Jet (Paul McCartney & Wings) - What Is It About?

It means nothing. Paul was, to use a popular Australian expression, pulling our collective leg. Or, to put it more crudely, taking the piss.

If this had been written by John, I can understand why people would be trying to dissect it and uncover the meaning, but Paul being Paul I think people should realise he is fond of nonsense. This is the man who gave us "Monkberry Moon Delight" (we all know what that's about, right? Nudge nudge) and "Bip Bop" (say no more!). He decided to write a song named after his dog, then fit the words around it. That's all there is to it.

 

How dare you post such a concept on a forum that exists to dissect each and every punctuation mark found in lyrics?

 

When I write lyrics, I intentionally make them a bit ambiguous as an aid to different people interpreting them in completely different ways. So if I were writing a song based on a pet, I'd throw in some lines that suggest a very different interpretation than it being about a pet, even though that might have been all that I was really thinking about. I might think, "Okay, well, my cat likes to climb a lot, but he's always knocking stuff over and then barreling out of there before it falls on top of him, so I'll imagine him being like Indiana Jones running away from the boulder" and then a couple lines might suggest that I'm talking about an explorer or archaeologist, etc.--and I'd always keep in mind that the ultimate goal is to keep everything vague enough to enable a bunch of different interpretations, so I wouldn't try to make the archaeologist stuff too overt, either.

Part of the point of this is that people are going to interpret things differently no matter what you do. So this is just exploiting that fact. And it helps make songs more "personal" to people--they'll apply interpretations that are more significant for their own experiences, beliefs, etc.

I know for a fact that I'm not at all the only person who approaches lyrics this way.

 

Wow, it was neat seeing this 4 year old post of mine quoted. My son is now 8 (9 in a few months) and still loves the Beatles and solo Paul.

 

Do you know if there's an online source where I can read that Playboy interview, by any chance? I've never seen it and have always wanted to know what John thought of every Beatles song! Thanks.

 

Y

You mean it's not about seeing the moon then?!?

 

I think it's much more about the music than the lyrics. Although the lyrics are quite memorable (particularly the exquisite last verse - "Jet! With the wind in your hair of a thousand laces - Climb on the back and we'll go for a ride in the sky") they don't mean much. They just sound good with the music, which is one of Paul's hardest rocking solo songs.

 

This one? John Lennon Interview: Playboy 1980 (Page 1) - Beatles Interviews Database


I'm on my phone so can't really search very well but if it's anywhere it's there.

 

Further to my earlier post, my guess is this: the title came first, because Paul thought it was a good song title. Then came the music, which fits with the title, being fast, dynamic and furious. Then the lyrics would have been written around the tune. You can't tell me that the word "suffragette" is there for any reason other than that it contains "jet" as the final phoneme.

Next instalment: line by line analysis of "Solar Prestige a Gammon" by Elton John.

 

Sufffragette might also be a nod to Bowie. As for nonsense Elton John songs, I want someone to explain Take Me to the Pilot.

 

It will have to be someone other than Bernie Taupin, because he has been quoted as saying that he himself has no idea what the song is about.

 

"Don't lean on me, man, if you can't afford the tick-ee..."

 

Good theory..The only thing that seems obvious is that she is getting married and the father is not happy because she is too young.The pregnancy is supposed.

 

Yes, it's a common expression (well, probably less so nowadays). You need to get out more!

Thanks. Yes, that seems to be it. I was always under the impression though from what people have said that he went through EVERY Beatles (or at least commented on the vast bulk of them). It only seems to be a smattering though. How disappointing. Still, a very interesting and long interview.

 

And Sergeant Major is not a variation of a Major; It is a variation of a Sergeant.

 

Paul is rather flippant and I do not put much stock in anything he says. He writes non-sensical songs and has even more non-sensical explanations for them. I don't see much evidence that he ever has much in the way of an emotional connection with any song or performance. On the other hand, John thinks what he writes is far more important than it really is. They are quite the opposite.

 

I think Paul got lazy as a lyricist and either realized the critics and fans wouldn't mind inferior lyrics and that he could get with it and/or he didn't have Lennon as a sounding board or as competition to better himself. He has written a lot of lyrics that really should not have been in the final revision of the song - a lot of stuff that may in the moment have seem like a good idea from its inspiration, but were just bad and nonsensical. He (and some of his songs) have coasted a lot on charm and historic goodwill from the fans. I find almost all of his interviews in which he discusses songs and songwriting unsubstantial. However I think you are wrong about him never having an emotional connection with any song or performance - for example (just a few) ...

Yesterday
Here, There and Everywhere
She's Leaving Home
Let It Be
The Long and Winding Road
Two of Us
Another Day
Junk

 

Those are potentially emotional subjects and I cannot speak to how he feels about any of them. But to me the potential emotion the lyrics may afford is not conveyed by his performance. In general I just do not get much in the way of emotion from The Beatles' performances. Others who record their songs often DO convey the potential emotion the lyrics would suggest however. Yesterday is one of the greatest pop songs ever written. When Paul sings it, it seems just like another "ditty I wrote".

 

Was it not a dog or animal as far as the title goes at least?

 

For No One

 

One of the biggest changes when he went solo was that his lyrics started to become far more Dadaist almost, and nonsensical in many ways. When he was in the Fabs, his 'movement you need' line was only kept in the song because John liked it, and again, the odd lyrics to 'Fool On The Hill' were probably not changed because John said that he loved them and wanted Paul to make sure he could remember them. John himself started writing more and more meaningless lyrics whilst in the Beatles, with 'Walrus' intentionally written to confuse those trying to find messages in the songs, and I assume songs like 'Dig A Pony' were kept as they were for that reason, and also due to increased drug usage.

I have always wondered if the lyrical changes we see with solo Paul and Wings were purely the result of increased pot use when Paul married Linda and started growing their own, or whether they were partly due to his efforts to not sound like the Beatles and to create a new sound? I know that like with John, he loved Lear and Carrol and children's books.

I also agree with the theory that even though they were often abstract, they do mean something in many circumstances, even if it is not in a way that is immediately easy to understand, like the amount of emotion conveyed on the 'Ram' album, which certainly seems to be very personal for him.

Over the last two decades he seems to have gone back to working harder on the lyrics again, so that they are closer to his Beatles lyrics. We know Costello encouraged him to return to the Beatles sound if he wanted to, saying if everyone else can use that sound, why not Paul? I imagine working with Costello and his lyric note books also encouraged Paul to try harder to make the songs more literal or poetic. This is backed up by his decision to have the lyrics on the 'OTG' album checked by a poet or writer.

Ever since 'Flaming Pie' his lyrics have been more positively appraised than his Wings lyrics and solo lyrics, such as the infamous 'Salamander', 'Dustbin Lid' and 'Oklahoma' lines.

I am lucky to be a fan of both styles of his writing, and am glad that we have both the literal and more psychedelic/nursery rhyme/ madcap lyrics as well, although I am 100% sure that he would have been more critically popular had he written lyrics with his post Costello approach back in the early 70's on through to now.

It is ironic that John did the opposite and started writing songs with very literal lyrics about his life, to great acclaim on his early albums.

 

And not just any dope. Allegedly, Paul was heavily into Thai stick at that time. Or as my old buddy would have defined it: Polio Weed.

 

Can you explain what that means ?

 

Here you go:

https://hightimes.com/grow/the-history-of-the-thai-stick/

 

I think Paul's prime Wings lyrics are charming and perceptive. Easy to ignore them when there's a primo melody going on there.