Log In
Register
Read the original blog post
8.31pm
Has anyone any thoughts on “You've got to hide your love away” being about Brian Epstein and his homosexuality.
I have heard Tom Robinson among others saying that it is in part about him.
Or even a line or two from “Baby you're a rich man” being about Brian Epstein – I am not referring to “rich fag jew” which I have never heard.
But “how does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?” and “Tuned to a Natural E”.
What do you think?
12.38am
14 December 2009
Offline
Hmm, that's a good one! Almost thought you were sarcastic for a moment. 
I don't know if John had Brian somewhat in mind while writing this song. Back then, homosexual attractions were not considered the same sensation as “love” and therefore did not have the widespread (mostly liberal atheistic american influence) appeal as the sickness does today.
If he did write about Brian/homosexuality he should have re-titled the song “You've Got To Hide Your Lust Away” 
Sunday's on the phone to Monday, Tuesday's on the phone to me.
10.34am
31 March 2008
Offline
Er, why would it be confined to lust? Do you not think Brian was able to fall in love?
Here’s a rarity: Brian Epstein Blues (1967)
EDIT by Ahhh Girl: I put in a working link.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
11.59am
Was that done in 1967? At Kenwood?
Thanks for posting.
3.50pm
31 March 2008
Offline It was a studio recording, though obviously never intended for release. It was recorded on 19 July 1968 – not 1967. Here's what Mark Lewisohn said about it:
`Sexy Sadie ' was originally a bitter John Lennon song about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, written after John had left India in April, somewhat disappointed with the holy man. But John replaced the word “Maharishi” with “Sexy Sadie ” to avoid any upset.
`Sexy Sadie ' was never officially recorded as `Maharishi' but at one point during the session John briefly showed Paul how it was originally conceived, and this quick, tongue-in-cheek burst into song was kept for posterity on one of the “interesting bits and pieces” tapes. [See 12 July for explanation.] The expletives were not deleted on the tape.
“You little t*at
Who the f**k do you think you are?
Who the f**k do you think you are?
Oh, you c**t”.
At the end of this delightful verse Paul suggested that perhaps it was better that the song was now more sympathetic.
Much of this day's session was spent jamming, and several other items found their way onto 'Beatles Chat'. There were more crude run-throughs of `Sexy Sadie ', with plenty of good humoured Lennon cusses, a new two-verse spur-of-the-moment Lennon song rather
uncomplimentary to the memory of Brian Epstein and to his brother Clive, and then a near six minute instrumental jam of George Gershwin's `Summertime', doubtless inspired by the 1958 rock version — albeit not an instrumental — by Gene Vincent and His Blue Caps
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
5.15am
…and Dave said:
Has anyone any thoughts on “You've got to hide your love away” being about Brian Epstein and his homosexuality.
I have heard Tom Robinson among others saying that it is in part about him.
Or even a line or two from “Baby you're a rich man” being about Brian Epstein – I am not referring to “rich fag jew” which I have never heard.
But “how does it feel to be one of the beautiful people?” and “Tuned to a Natural E”.
What do you think?
How is this relevant to the historical nature of the Beatles recordings? The guy was just their manager and had zero impact on the Beatles recording process. Sorry, but this forum topic is pointless.
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
8.55am
I would have thought that the inspiration for the songs would have been at least a point of some interest even for those interested (as I am myself) in the recording process of the Beatles songs.
I don't really think Brian Epstein was “just a manager” as without him they might never have got a recording contract. But from an input point of view in the recording of the songs of course you're right about about Brian's contribution.
9.57am
31 March 2008
Offline 8tracktgdesk said:
How is this relevant to the historical nature of the Beatles recordings? The guy was just their manager and had zero impact on the Beatles recording process. Sorry, but this forum topic is pointless.
Don't read it then. The forum's not just for recording analysis – I'm happy for people to talk about whatever they like, as long as it's Beatle-related and not moronic.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
3.39am
Joe said:
Don't read it then. The forum's not just for recording analysis – I'm happy for people to talk about whatever they like, as long as it's Beatle-related and not moronic.
I think any study of British music starts with learning about the Beatles and Abbey Road Studios. Anything else is just side information that is secondary to how both changed music history and recording technology for that matter. I 'm not saying that Epstein wasn't important but if you can not put him in the same league as George Martin, Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
3.47am
I don't really think Brian Epstein was “just a manager” as without him they might never have got a recording contract. But from an input point of view in the recording of the songs of course you're right about about Brian's contribution.
When the Beatles where asked “what are you going to do with all of your money” by a reporter, they replied back “what money” Who do you think was making all the money it was the upper management at EMI/ Abbey Road Studios and Brian Epstein. The song was correct in their assumption that “Baby your a Rich Man”and that including the shirt and ties who
ran the big music conglomerate EMI.
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
10.56am
31 March 2008
Offline 8tracktgdesk said:
I think any study of British music starts with learning about the Beatles and Abbey Road Studios. Anything else is just side information that is secondary to how both changed music history and recording technology for that matter. I 'm not saying that Epstein wasn't important but if you can not put him in the same league as George Martin, Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick
I agree to an extent, but I think the cultural and social context of The Beatles' story is absolutely key to their importance – I read a quote yesterday by Gerry Marsden (of the Pacemakers) who said the Merseybeat thing just wouldn't have happened without the Liverpool docks and the rock'n'roll imports, which is why similar-sized cities such as Manchester, Birmingham or London didn't have the head-start that Liverpool did. Equally, the Hamburg period turned them into a rock'n'roll powerhouse. Surely that's more than side information? Please Please Me was essentially a straight recording of their stage show in early 1963; knowing a bit about the background up to then can tell you a lot.
I don't think Epstein was as important as any of the studio staff in directing how The Beatles sounded from 1964 onwards, but you've got to respect the man for even getting the group into a recording studio. Without him they might have ended their days playing to drunken sailors in German bars and getting nowhere.
Furthermore, when Epstein died John Lennon 's first thought was “We've f*****g had it”. That they soldiered on for two more years is testament to the bond between them (and the direction, in particular, of Paul McCartney ). If he'd lived it's likely that they wouldn't have ended their days in such disarray, though obviously All Things Must Pass eventually. Whilst Epstein's influence on the recordings was minimal, he would have kept the bulk of Apple's business problems from The Beatles, leaving them free to concentrate on what they did best – the music.
The following people thank Joe for this post:
Ahhh GirlCan buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
8.08pm
I agree to an extent, but I think the cultural and social context of The Beatles' story is absolutely key to their importance – I read a quote yesterday by Gerry Marsden (of the Pacemakers) who said the Merseybeat thing just wouldn't have happened without the Liverpool docks and the rock'n'roll imports, which is why similar-sized cities such as Manchester, Birmingham or London didn't have the head-start that Liverpool did. Equally, the Hamburg period turned them into a rock'n'roll powerhouse. Surely that's more than side information? Please Please Me was essentially a straight recording of their stage show in early 1963; knowing a bit about the background up to then can tell you a lot.
I don't think Epstein was as important as any of the studio staff in directing how The Beatles sounded from 1964 onwards, but you've got to respect the man for even getting the group into a recording studio. Without him they might have ended their days playing to drunken sailors in German bars and getting nowhere.
Furthermore, when Epstein died John Lennon 's first thought was “We've f*****g had it”. That they soldiered on for two more years is testament to the bond between them (and the direction, in particular, of Paul McCartney ). If he'd lived it's likely that they wouldn't have ended their days in such disarray, though obviously All Things Must Pass eventually. Whilst Epstein's influence on the recordings was minimal, he would have kept the bulk of Apple's business problems from The Beatles, leaving them free to concentrate on what they did best – the music.
So ferry 'cross the Mersey / 'cause this land's the place I love / and here I'll stay…….
The above is a great lyric couplet written by Gerry Marsden which appears to be produced by the great Sir George Martin. If you combine the Mersey and Liverpool beat, British accents , and Skiffle, and then add the influence of American R/B and you get the three British evasion of the sixties. You don't see well written lyrics today like what was done by the groups of the british evasion. The whole idea behind putting The Wrecking Crew behind American bands was so they could record a pristine number one hit was a counter to the British sound. That Mersey/Liverpool sound was in my opinion a Revolution that will never happen again. Their has not been one group since the Beatles that has made historical changes to music and the development of recording industry. The Beatles well truly a musical Revolution and you have to thank all the people at Abbey Road Studios during the sixties who made it possible, Including Sir George Martin
Their (Beatles) Music legacy goes even farther into the late seventies, many many years after Epstein's death, this should tell you something.
Not going to get sick of those “Silly Love songs” any time soon, Oh no !!
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
3.28am
15 February 2010
Offline Hello, I'm Ronnie… this is my first post.
Speaking of this song, it's always been one of my favorites. I remember my father showing me how to play this on guitar when I was first learning a long time ago. I actually just recently recorded a cover of it, with me playing all of the instruments and vocals. I put it up on youtube with a dumb little video I made for it. Let me know what you think!
7.48am
13 November 2009
Offline BeatleMark said:
Hmm, that's a good one! Almost thought you were sarcastic for a moment.
I don't know if John had Brian somewhat in mind while writing this song. Back then, homosexual attractions were not considered the same sensation as “love” and therefore did not have the widespread (mostly liberal atheistic american influence) appeal as the sickness does today.
If he did write about Brian/homosexuality he should have re-titled the song “You've Got To Hide Your Lust Away”
I'm fairly sure gay relationships were still considered love back then even if they were illegal. Also, I don't see how you can say homosexuality is a sickness!
I think it's possible that John wrote it about Brian, but I read somewhere that it was John writing about an affair without letting his wife know he was writing about an affair.
7.50am
13 November 2009
Offline I liked your version Ronnie. What instrument did you use at the end instead of flute?
1.54pm
5 February 2010
Offline Ronnie Hanoi said:
Speaking of this song, it's always been one of my favorites. I remember my father showing me how to play this on guitar when I was first learning a long time ago.
That's awesome. It's the first song my dad showed me how to play on the guitar as well, and I remember being shocked because my dad wasn't a guitarist. But I guess knowing “G”, “C”, and “D” was common enough. It was a magical moment, though, hearing those chords ring out “live”, in my living room, after hearing them on tape so many times.
Back on topic: unless I can find a quote from John that actually says he was thinking of Brian when he wrote this, I tend to move away from reading too much into it. I've had this happen when writing songs in the past, where I might have started with a particular person or situation in mind, but then incorporated a line or two that was actually from a different event/person/situation – but still fit the theme. And from what I've read in the various books and interviews, it sounds like a lot of Beatles songs were “tapestries” in that way – bits and pieces woven together from different events, things they overheard, experiences they had, etc.
That's a long and winding road to get to my point: it could very well be that John set out to write a song about frustrated love in the style of Dylan (which he has admitted), and in the process, incorporated a line or a thought that was directed at Brian, or reflective of something he thought about Brian. But I wouldn't have the courage to say the whole song was meant for Brian, or solely about Brian.
The lyrics are a bit confusing to me, actually. The author begins by describing his new situation: she's left him. And he's apparently wearing his depression on his sleeve, because when he goes out in public, people stare at him, and even laugh. And it's these people, the unsympathetic observers, who tell him, “You've got to hide your love away.” Which means … what? He doesn't have his girl anymore, so she's not the thing he's got to hide away. I'm guessing it means that he needs to bury and suppress his brokenness, his depression – his unrequited love. Hide it away, stop looking so glum, don't let it show. That kind of thing.
Not a bit like Cagney.
2.39pm
15 February 2010
Offline McLerristarr said:I liked your version Ronnie. What instrument did you use at the end instead of flute?
Thank you! I used this old casio keyboard I have. It's got a flute effect on it. I double tracked it to make it sound more like the recording – played it a little higher, then a little lower. I tried to mix it to flow like the original too. I didn't even use a tamborine, I don't have one. I ended up using my jar I keep loose change in, and it turned out pretty well. My girlfriend didn't even know it wasn't a tamborine!
I can see this song being about a homosexual relationship. It really does make sense, especially the whole bit about having to hide it away and feeling shame. But then again, it could just be another sad love song.
2.50pm
5 February 2010
Offline Ronnie Hanoi said:
I can see this song being about a homosexual relationship. It really does make sense, especially the whole bit about having to hide it away and feeling shame.
I guess it just doesn't add up for me. Like I said, it sounds like the singer has already lost the object of his love interest, so it's not so much about him having to hide a relationship he's currently in (homosexual or otherwise), as it is about him having to hide his shame at carrying around the rejection and unrequited love he feels for this person who's left him.
Not a bit like Cagney.
4.52pm
5 February 2010
Offline Ronnie: well done on the cover version! I'd love to know what instrumentation you used, because you got the guitar voicings and all the little flourishes (hammer-ons here, pull-offs there) practically note-perfect. Were you using a 12-string?
I liked the vocal interpretation, too; I would never have thought to make the melody follow the pattern of the flute solo (at “head in hand”, and “can't go on”, etc.), but it works, and it makes it your own.
Nice improvisation, using the jar of change. I love it. 🙂
Not a bit like Cagney.
7.14pm
15 February 2010
Offline PeterWeatherby said:
Ronnie: well done on the cover version! I'd love to know what instrumentation you used, because you got the guitar voicings and all the little flourishes (hammer-ons here, pull-offs there) practically note-perfect. Were you using a 12-string?
I liked the vocal interpretation, too; I would never have thought to make the melody follow the pattern of the flute solo (at “head in hand”, and “can't go on”, etc.), but it works, and it makes it your own.
Nice improvisation, using the jar of change. I love it. 🙂
Oh, thanks man! I really appreciate all of the kind words.
For the main rhythm track (left speaker), I used Epiphone EJ-160CE 6 string acoustic (Lennon signature), Epiphone DR-212 12 string acoustic, 1995 Fender Jazz bass, and a brushed snare. In the right speaker I used the 12 string the same way The Beatles did, as a “bass line” for the chorus. There's maracas and my make shift tamborine. It took a while to get the jar of coins to sound like a tamborine, I had to find a good way of mic'ing it and then I put some compression and reverb on it. In the center of the mix is my lead vocal, which not to toot my own horn, but I recorded it in one take, and I'm impressed with myself on that! On the vocal there's some slight compression and a bit of reverb. There's also a small layer of reverb going over the whole final “mastered” & mixed down track. I recorded it all in my bedroom.
When I recorded the vocal I knew I was doing something different with the melody, but I wasn't really thinking about it too much. I couldn't figure out what I did. I actually just realized I was following the flute melody when you pointed it out! haha!
I was actually thinking of doing I've Just Seen A Face today… at least starting on it. I really like doing this covers, I like the stay as close to the original as possible, while making subtle changes. If anyone's got any other song ideas for me to do, let me know! I'd be happy to tackle anything!
1 Guest(s)