Talk:I'm So Tired

Double disc?!

it's a double album on vinyl, single on cd. double disc is a really poor choice of term there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.164.103.159 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Irony

"The passage in the middle of the song saying "I wonder should I call you, but I know what you would do" when played in reverse appears to say "I wish I was not a Beatle". Ironically Lennon would be killed in 1980. Another subliminal message, playing in reverse the gibberish statement at the end of the song (said to be made by Lennon--"Mih ssim. Mih ssim. Mih ssim. Nam daed si luop.", often interpreted as "monsior, monsior, how about another one?"), appears to sound like "Paul is dead man, miss him, miss him, miss him...""

How is that ironic? I'm taking that sentence out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chebghobbi (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rhyming

I think you are wrong in saying that Lennon changed the pronounciation of "git" to "get" so not to offend the producer. If the original word had been "git" it would not have rhymed with its couplet which is "cigarette". Where is the citation to support the "git" theory?

"Pepperstool 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)"

Northern people have been know to say "get" instead of "git" anyway. Surley they wouldn't be so concerned about such a harmelss swear-word. Didn't they use stronger language in their larer songs? I know Lennon certainly did in his solo work, but then that was Phil Spector rather than George Martin. Would Martin have really given a toss?--Crestville 15:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the "cigarette" rhyming with "get" is any reason to believe that the "git" theory is inaccurate, however I do agree that citation is needed. Apparently George Martin was very touchy about the words used in the songs and there has been numerous reports of how they had to slip their cusses in (for example the song "Girl"). Jon Lennon got a lot more daring in his solo work and I'm sure this further fuels the theory that George Martin was against words like "git", however harmless the word seems now."User:Anon 09:05, 04 October 2006 (UTC)"

I think you are wrong. At the time of recording George Martin wasn't as involved with the production of the group and during many sessions for the White Album the Beatles were left on the own to produce themselves with assistance from the likes of Chris Thomas (who at the time was merely an engineer and actually more like a glorified teaboy/messenger). I don't believe Thomas would have had the experience or relationship with the group in order to be able to make comment or judgement of their work, and in particular someone such as Lennon. I shall check to find out who was actually present at this session but if George Martin was not (and I suspect that this is the case as he actually left to go on holiday for several weeks of the recording of the album) then this does not support your argument.

Additionally, two further points which are particularly key. Firstly, George Martin had much less say in what the Beatles were producing at this time which is evident by the fact that the White Album appeared as a double album and had Martin had his own way would have been reduced to a single LP cutting around half of the songs. The Beatles vetoed this in favour of the double LP ignoring Martin's advice. Secondly, if you refer to the Esher Tapes from 1968 which are readily availble as a bootleg (if you look in the right places) you will find the acoustic demo version of this song. In this original version Lennon sings "get" and not "git". Considering Martin would not have heard these songs at this stage and therefore not been able to comment on any lyrical content what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that Lennon imposed a self censorship? Lennon?? And if so the article is wrong again as it says "Lennon was rebuked by producers for using the word "git" in a recording, and was asked to rewrite this part" which is clearly not the case. No "producers" (which is ambiguous in itself!) had any say in the lyrical content of any of the songs prior to entering the studio and possibly not even then.

I think it is wrong to add speculation to an article with no evidence to support the "information" provided and therefore it should either be removed or made clear that this is speculation. To request citation but never provide one suggests that this is personal opinion and therefore not permitted. I have never heard of or read about this theory anywhere else despite researching the Beatles and their material for over ten years. Perhaps you have an explanation for this.

Pepperstool 08:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that that is probably the most water-tight, complete response I've ever seen anyone give on this 'ere 'pedia, I have removed the comment. Pepperstool is right, if you can't back a statement (which would otherwise be perfectly believeable) up with a citation, you shouldn't just leave it there with a "request citation" tag. As such I've removed it. I'll past it here so that, if anyone can come up with a citation, you can just cut and paste it :

John Lennon was rebuked by producers for using the word "git" in a recording, and was asked to rewrite this part. Not wanting to change his lyrics, he just pronounced the word "get" (which itself is not unknown as a mild insult) to get around the censors.

However, I doubt this will be the case as Pepperstool has pretty much proved it's false information. Good work.--Crestville 13:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected on one point. I said I would find out who was produer at this session and it was George Martin. I still stand by everything else and point towards the original demo on the Esher Tapes as the most conclusive proof that the lyric was not changed. The Esher Tapes were recorded in May 1968 and the studio recording took place in October 1968.

Pepperstool 07:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the newly added recording detail, this information is taken from The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn in case a citation is required.

Pepperstool 08:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The White Album.jpg

Image:The White Album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Time of recording

"The fact it was recorded at three in the morning enhances the sentiment."

Huh? What does the time of recording have anything to do with the sentiment of the song, particularly since the entire album was recorded at those hours (meaning there's nothing especially noteworthy about this song having been recorded at that time). Sounds like speculation/original research to me, I suggest removing it unless there is a credible source. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Tim

The Get

Who, "was such a stupid get/git," and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.197 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have always thought the line was "and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, you were such a stupid git" and since this comes right after the reference to having "another cigarette" I have assumed that it means that Raleigh was stupid for having introduced tobacco to England, and that had he not done so, Lennon wouldn't have been needing "another cigarette" 207.30.62.198 (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know the line as "and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not too sure if the person who asked the original question is English or not. To me, being English and from Liverpool, it would appear that he is obviously chastising Walter Raleigh for bringing tobacco back from the new world. Stupid get, is English slang used in Liverpool at least and the rest of the UK I think, and means idiot, and is maybe a bit more playful, like you might say to a friend, when they had done something daft. It's one of the funniest lines in the song anyway, and always a highlight for me.

16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakacm (talk • contribs)

The lyrics as heard are clearly "...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid get". Although to somebody unfamiliar with British dialect and/or accents, the word might be the subject of debate, any debate is mistaken. "Get" and "git" are interchangeable, more or less, with "get" held to be the original form of the word which is still more commonly used in parts of northern England at least, which further qualifies Scouser Lennon's use of it.

And yes, he's cursing Raleigh most likely because Raleigh is attributed for the introduction of tobacco to England, and thereby the cause of cigarettes and the ease with which we might become reluctant smokers of them. Although between friends "get" might be a playful insult (such as "old bugger" etc.), I doubt this is what Lennon intended. Twistlethrop (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

genre

can we change the genre into "soft rock" or "soft rock, rock" because all the idea john wanted to express in this song is the "sleepy", "gentle" mood... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.248.109 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What the final words sound like heard the normal way

The words heard at the end are said to be, if heard backwards, "Paul is dead man, miss him miss him miss him." When I was in high school back in 1969 my friends and I heard that the normal way (we didn't think of listening to it backwards) we thought it said "pussy pussy pussy, how bout some more? You can give it to me" Does anyone else think it sounds like that? 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No it's always sounded like complete gibberish to me. I also think it's wrong that this is the bit that is supposed to sound like "Paul is dead, miss him miss him" played backwards. I thought that was tucked into Revolution 9 somewhere. But I've never tried either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.110.58 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You are thinking of the words "number nine" in Revolution 9, which, backwards, are said to sound like "turn me on deadman." My comment is about what the words at the end of "I'm So Tired" sound like the regular way. 207.30.62.198 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Covers

Isn't this sort of thing a bit ridiculous? Does wikipedia really want to list any musician that may have played this song at a concert or performance at one time or another? Surely this is the kind of thing that gives wikipedia a bad name. BLOAT. Not only that, some of the entries can never be cited since there is no physical record (sound or written) except the "word" of whomever placed the blurb. Come on! 23:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The rest of the band?

Removed "as such" from the "Composition section. "It goes" is sufficient and adding "as such" is clumsy.

In the lede - John sings the verses, and the rest of the band sings the chorus? You mean sings "on" the chorus? Because that is definitely not "the rest of the band" without John, and I don't think it's the entire rest of the band - maybe Paul.--Daveler16 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)