Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)/Archive 1

recent major rewrite
I'm not extremely happy with the rewrite. There is some very good new information, but the structure of the article has kind of been lost, as the focus shifts around a bit back and forth between lyrics to music to the Beatles themselves. Clearly the stuff on the album (as opposed to the song) needs to go to the Rubber Soul article rather than here. The picture of a tree is kind of dumb. And if we are going to mention the thing about the title referring to marijuana so prominently, we'd better have some sort of reference or backing for it, otherwise it's just perpetuating an old unsubstantiated rumour. And I quite actively dislike the section titles as well.

Since I wrote a lot of the prior version I admit I am biased will leave it up to other editors to sort it out. Jgm 19:31, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I would agree that the Rubber Soul material properly belongs in the article about the album, not the article about this particular song. ffirehorse 07:16, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea of mine behind the sectioning was to make it so that we have one section on writing and recording the song, another on the release and any notable accomplishments the song may have had, and the final for an in-depth analysis and/or description of the lyrics. I'm not very good with titling sections, so I don't mind the criticism. If the Rubber Soul stuff needs to go, so be it, I guess. As for the marijuana rumour, it's mentioned specifically as an interpretation, not as the meaning behind the song. The article itself insists that according to McCartney, "Norwegian wood" is nothing more than furniture, although oddly it suddenly becomes a house at the end. I guess we could specifically mention which one is the canon interpretation, though. As for making changes, make them. I won't mind. It's not your article or my article. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ramble
The article tends to ramble uncontrollably - needs radical restructuring. L UDRAMAN | T 23:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * How? I've reread the article, and I don't really know what you're talking about. In "Writing about an affair", the chain of thought segues from Martin's experience of hearing the song, to Lennon describing his inspiration for the song, to McCartney adding in the bit at the end about the house burning down, to Lennon's influence by Dylan, to how Harrison ended up using a sitar for the song. The last section doesn't have any issues at all with rambling. It's the first I'm worried about, but the way the chain of thought goes from one paragraph to another seems sound to me, except for maybe the beginning. Johnleemk | Talk 14:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me like a story someone's telling and not like an encyclopedia entry. This is only my view now, but I think all the content needs to be looked and tidied up and structured. Also, don't direct quotes belong on Wikiquote, not articles. They should surely be quoted indirectly. J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Not when the quotes tell the story better than someone else's words ever could. Lots of articles contain quotes in abundance. At least this article tries to segue them into the text appropriately instead of devoting a whole section to a bullet-point list of quotes like some have done. Half the articles in Category:The Beatles songs have as many quotes or even more than this (if I'm not mistaken, three of them are featured articles). Martin's quote could be condensed, but I think the others are fine and appropriate for the article. As for the story-telling-like tone, I think you're talking about the second section (although last time I checked, rambling and story-telling had different meanings), since the first is mostly quotes. For some odd reason, a lot of songs in this category (Beatles songs) have this sort of story-telling tone (probably same author, I guess). Well, thanks anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be a nuisance. I was just chipping in my general impression. Oh Well :-) J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 18:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why "knowing she would" would be vulgar lyrics. It doesn't seem to make any sense when literally inserted into the lines, and I certainly don't know enough about mid-60s British slang to decipher

it.


 * "knowing she would" have sex--is the vulgarity implied. The Rolling Stones didn't explain that spending the night together explicitly meant sexual intercourse, but if you hear it enough times it starts to sink in.  Why else would he sleep in the tub and wait by the fire while she was at work--there is no indicator of her cooking a splendid dinner or even being a good chum.

Picture
I really can't see what a photo of a pine tree adds to this article; I've removed it for now along with a couple of other tweaks. Jgm 13:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

THANK GOD
I wrote that one edit in there, before this smart man did, about there being no furniture, and it was all bullshit. THIS IS A REMARKABLE EDIT. AWESOME thank you now i totally understand it all, it make perfect sense now.

Victor Wooten
No mention of the famous Victor Wooten version for bass guitar? Seems worthwhile to me. --Steerpike 21:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed lyrics
Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. We shouldn't have lyrics on here.

Lyrics Section
Is it just me, or are the first four paragraphs under "lyrics" little more than a repitition of the "inspiration from infidelity" section? TheContralto 21:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Meaning and Intention
In response to the person critcising the marijuana idea:

It does not matter what the song was "intended" to mean - an artist's intentions are of no more importance than the audiences perception and the cultural matrix of meanings at work. Meaning is not some fixed thing that doesn't change over time.

It is a very logical idea to associate the song with drugs, especially in connection to the sitar, the Beatles drug use, the sexual encounter in the lyrics, and the pervading Orientalist sound in British music at the time.

Sure, we can talk about the original meaning, but it is quite valid to talk about meanings it picked up over time or alternate possibilities of original meaning - because authors can certainly lie or misrepresent whatever they "meant".

But if you want references for the possibility of drug meanings, check out journal articles by David Reck and Jonathon Bellman (I can't remember the Reck info but Bellman is in the Journal of Musicology from 1997)

just stringing two already-proposed ideas together -- it seems to me that the girl in the song has to burn her Norweigan Wood brand furniture for heat. It's why there wasn't a chair and lennon (the narrator, w/e) had to sleep in the bath. does this seem logical to anyone else? Iamth3walru5 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)iamth3walru5


 * That's funny, burning the furniture! I can see it.  That sort of humor would fit.


 * Incidentally, I remember a long documentary section about the 'chair', as it related to the Beatles' writing of songs. It talked about the 'middle eight' as well.

NantucketNoon (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cornershop cover
Is the Cornershop version in Hindi or Punjabi? I've seen claims either way (and google turns up both claims, and googling words in the anglicised version of the translated lyrics doesn't help much either). I don't speak either language (and the division between them is a bit fuzzy, isn't it?), so if anyone who does can confirm... Plentyofants 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Knowing She Would
From the article: On the Anthology 2 version, the lyrics of "Norwegian Wood" sound almost slurred, which has inspired an interpretation of the phrase "norwegian wood" itself to be a coy way of saying "knowing she would".[citation needed] Such suggestive lyrics were often not permitted for broadcast at that time; for example, lyrics to The Rolling Stones song "Let's Spend the Night Together" were modified to "let's spend some time together" for television performance.

I personally remember hearing that "Knowing She Would" was to be the original title (and lyric) of the song.. well before the Anthologies were released. In the full story, as I remember it, the group were advised to change the lyrics so that it wouldn't be banned by the Beeb. It was about Lennon's first night with Ono.

Its reasonably obvious that the lyric has been changed ("isn't it good, Norwegian Wood?" doesn't actually make sense, though I appreciate that many Beatles lyrics, other peoples' lyrics and peoms etc, often don't make sense). That doesn't mean I don't think there should be a citation of course! I think I read it in a Beatles autobiography.. a thick book that I started reading some time in the early or mid-1980s. I forget the author or the name of the book! -- Mal 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting. NantucketNoon (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "She showed me her room, isn't it good, knowing she would" makes less sense than actual lyric, while "And when I awoke, I was alone, this bird had flown / So I lit a fire, isn't it good, knowing she would" makes no sense whatsoever. I've never seen or heard this "knowing she would" nonsense suggested anywhere other than Wikipedia. Such useless conjecture or hearsay has no place in this or any other Wikipedia article. - Anonymous, 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

McCartney input (music?/lyrics?)
It should now come as no surprise that my main focus is the everlasting who-wrote-what debate. And here we go again...

It is stated in the article that McCartney contributed to the middle eight section, and indeed McCartney seems very clear in his book('Many Years From Now') that he DID contribute to this section('and the middle eight is mine. Those middle eights... John never had his middle eights.'), but Paul is quite clearly talking about MUSICAL contribution, not lyrical. Wouldn't it be nice if we could emphasize exactly WHAT McCartney is supposed to have brought to this song?

The only lyrical input Paul claims to have had on 'Norwegian Wood' was the idea to set the place on fire, which we all know is located in the last VERSE of the song, NOT in the middle eight.

So when John, in his 1970 Rolling Stone interview, also states that Paul helped with the middle eight, it would be nice to include this precise piece of information in the article.


 * 'middle eight' what? bars, words, notes -- does anybody know ? 66.81.254.113 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * middle eight bars,'she told me she worked in the morning and started to laugh....' that is the middle 8 part Woodywoodpeckerthe3rd (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The 1980 Playboy interview, where John takes ALL credit for this song, should, of course, also be cited. On closer inspection, I see it already is. --84.208.224.234 (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's time for bed"
the lyrics "and then she said, it's time for bed" do not, as [was] inferred by the article, suggest she was about to sleep with Lennon, rather, that she was tired and going to bed, alone, and wanted him to go. There is nothing flirtatious or sexual about saying "its time for bed". So, this is why i am correcting this section. ~bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.92.122 (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell that to your girlfriend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.213.118 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I always viewed it as the girl wanting to sleep together and the singer turning her down.


 * The line of response isn't saying that he doesn't work in the morning, it is saying that he doesn't want to sleep with her {yet}.


 * He lights a fire, rather than leaving. If his interest was mainly the girl, why do that?  Disappointment over a girl not wanting to sleep with one seems of less depth than wanting a deeper relationship and the other wanting less.  The opening lines suggest this strongly.  There is a double entendre about the girl 'having him', and then the fact that he had really fallen for her, she has his heart.


 * He holds a flame for her. He is melancholy over his unrequited love.  Whether, with the line, 'Isn't it good...', he is being sarcastic, resolved, or dwelling on an idealistic love that can never {or might not} be...

76.17.86.66 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC) NantucketNoon (talk) 06:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Leonard Bernstein
Bernstein used the song to introduce a Young People's Concert on modes after showing his daughter why she was having such a hard time trying to cover the song on her guitar. MMetro (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mixolydian mode Christian A. Schneider (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This bird has flown?
Any discussion on why this is the subtitle to the song? The words don't appear in the lyrics. Stevage 03:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen again, or leave "has" out of your search. If you are referring to the change from the [pluperfect]] to the present perfect, I think it was simply recognized as sounding better.  Jgm (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Heh, never heard that before. I think I heard it as "Whispered alone" or something. Oops. Stevage 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dylan
There's a sentence: "Lennon's paranoia in this matter[8] is wholly expected if one takes it as fact that Dylan played "4th Time Around" to the Beatles prior to "Norwegian Wood," as explained by Dylan to Al Kooper. [9]" which seems very unclear to me. I would rewrite it, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killy mcgee (talk • contribs) 11:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence was (is) mine. I agree i could have expounded, but i thought it'd be fine to leave the implications to the reader. If Bob Dylan truly did play 4th Time Around for John Lennon et al., only to have The Beatles release Norwegian Wood prior to his release of 4th Time Around, then all the speculation as to Dylan writing 4th in response to Norwegian and regarding the last line being directed at the Beatles is and was entirely off-base. Again, if true, how must Lennon have felt to have reporters asking him, then, misdirected questions and making presumptuous statements about 4th mimicking Norwegian when it was actually the other way around? I think paranoid that the truth would get out would be one understandable way for Lennon to have felt, which is how he is reported as having felt. Or, if not quite paranoia about such a revelation per se, then certainly some weirdness at getting credit for having influenced Dylan when it was the other way around (in this particular instance). To me, it makes little sense that Lennon would feel particularly paranoid for generally having Dylan as an influence... so this makes more sense... to me...

Also, this is a sourced consideration, and i feel it should be included either here or in the 4th Time Around wikipedia entry. Nearly all discussion surrounding the relationship between Norwegian Wood and 4th Time Around assumes without question that the latter came later, and this source calls that into question.

rljhaines (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Lennon sourced the melody from Dylan. Which explains why Lennon would be somewhat paranoid about Dylan recording 4th time around. My theory is that Dylan had an obscure traditional song and he showed it to Lennon. Lennon borrowed the hook from the melody to write Norwegian Wood. If the song was traditional that would explain why Lennon felt it was okay to take it. But it was still borrowing from Dylan, since that's where Lennon sourced it and probably did not ask Dylan's permission.

That's all here and there, but Al Kooper agrees that Lennon took the melody from Dylan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01IE0vVN08c#t=44m22s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rantedia (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"so I lit a fire"
Certainly he didn't set the room on fire. A reference to wanking, do you agree? Christian A. Schneider (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The line refers to him burning the house down. This is from the book "McCartney: A Life" By Peter Ames Carlin, page129: "When Paul drove out to John's house with a funky song that had lame words about a snotty girl who wouldn't give her boyfriend a golden ring, he knew it wasn't working; he was on the verge of abandoning it all together. But John not only encouraged him to finish the song, but soon transformed the lyric into the story of a woman determined to diminish her boyfriend even though her actual success couldn't compete with aspirations. Baby, you can drive my car the chorus went. And maybe I'll love you. Paul returned the favor to John, first by providing the sweeping melody to the verses of "In My Life", then by helping him clarify his narrative in the romantic tangle of "Norwegian Wood", capping it off with a wicked final verse in which the narrator kisses off his not-quite girlfriend by setting her beloved apartment on fire. Isn't is good he gloats as he walks off, taking one final glance at her expensive, and now blazing, Scandinavian paneling." http://books.google.com/books?id=W8R4LS2LYxYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=McCartney&hl=en&sa=X&ei=WgyrT5jOG8X-ggekvNmMDA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Norwegian%20Wood&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexmoron (talk • contribs) 18:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Leonard Bernstein
On the Young People's Concert discussing modes, Leonard Bernstein revealed that it was his daughter asking how to play "Norwegian Wood" on the guitar that inspired him to do a show on the subject of modes. MMetro (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown). Favonian (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Norwegian Wood → Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) – As evidenced by the lead, the info-box, album sleeves/labels, Lewisohn, etc., the current page title is incomplete. Convention is for accuracy/completeness: see e.g. The Beatles, I Want You (She's So Heavy). 93.145.167.192 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - that is the actual complete title of the song.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current title is the song's common name, and is entirely recognizable and natural. Dohn joe (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whether what you suggest is true or not, the precedent (e.g. "The Beatles (album)", not "The White Album") is to name our articles according to the official name and acknowledge common aliases/abbreviations in the lead, together with suitable redirects. 93.145.140.164 (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How would you explain WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME? I am frankly a little shocked that it is called The Beatles (album) and not The White Album. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Within Wikiproject Music in general, and Wikiproject The Beatles in particular, the preference and precedent is for preciseness in band names and of the names of their artistic works. Why this is, is not the topic of this discussion, however, the fact that song titles are artistic statements by persons often still or recently alive probably has a lot to do with it. Lennon didn't want to drop his original title for the song ("This Bird Has Flown") after (probably) McCartney's lyrical input meant that it made more sense to name it "Norwegian Wood" so he opted for "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)"—that was his artistic choice, who are we to deny him it? It's there on the record sleeve and label; it's there in Sony/ATV's publishing database; it's already there in the lead and the infobox. 93.145.140.164 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - it's the full title, and the redirect will take care of anybody looking for the short version. Absconded Northerner (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support People looking for the shorter, colloquial title will be re-directed to it.  Precision and being comprehensive are virtues to aspire to in an encyclopedia.  And precedent supports.  Other examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Want_You_(She%27s_So_Heavy)  •  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Xmas_(War_Is_Over)  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(I_Can%27t_Get_No)_Satisfaction.  BTW: Some other songs with parenthetical titles:  http://www.rankopedia.com/Greatest-Song-With-Brackets-in-its-Title/Step1/19488/.htm  Davidpatrick (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Triple time
Under the heading 'Musical Structure', the article reads as follows: "it is one of the few Beatles songs in triple time."

Few songs are in triple time, period. However in comparison to much of pop music there are an impressive number of Beatles songs in 3/4 time. Off the top of my head: I Want You (She's So Heavy), Dig A Pony, She's Leaving Home, We Can Work It Out (bridge), Norwegian Wood, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite and I Me Mine.

The comment, and its associated citation, are evidently false. I am removing the text and the reference.121.217.97.49 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In the interests of no original research, here are some links to verify what I'm saying. Of course, one could just listen to the songs I listed to gain knowledge of those facts, but verification is good.

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/list-all-the-beatles-waltzes.105332/ http://www.dmbeatles.com/forums/index.php?topic=7445.0 121.217.97.49 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Contemporary reviews
I thought it might be useful if I post here rather than continue our discussion on my talk page. Unfortunately, given my mild bragging about the contemporary reviews available for Rubber Soul at Rock's Backpages(!), all the Norwegian Wood-related comments I've come across seem pretty lame – in that they don't come across as anything too informative or informed, for that matter. (Typical pre-'66/67 pop criticism, I guess.) See what you think:


 * Allen Evans, "Beatles Tops", NME, 3 December 1965, p. 8: "Folksy-sounding bit of fun by John, with Arabic-sounding guitar chords in between."
 * Uncredited writer, Record Mirror, 4 December 1965: "Then comes 'Norwegian Wood', alternative title seems to be: 'This Bird Has Flown'. Almost a folksey feel to this one, gentler tempo and beat, with George turning up trumps on an Indian instrument, a sitar. Sung by John, melodic."
 * Richard Green, Record Mirror, 11 December 1965: "Over half the tracks, if recorded by anyone but the Beatles, would not be worthy of release … 'Drive My Car', 'Norwegian Wood' and 'Wait' are only just okay. An almost pop art guitar break saves 'Drive My Car', the originality of a sitar on 'Norwegian Wood' helps out, but 'Wait' has little to offer on any count."
 * Eden, KRLA Beat, 1 January 1966: "Second cut on the [UK] album is 'Norwegian Wood', which is also included on the American record. This tune is softer and a little slower, and carries along a feeling of a sort of John Lennon-type folk, with the inimitable John-John lead-vocalizing. Second title for the tune is 'This Bird Has Flown'. It is possible that the new song is an adaptation. This cut also features George on the Sitar, which is an Indian instrument."

I think you said you already had one contemporary review, so perhaps a comment from one of the above could be useful if added to that …? Anyway, hope this helps. As you can tell, I was hoping for something a lot better! JG66 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I see what you mean, these reviews don't really give an expert opinion on the song. The last quote seemed like the best, but (you're gonna love this!) it actually was this review that was mentioned in my book The Enduring Beauty of Rubber Soul. Unfortunately, that means we only have one decent review, but not much else. I appreciate the effort though, I too was searching every possible outlet for informative contemporary reviews. One thing I still need to include in the article is some notable cover versions, and a mention of Bob Dylan's "4th Time Around", which is thought to parody "Norwegian Wood".

By the way, congrats on the "Love You To" GA, which I must say is another fine article that represents the beauty of the subject.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the compliment, that's very kind of you.


 * So KRLA Beat was the one you had anyway … (aargh!). Tried to find something in the Billboard archive, but no luck there either. By most accounts, the sitar on "Norwegian Wood" was a revolutionary sound to rock/pop fans, so it's frustrating not to find a couple of reviews reflecting that point …


 * I agree that a mention of "4th Time Around" would be good. Just a suggestion, but I'd also add something early on, when we're discussing the February–April '65/Help! period, about Lennon's Dylan fixation – eg the peak cap, "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away". In other words, something to establish the Dylan influence before we read about comparisons under Reception. In Revolution in the Head, Ian MacDonald talks about both Dylan's influence on the song and his apparent reaction ("4th Time Around") – that could be a decent source. Your call. JG66 (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Page number for Miles 1997 cite under Composition
I've been trying to add refs for the unsourced statements following the removal of anything sourced to Beatles Bible and the like. Can anyone supply a page number for the text reading "Paul McCartney explained the term "Norwegian Wood" was a parody on the cheap pine walls …" through to the quote ending "then we left it there and went into the instrumental"? I know the last bit is from Miles' Many Years from Now, not sure about the first sentence, though. , I think you guys have the book …?

Just a thought: it's difficult to see which statements exactly remain unsourced, because your edit combined the removal of the less-than-stellar sources with revamping the citation style. Do you think it might be an idea to add cite-needed tags, to make it clear? I don't imagine it'll be too difficult to find new refs (although there might be a problem with description of 21 October session, from sources I've checked) – it's just a case of finding where they're needed. Also, minor point: I see you've converted the infobox genres into flatlist format. I could be wrong, but isn't that only necessary when lists contain three or more items?
 * TGS, I addressed the need for citations on the GA talk page. Under Template:Infobox single "Genre" it states "Separate multiple values using  ", which I guess is two or more. No big deal – change it if you want.—Ojorojo (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, of course. Sorry – I should've checked the GAR. JG66 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me to butt out. It's your nomination, after all – there's plenty for me to do elsewhere(!). Good luck, JG66 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The McCartney quote is on pages 270-71 in Miles. Piriczki (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , no you're fine, this is what Wikipedia is all about -- collaboration. I've seen the book by Miles in Google Books so that can support the quote. As for the earlier mention of the "parody" sentence, 1965: The Most Revolutionary Year in Music can source that claim. If anything else still needs a source, I have a book called The Enduring Beauty of Rubber Soul that will more than likely address those concerns.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! And thanks for those page numbers, Piriczki. I'll add them now unless someone else has. JG66 (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)