"Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)" was released by The Beatles on the 1965 album Rubber Soul. The album itself was transitional, signaling the Beatles move away from simpler rock songs. "Norwegian Wood" was the first time that George Harrison (or anyone, I believe) played the sitar in British or American popular music. There is some dispute about the authorship. It is attributed Lennon-McCartney on the album, but John later claimed to have written it himself, with only minimum input from Paul. After Lennon's death, however, McCartney insisted that it was a fully joint composition. According to Wikipedia, the song is about one of Lennon's extramarital affairs, but who knows?
Cool song.
Harrison's use of the sitar here inspired Brian Jones to learn the sitar and use it on "Paint It, Black"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flSmiIne-4k
Jones was a very talented musician who effortlessly mastered many instruments. Sadly, for him the road of excess did not lead to the palace of wisdom.
The Yardbirds' first attempt to record "Heart Full of Soul" was on 13 April 1965 at Advision Studios in London. A sitar player played the distinctive instrumental hook.
youtube dot com/watch?v=RUkyI4MEsmI
The Beatles recorded an early version of "Norwegian Wood" during the first day of sessions for their album Rubber Soul, on 12 October 1965.
But, really, does shooting the s… about 60 years ago mean anything at this point?
Full marks for calling attention to the first attempt at using a sitar in a rock song — by the Yardbirds.
As I think you know, the single released by them is not the sitar version. It's Jeff Beck making his guitar sound sitar-like. The man was a guitar wizard.
"But, really, does shooting the s… about 60 years ago mean anything at this point?" — Yes, or we wouldn't be doing it.
The whole mind set is what I question.
"Full Grades" as if this is some sort of competition among the eager students in the first row, with Lubet as the professor.
I question whether this activity, which is really the only interactive part of this site left, is really all that.
After all, it is a competition among old folks about old music (60 YEARS AG0) to prove that they deserve "good grades" for being able to remember their youth and show off some obscure knowledge about what was, in context, meaningless.
This blog used to be a forum for legal discussions and political debates. Lubet first stifled, and then killed it, because he can't debate and rejects criticism of his often far too partisan viewpoints.
Now, he posts his agitprop elsewhere and fiddles on this site with a sort of trivia for bored, old academics. (Yes, I am old enough to remember this music too and loved it: but that, I believe, is part of the reason I find this whole "Lubet relives the music of his youth" so self indulgent and such a selfish use of what was once a great law blog.)
SO, why did I chime in? Because often I just find the effort to be the star pupil and make some point reveals the lack of real appreciation about what was, even arguably, important.
Here, to recognize that, sorry, lots of British musicians were experimenting with different instruments before Norwegian Wood, including the sitar, is a far more important insight than trying to show off some false tidbit, for bonus points on the exam, about authorship of an idea.
Among their other gifts, the Beatles were great at convincing the naive and ignorant press that they invented/discovered every form of innovation in music. As much as they were giants in music history, and sometimes truly innovated (thanks to George Martin and McCartney, mainly) their hype about their innovations was, sometimes, just that.
Leave it to you, anon, to turn a compliment into something bash-worthy.
Lots of us look forward to Lubet's Saturday musical interludes. If you don't then don't viit the site then. better yet, don't post on the site. You've made your position clear on numerous occasions. Why continue to post?
Just leave Lubet alone. Enough said.
Sam
Your concern for Steve is, well, not related to the point: that this blawg has been reduced this this.
Your condescending tone and attitude are to be expected, as well as the "well, if I like it then your pov is irrelevant."
But, based on the number of people who comment on this blawg now (when allowed) compared with the way it was before Lubet began dominating and shutting down debate, it is clear that there are very few people who believe that his self-indulgence is all that interesting and worth letting this site become what it has become.
Sure, let Lubet play this out on Saturdays. That isn't my objection.
That isn't the point.
It is the desperate need of some to prove that they still deserve "good grades" and the pitiful way that this is now expressed in such a relatively banal way that strikes one as pitiful.
If you can't understand this, fine. But, as usual, insulting others while demanding impunity for yourself is sort of unseemly.
That's my view. And, so long as it isn't censored, it is permitted, whether you agree or not. I am pleading for a return to a vibrant forum for the discussion of legal and political issues, without censorship and the insulting disdain.
Believe it or not, there was once a CONSERVATIVE voice on this blawg. Now, one can't even comment on the faux musical depth of some status seekers.
Can you process that or must everyone be controlled by you and your sensibilities?
"insulting others while demanding impunity for yourself is sort of unseemly."
You really don't get it; do you.
Lubet has taken the position that his hyper partisan views are beyond reproach and no other views are allowed.
By stifling interaction on this site, this site has demonstrably deteriorated over the years to become a venue, mainly, for his trivia about 1960s music, with the readers competing to outdo each other with tidbits.
That's what I meant by "impunity" … You want a name to attack me personally, I understand. But I wasn't referring to the ability to demonize me, or anyone else who is critical of what this site has become, which is the method of "addressing issues" you seem to support.
I was referring to Lubet turning an open website in a way that makes it a personal venue and destroys what it once was, without any input from or accountability to the readers of the FL.
If Lubet want to create the Lubet Lounge and spend endless hours remembering how he was entitled to a ticket to a concert in Berkeley, or some such thing, that is well within his right and I would encourage it, though I wouldn't visit that site.
I just keep hoping that somehow, someway, instead of attacking any person who dares to speak up, you and anyone of your mind could understand this.