Charlie Clown

I know you ask about DVDs but have you tried the book Revolution In The Head by Ian MacDonald? In case you don't know it it's a really detailed trawl through the genesis, writing and recording of every single track they recorded. It might give you the sort of detail you're looking for.

political but non-partisan and therefore probably not likley to offend any paricular attendees - how about Nick Lowe's 'What's So Funny Bout Peace Love And Understanding?'. It's also a fairly simple song to play and sing with a very catchy tune. But the doyen of political songwriting has got to be Billy Bragg - stuff like There Is A Power In A Union, Between The Wars etc. are all tremendous.

I may be wrong but to me it doesn't sound like a classical piece. Yes it is played on a harpsichord but if you listen to the rhythm/dynamic in just those two short sections they are more like jazz than classical in their patterns. I doubt very much that it hails from the Bach (or any pre-20th century) period. I have also had a look at the album and the writing credits are to 4 writers - all of whom are band members.

If I was being generous I'd say it's one of those 'address the state of the absurd world around us' songs, filled with surreal/nonsensical images to try and show the madness of late 60s western civilisation. Not meant to make sense, just to point out the craziness around us all. If I was being less generous I'd say it was a second rate attempt to jump on the Beatles bandwagon using the I Am The Walrus template.

I was thinking of two absolue gems by the Byrds, one of which is My Back Pages and the other Goin' Back (a Carole King song). Two of the greatest renditions of two of the greatest songs.

I know where you're coming from but, as I said ealier, I think it's so tenuous that you couldn't really say it was a self-referential song in the way that I think the original question was defining it.

I still don't think it (Singin' In The Rain) is self-referential - the knowledge that the song is being sung is that one only comes from seeing it sung in the film. It's very tenuous to suggest otherwise. Bt the way, Hallelujah, the lyrics are 'the minor fall and the major lift', not sacred lift. Or does that change occur in a version that isn't one of the better kown ones? It's certainly not in Laughin' Len's original or in the Jeff Buckley version.

Some very weird responses in this thread. Do people have any idea what self-referential actually means? Singin' In The Rain is clearly not self-referential in any way, neither is Rock Me Amadeus, neither is Like A Rolling Stone.... And the comment about Prince on pg.2 or 3... what is that supposed to mean? A couple that are that (I think) haven't been mentioned so far: Van Morrison - I'd Love To Write Another Song Creedence Clearwater Revival - Wrote A Song For Everyone

Ayethangyoo. It's one of my favourite subjects to rant about this thing that Lennon was in some way superior to McCartney because he was like, y'kmnow, more serious maaaan. Utter rubbish. I'm not saying that that was what the original post was saying but it strays into that area.

Set The House Ablaze by The Jam is a ferocious song that has a lot of whislting in it. Back to Hocus Pocus (I'm assuming it was the Focus song that was under discussion) - are you sure? It's a while since I last heard it but I can't remember any whistling in it at all - lots of yodelling but no whistling.

Well, they're both fictional lyricists in that neither of them is setting documentary texts to music, they are both making up their lyrics. So the simple answr is no, you can't say that about them. If you mean are Lennon's more grounded in reality - no - when Lennon gets political he tends to operate in some fanciful utopia rather than any real politics (cf the pie in the sky nonsense that is Imagine and Revolution or the soppy romanticism of Woman). McCartney often does frivolous lyrics as well (Frog Chorus, Pipes Of Peace, O-Bla-Di-O-Bla-Da) but his tend to be deliberately chidlish or childlike, whereas Lennon's seem to be intended seriously even though they are just as daft.

When I Grow Up To Be A Man by The Beach Boys

Pink is just ugly - looks like she smells of, er, incontinence. Beyonce though is veeery foxy. And good call on En Vogue - two of them were stunning. One not mentioned so far - Michelle Phillips from the Mamas & Papas - really beautiful.

The glorious and life affirming Alison's Starting To Happen by The Lemonheads.

What about those classic Eric B & Rakim tracks - I Know You Got Soul and Paid In Full. They made some awesome records. Boogie sDown Productions had a whoel raft of great stuff - My Uzi Weighs A Ton for example. And though he's just a pop muppet these days LL Cool J made some great records in his early days - I Need A Beat and RADIO are both great records.

What about beauties such as Waterloo Sunset or The Village Green Preservation Society by The Kinks? the first about London and the second about rural England. Granchester Meadows by Pink Floyd (a gorgeous, acoustic, pastoral piece). High Land Hard Rain by Aztec Camera about Scotland.

This is a weird thread - most of the bands mentioned already have sufficient status and publicity that they probably don't need the publicity that Songfacts could give them (no offence to the site at all but given that we even have to ask who the bands are probably tells us that this site is serving the wrong constituency for any up and coming indie bands to worry about it). Having said that I suspect that the very fact that we are even discussing these bands on here is a step in the right direction as the usual comfort zone on these boards is middle of the road FM pop and ancient 'classic' rock. So it's all good. I hope this bears some fruit.

weird though - Once In A Lifetime was released as a single and did chart. Don't remember any lyrics about buffalos in there either....

Greil Marcus's book Invisible Republic is a superb history of Dylan's music, changing audeince and the cultural atmosphere of the time. Valuable reading. Its a very complex question - more to do withe th audeience's (incorrect) expectations of Dylan than anything Dylan himself directly lead them to believe (he always denied he was a protest singer for example) - they assumed he was the messiah of American folk music, leading a kind of purist counter-culture revolution in opposition to the corporate and governmental might of American publich and cultural life. When he went electric it was as if, to the folk audience, he had abandoned them completely and gone over to the dark side. Read the book, it explains it a lot more eloquently than I ever could.

Daslied is correct - indicates any band or music in which the aim is self-indulgence, the musician(s) are following ever more prosaic or protracted methods of music making that have no real merit to the audience, they are just there to prove how great the musicians are (or how far up their own backsides they have gotten), they are doing it purely for their own pleasures and have usually lost sight of their audience. A typical example might be Yes's Tales From Topographic Oceans or Flaming Lips' Zaireeka (and don't get me wrong, I am fan of both band's music). A phrase that I read many years ago in a Queen review summed it up perfectly "techno-flash wankery".

not sure but if I ever want to track down a particular son I go on to the online CD shop CDUniverse.com becasue they have a facility to search by song title which is really useful. Mods - sorry if naming a commercial site means some sort of rule breaking or advertising. Delete if necessary.

I remember years ago hearing Rolf Harris, who had a number one in the UK with this song, explain that he first heard it when it was sung to him by an Aborigine in the Australian outback. Not sure it has to be about a specific war does it.... why can't it just be a song about two people who happen to be in a war, any war?

no worries mate - a pleasure.

Do you mean Gordon Haskell - that one it wonder bloke who came from nowhere a couple of Chrsitmases back but was a real music industry veteran in actual fact.

Just wanted to add something to this - the reading of the song as the story of an astronaut stuck in space and being left to die is a perfectly reasonable explanation and reading of the song's lyrics. But the video that accompanied the song's re-release (at least I think it was the re-release) in the early seventies had a different ending to the tale.... in the video the astronaut has found his way into a harem of lovely space ladies... and will not respond to the calls from earth because he is having such a great time. A different twist and one that Bowie himself was happy with as he starred in the video.