Not Guilty was left off of the "White Album." I was thinking that songs that were left off of albums could potentially have double meanings that were a little too obvious as far as the PID theory goes. And, like I said earlier, we have to look at the songs and album artwork as the main "smoking guns" because it was the songs and artwork most widely consumed by the public.
Now if "Not Guilty" is just a song about eastern religion, that's cool. I still have a cool song to listen to at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by romanruins on May 1, 2011 18:28:43 GMT
Mistermustard,
You make the posts you care to make, and I will post what I care to at this site. There is nothing derogatory in my post. George the writer of the song said directly what it was about. He said there was a "meaning" to the song. Viewers can spend their time however they like. "Perhaps if a consensus could be generated we could START to discern the "true" meanings of these songs." Absolutely, keen idea, I think we should do that! That's hitting what you aim at, and such a complete end product, and thanks for pointing out the possibility of "double meanings" in The Beatles work. Again you post what you wish to, and I will post what I wish to at this internet site.
By the way Peggy Lee was known for singing off beat songs, and different styles.
Ruins
|
|