Rosaline 🎧

THE LYRICS

First of all, let’s forget all about the supposed inspiration and take a look at who’s who in these lyrics.

We have what looks like three characters in the song: the narrator, the ‘you’ that’s being addressed and a bird that seems to belong to the ‘you’.

Over the course of the song, the character of the narrator is chastising the ‘you’ character for manifesting several unflattering character traits akin to narcissism and not understanding them.

The ‘you’ person is:

materialistic (prized possessions, got everything they want) 

sort of know-it-all (they claim to have seen seven wonders and heard every sound there is)

yet they don’t get the narrator (to “not get” can either mean “not possess” or “not understand”, I assume it’s supposed to be both)

don’t see them and don’t hear them (therefore they don’t understand them or completely miss them and their point). 

Now, let’s take a look at the ‘bird’ character that belongs to the ‘you’ (I assume that I don’t have to remind Beatles fans that ‘bird’ can be synonymous to ‘woman’).

The bird:

can sing (which could mean this person is literally a singer or they are capable in doing something else, anything they are supposed to do), important takeaway - it makes noise that can be heard

is green (green is usually synonymous with jealous/envious or alternatively inexperienced, although I don’t think the latter makes sense for this song in particular. It can also be something else as ‘green bird’ is a recurring character in the lennon/mccartney-verse - hello, chica ferdi/Sun King), important takeaway - by being colored green the bird makes a visual impression that can be seen

can swing (the most puzzling part, I saw people interpret this in connection to the swinging London in the 60s and maybe), important takeaway - the bird can move independently to its ‘you’ """"owner""""

Now, I’m going to propose something a bit out there. The bird and the narrator could be (but also don’t have to be at the same time) interpreted as the same person.

Considering the important takeaways from the ‘bird’ character section:

your bird can sing (you can’t hear me)

your bird is green (you can’t see me)

your bird can swing (you don’t get/own me)

The narrator further complains:

When your prized posessions

Start to weigh you down

Look in my direction

I’ll be ‘round, I’ll be ‘round

The narrator worries that the ‘you’ prefers money/material things over them (and their spiritual experiences). But once they decide that the narrator means more than the prized possessions, they can come around. The narrator will be waiting.

When your bird is broken

Will it bring you down

You may be awoken

I’ll be ‘round, I’ll be ‘round

This gets a bit dark, I must admit, but it reads to me like the narrator is imposing some emotional manipulation here (either they are straight up threatening with self-harm or not so subtly reminding to the ‘you’ that their mental well-being is dependent on them and if they won’t clean up their behavior and wake up, shit will go down, yet the narrator doesn’t intend to leave). But the narrator is also doubtful that the ‘you’ will care - will it [even] bring you down?

This song is thematically very reminiscent of two particular songs on the preceding album Rubber Soul:

Girl - where the narrator also describes a person with narcissistic traits that they cannot leave and Nowhere Man (he’s as blind as he can be/can you see me at all?) about two lost characters who don’t understand each other. And Your Bird Can Sing is like these two songs were combined together but the stakes are higher.

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL READING

First of all, I want to say that not every song has to be based on the author’s life. And if it is, maybe it’s a metaphor or an exaggeration due to poetic license. That said, let’s take a look at two likely subjects in John Lennon’s life and his relationship to them that could have inspired him to write this because I think it’s easier to understand the song that way. Also if you are uncomfortable discussing real life relationships in this way, I guess it's time to quit reading now.

CYNTHIA

Yes, Cynthia herself suggested that this song is about her. But how could that be? It doesn’t seem like her to be chasing prized possessions and ignoring John in the process and I don’t get the vibe that she would be emotionally manipulative like that though of course, we don’t know the reality. And I doubt she would have claimed to see “seven wonders”, even if it is a hyperbole.

What I think is more likely is that if Cynthia, in her relationship to John, is someone in this song, it’s the bird trapped in her golden cage (that she literally gave him or… he metaphorically gave her in some way?) and John is the ‘you’ who treats her poorly as well as he is the narrator. He is chastising himself for how he treats her. He knows he hurts her. He understands that she’s her own person who is strong and can do her own thing without him (sing, swing). And he doesn’t like it. He understands that he will break her if they will go on like this (when your bird is broken, will it bring you down?).

For this interpretation to be true, it requires a great deal of self awareness but also inability and/or lack of willingness to change and put his words into action. In my opinion, that tracks perfectly with what he said about himself in the interviews over the time. It’s cruel but also kind of soul crushing and difficult to live with, if he felt guilty about the situation at all (I want to say he probably did).

Cynthia is kind of a satisfactory answer for the second character casting in this song, although I don’t think this is all there is to it. And the second subject that likely had influence on this song is…

PAUL

Unpredictably. Now, I feel like I will get stormed by both skeptics (not every song has to be about Paul!) and Paul fans (he wouldn’t treat John like this!) for what I’m insinuating here. But give me a chance to explain.

Well first of all, John is the POV, feelings are subjective and the narrator, real or fictional, is not always reliable. It might as well be that the harm that is being inflicted on John is only perceived that way by himself because of his own issues which I won’t be getting into here. But also maybe not? Or not fully (something about the intent).

That said, the narcissistic traits described in the lyrics of both this song and the song Girl match up with traits John would later ascribe to Paul and explain John’s own Jealous Guy (green guy, hah) sort of behavior. It is not far-fetched to me to hypothetically assume this is how he could feel about him. Give it a couple years of bottled up hurt, some sort of a ‘final straw’ kind of action (not only leaving the Beatles but John flipping about Paul buying the prized possessions Northern Songs shares to "one up" him, something happening in India or whatever), a questionable primal scream therapy or whatever else went down and you might as well get resentful 70s Lennon.

If this is indeed about Paul, then I think John sees himself as the narrator and the bird. Paul is the ‘you’ in that case, just to be clear.

One more thing I want to propose as a part of their lyrical dialogue, let’s say, is the connection to another Rubber Soul special, I’m Looking Through You, a song largely recognized as a piece depicting a quarrel between Paul himself and his girlfriend, Jane Asher. I am not disputing that at all (as well as I’m not disputing Cynthia being an inspiration for this song), but a song can be about more things at the same time (let’s say, in this case, Paul’s general attitude towards people he loves but who in his opinion also mistreat him).

I’m looking through you, where did you go?

You can’t see me

I thought I knew you, what did I know?

You don’t get me

Your lips are moving, I cannot hear

You can’t hear me

Funny how that works, eh? And then you have this.

You’re thinking of me the same old way,

You were above me but not today,

The only difference is you’re down there,

I’m looking through you and you’re nowhere

Because he's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land.

(And I’m Looking Through You is also about perceived harm - why did you not treat me right? - caused by the subject of the song, it’s a cycle of… miscommunication and vindication, I hurt you, you hurt me, you won’t be above me, i won’t give you the pleasure, I won’t resign myself to you). It’s like a game of pride. Who’s going to give in first? Who will be the first one to be broken (or break the cycle)?

I also think it’s interesting, assuming I got things correct, to contrast how John views Paul and Cynthia as different characters in his inner world/the song, Paul views John and Jane as the same character.

IT'S ABOUT BOTH...

…and that’s the crux of my thesis. The song is, in my opinion, about both John’s relationship with Cynthia and with Paul. But whereas in his relationship to Cynthia, John sees himself as the tormentor but he also doesn’t want to let her go, in his relationship to Paul he sees himself as the person who’s being harmed but cannot make himself leave. (There’s three characters in this play after all). And my interpretation of Girl is similar, although it’s thematically a bit different as it concerns torment and desire (Girl is how John sees Paul but Girl is also a part of John’s personality who mistreats people).

(There’s also a part of me who believes that John on some level wanted his dream girl to treat him like that due to his self-deprecating turn on connected to oedipus' complex and him sort of fancying being a tortured artist but that would also make for a separate post).

Pain will lead to pleasure.

It’s a vicious cycle that repeats itself not only vertically within John and Paul’s relationship (and to them from their parental figures’ mistreatment). But also horizontally as it spreads from them to their respective partners (or rather from John to Cynthia - from his own POV, we don’t know much about Paul’s relationship with Jane and I am not insinuating he abused her!!! but if I’m Looking Through You is about her as well, he was looking through her, just like he was looking through John - he was ignoring them in a way - passive aggressive way - to feel in control - rather than facing the issue head on) and perhaps others (enter annoyed George). (I also think ILTY is meant to mirror Paul’s behavior with a behavior of his father Jim towards himself when he was younger based on the information available where Jim would be the emotionally unavailable character that also doesn’t treat Paul right - love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight).

I want to also go back to the theory about Frank Sinatra as a representative of the old generation and generational abuse inflicted by parents on their children because I do think ultimately think the song is about that too. We are at the cusp of summer of love and the new generation that the Beatles represented is about to start a revolution - a fight for liberty of all kinds and freeing themselves of the old established rules. I already mentioned John’s abandonment issues but maybe he’s also being more general? Maybe he feels like the old conservative world is hurting him (and other young people) for whatever reason.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GIGGLING TAKE?

You know, fair question… The easiest explanation is that they just got high and forgot about their problems for a moment, it was not all dire (just like it wasn’t between John and Cynthia) - to paraphrase John, sometimes it was fun and sometimes it was not.

Maybe the autobiographical reading is not as biographical as we are lead to believe. Or it’s highly dramatized. Maybe it has nothing to do with real life J&P, really. Maybe they are just projecting their struggles with their girlfriends on each other in their made up fantasy world. I mean, who knows? Plausible explanations are many. It is not my goal to give an interpretation of their relationship as my take on the lyrics applies to many possibilities, in my opinion. Though I think it's meant to be connected like I suggested.

THAT'S ALL FOLKS

Of course, the remarks Lennon makes could be ironic, self-sardonic witticisms - he was wont to make those.

But I find it interesting that exactly these remarks have been so heavily edited and / or entirely omitted. To me, this signals that the documentarists were aware that what Lennon said, if heard in its entirety, would lead to serious speculation.

Throughout the transcript below, there are some highlights to showcase where the documentary deviates from the original recording. I will explain these highlights:

Blue is when original audio has been left in, but as voiceover, meaning original visual footage is left out

Green means original footage has been moved and edited around

Red means original footage has been left out completely

The amount of highlights give a sense of how insanely heavily edited this moment is.

The 1970 documentary “Let It Be” is also guilty of this, but to avoid confusion, I only directly compare this transcript with the 2021 documentary.

If you watch the documentary, additional footage has also been added to the original recording. I don’t include these additions since this is a transcript of the original conversation, but I do point to moments where significant additions have been made in the footnotes.

Beatles transcript, original India discussion, Jan 25th, 1969, compared with the 2021 “The Beatles: Get Back” documentary:

Paul, John, George and Ringo are rehearsing, surrounded by sound- and film-crew. Paul is having an inaudible conversation with Ringo.

JOHN: (singing, unintelligible)

PAUL: Oh, I saw that film last night.

JOHN: What?

PAUL: Of us at the Maharishi’s - I’ve got all the film of it-

JOHN: Oh, yeah.

PAUL: And we all saw them(?) together. Incredible. It’s just got a great opening. (Nods at something) Yeah, (inaudible).

JOHN: The helicopter one, up in the sky.

PAUL: Yeah, I noticed you taking it, so I thought, “oh, I’ll get that.”

JOHN: Well that was the idea, you know, ‘cause you said you were making a film.

PAUL: Yeah. But it’s incredible - the opening is great, it’s just(inaudible) (1)

Paul goes on to talk with the others a bit - it’s mainly inaudible. Meanwhile, John talks about the reels.

JOHN: And on each of my two reels, “by John Lennon - Productions” written on those two reels.

SOMEONE: (Inaudible).

JOHN: I’ve had it - he’s got a few reels, too. But these are(?) my reels, luv, “By John Lennon” all through ‘em, with like subtitles. John Lennon’s reel.

SOMEONE (Paul?): (Laughing) Shut up, John. (2)

GEORGE(?): Here’s a little bit, it’s (inaudible) together, and they make a great… (?)

PAUL: Yeah, sure.

SOMEONE: So, uh… Great-

PAUL: (Talks about the film again, directed at John) It’s incredible, you know, to just sorta(?) see us. What we’re doing. It’s unbelievable.

GEORGE: What were you doing?

JOHN: (Teasingly) Yes, what were we doing?

Paul scratches his head and combs his fingers through his hair.

PAUL: Well, uh- I don’t really know, you know, but it’s like- we totally sort of put our own personalities under, for the sake of it, and you’d(?) really see, you know-

Paul pantomimes a stereotypical obedient school-boy.

JOHN: Who was that writing all them songs?

PAUL: (taken out of it) Oh that was uh- that was probably (inaudible)-

JOHN: In your room…

PAUL: Yeah, right. (Laughs and nods at John) I remember, yeah. (Serious again) But just sort of, uh- there’s a shot- there’s a long shot of you walking (points at John)-

GEORGE: (To Paul) Do you regret having gone there?

PAUL: No, no. Oh, no, no. I mean, you know-

GEORGE: Well, I feel as though I (inaudible).

PAUL: No, I just think what we did there-

JOHN: I don’t regret anything, ever… Not even Bob Wooler. (3)

PAUL: (Facing George but looking at John) No, I just think what we did there- we did, we uh, we didn’t take-

Close-up of John - he looks directly at Paul while he begins to fellate the microphone lewdly. (4)

PAUL: We weren’t sort of really truthful. You know. I mean, we could’ve, I mean- Rishikesh(?), you know there’s things like sneaking behind his back and sorta saying, “it’s a bit like school, isn’t it?” But you can see on the film that it is very like school, and that really we shoulda sorta said-

JOHN: (stops mouthing the mic) You wanna call it-

PAUL: Like we needed(?)-

JOHN: You wanna call it, “what we did on our holidays”. (5)

PAUL: (Glances at camera) Well, you know.

JOHN: (Laughs) I bet you’d love(?) (inaudible) to get it over(?).

PAUL: (Looking away) Yup, yeah… (At John again) But it is very like- there’s a long shot of you sort of walking with him, and it’s just not you, you know-

John also pantomimes an obedient school-boy.

PAUL: It’s just- (laughs) Yeah! Sort of all, “tell me, O’ master.” And that-

JOHN: (Amused) “Tell me, old master.”

PAUL: And that thing- Linda remembered that thing you said the other night as well (laughs) about when you went in the helicopter with him- you just thought he might slip you the answer.

They all laugh.

JOHN: I thought he might fly home.

(1) In the 2021 doc, at this point, additional footage is included, where we see the film from the reels with a voiceover of Paul describing them in greater detail.

(2) They’re saying that Paul didn’t film, so John thought to do it instead. At some point, Paul noticed John filming during a helicopter ride and decided to keep the tapes. Someone is confused and asks John whose tapes they were; he then goes on to clarify that they both used the camera, but jokes about his proprietary rights of the bits he filmed.

(3) The incident at Paul’s 21st birthday party, where John beat Bob Wooler in a drunken fit of rage over Wooler insinuating John and Epstein had had an affair on their holiday in Spain - John apologised for it but despite this, it still made the press. In 71, Lennon said this about the incident: “[...] obviously I must have been frightened of the fag in me to get so angry. You know, when you’re twenty-one, you want to be a man, and all that. If somebody said it now, I wouldn’t give a shit. [...]”

(4) In the 1971 film “Let It Be”, this footage is replaced with another clip of Lennon, where he wears a multi-coloured striped shirt - a shirt he did not wear on January the 25th and does not wear in any of the other clips from this conversation (instead, he wears a white t-shirt and vest). The audio has not been replaced, though, and one can still hear him mouthing at the microphone. The original footage is first included in the 2021 documentary series, where you can see from all the highlights that most of the actual conversation that took place is either edited out or moved around. This is significant, because in both films, at this moment, where Lennon refers to the Bob Wooler incident and then fellates the mic, he is directly referring to a significant historical incident in Beatles history - and yet both films choose to reframe this moment to obscure what Lennon is hinting at.