Talk:Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



B
This article has
been rated as
B-Class on the
assessment scale.
  This Beatles-related article is within the scope of The Beatles WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles, Apple Records, George Martin, Brian Epstein/NEMS, and related topics. You are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.

This article
has not been
rated on the
importance scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Assessment Department for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Assessment.
This article is also within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
Peer review Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Ramble

The article tends to ramble uncontrollably - needs radical restructuring. LUDRAMAN | 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. JOHN COLLISON | (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 :-) JOHN COLLISON | (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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Victor Wooten

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

[edit] Removed lyrics

Please see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Lyrics">Wikipedia:Copyrights</a>. We shouldn't have lyrics on here.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

[edit] "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)