Beatles – "Hey Bulldog" (1968)

You think you know me

But you haven’t got a clue

[NOTE: It’s become an annual tradition for 2 or 3 lines to interview 2 or 3 lines on the anniversary of the very first 2 or 3 lines post, which appeared way back on November 1, 2009.  I always have a lot to say, and that goes double when I’m both the interviewer and the interviewee – which is why I’ve divided up this year’s 15th anniversary interview into two installments.  Today’s post is part two of that two-part interview.  If you missed part one, simply scroll down to the bottom of this post to find it.]

*     *     *     *     *

Q:  Every year, you choose ten recordings for your “Golden Decade” hit singles hall of fame and ten other recordings for your “Golden Decade” album tracks hall of fame.  As those of you who aren’t new to 2 or 3 lines already know, some of each year’s hall of fame selections are recordings that you have previously featured in a 2 or 3 lines post.  In such cases, you simply cut and paste the contents of the old post into the new one.

A:  That’s correct – at least to a degree.  I don’t always “simply cut and paste” the previous content into the new post – I often revise it or update it.

Q. Yes – sometimes.  But other times, it’s pretty much a plain old cut-and-paste operation – which certainly cuts down on the amount of time it takes for you to generate a new post.  Wouldn’t you agree?

A.  What exactly is your point?

Q.  Well, I have to wonder whether you pick records for your halls of fame based purely on how deserving those records are of being recognized, or whether you sometimes pick a record because you’ve already written about it and can generate a new post based on your old one with a very minimal expenditure of effort.

A.  Look, assh*le, I take my “Golden Decade” halls of fame selections very seriously.  My estimation of the quality of those records is the ONLY thing that matters.  I’ve featured about 2000 records on 2 or 3 lines, so it shouldn’t be surprising that some of my hall of fame choices have been the subject of previous 2 or 3 lines posts.

Q.  I hear you, bro – but let’s allow the numbers to speak for themselves.  Four of the ten records you chose for this year’s hit singles hall of fame class had been previously featured in 2 or 3 lines posts, and five of the ten album tracks were repeats.  So basically half of the hall of fame selections this year were recycled.

A:  If you consider 45% to be the same as 50%, you’re correct.  Of course, 45% isn’t 50%, and you’re saying that it is doesn’t make it so.  

Q:  That’s just a bit nitpicky, n’est-ce pas?  

A:  Whatever.  The numbers don’t mean anything in and of themselves, and I think you know that.  But you’ve obviously decided that I’m making hall of fame selections not on the merits, but in order to minimize the time that I have to spend on 2 or 3 lines.

Q:  Which you unequivocally deny?

A:  Yes, I do.  But I won’t deny that you have reason to be suspicious of my motivations.  The quality of 2 or 3 lines is not what it used to be.  The first few years of 2 or 3 lines were pretty good, if I do say so myself – I had what seemed like an endless supply of good stories to tell, and I was willing to invest a lot of time turning those experiences into interesting posts.  That’s no longer the case – in part because I’ve mined both my life and my imagination pretty thoroughly at this point, in part because I fritter away a good part of my usual day.  2 or 3 lines has suffered as a result of that.

Q:  I appreciate your honesty, but that’s old news, isn’t it?  You’ve admitted as much previously.  

A:  Well, here’s something you haven’t heard before.  There’s another reason 2 or 3 lines isn’t what it used to be: I’m happier than I used to be.

Q:  Are you saying 2 or 3 lines was better when your life was worse?  

A:  That’s exactly what I’m saying.  And that shouldn’t come as a big surprise because very few great artists were happy people.  Look at musicians like Brian Wilson, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, Chris Cornell, Billie Eilish – I could go on and on.  Bruce Springsteen suffers from severe depression – he’s taken antidepressants for years.  And Billy Joel was a mess when he was young – he tried to commit suicide by drinking a bottle of furniture polish when he was 21!

Q:  You never thought about committing suicide, did you?

A:  Don’t be silly – what reason could I possibly have to contemplate suicide?  I’ve led a relatively easy life.  If I had suffered more when I was a teenager or in my twenties, maybe I would have become a great novelist or songwriter.  I’m happier now than I was fifteen years ago when I started writing 2 or 3 lines, which may in part explain why the blog was better back then.  

Q:  I think you’re on to something there.  But I think you’re leaving out something else you’ve talked about before.  

A:  Which is?

Q:  You’ve written in the past about holding a lot back – not coming entirely clean about your life in your writing.  Wouldn’t 2 or 3 lines be better if you revealed more about yourself?  If you didn’t censor yourself as much as you do?

A:  Probably.  But I’m not going to risk offending my family and friends, or revealing things about myself that would negatively affect their image of me.  There are things that matter to me more than 2 or 3 lines does.

Q:  That’s understandable.  But that does mean that the ceiling of 2 or 3 lines isn’t as high as it would be if you were willing to let it all hang out.

A:   Certainly.  I’ve deep-sixed a number of very compelling posts because they revealed more about me than I’m willing to share. 

Q:  Which brings me to my final question: why do you keep writing 2 or 3 lines?  You’re admitting that it’s inherently flawed, and you don’t seem to be willing to take the steps necessary to make it better – whether that’s being more forthcoming about yourself, or putting in more time and effort.

A:  Just because 2 or 3 lines isn’t as good as it used to be doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.  Let me ask you something – are the Rolling Stones as good as they used to be?

Q:  Of course not.  I think you’d agree that they peaked 50-odd years ago.

A:  That’s right.  So what should they have done when it became apparent that their newer records were never going to be as good as the older ones?  Retire?  What would Mick and Keith have done for if they weren’t recording and touring?  Taken up pickleball?  Work in their f*cking gardens? 

Q:  So you plan to keep cranking out 100 posts a year, give or take.    

A:   If I stop writing 2 or 3 lines, the most likely reason is that I’m dead – not that I’ve quit.  

Q:  That seems like a good place to end this interview – although I think the two lines from “Hey Bulldog” quoted at the top of this post are still apropos. 

A:  If I can’t get to the bottom of me, who can?  Peace out, dude.

*     *     *     *     *

One critic praised clever word play in John Lennon’s lyrics to “Hey Bulldog,” but Lennon later said all that meant nothing. 

When McCartney sat down in the studio to work on the song with Lennon, he misread John’s handwritten lyrics – he thought “measured out in news” was “measured out in you.”  Lennon decided he liked that better than his original line, so they left it in.  That’s typical of Lennon and McCartney’s lackadaisical, even slapdash attitude when it came to song lyrics.

The song was originally titled “Hey Bullfrog.”  The song’s first verse includes a bullfrog reference, which the Beatles apparently couldn’t be bothered to change even after they changed the title to “Hey Bulldog.”  

Click here to listen to “Hey Bulldog.”

Click here to buy that recording from Amazon.