|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 13, 2014 22:21:24 GMT -5
If John were alive, no they would not have used a cassette tape of his demos. He would have sang live in a full fledge reunion. Or not. If Paul were dead, would they have agreed to use Paul demos and call it the Beatles. I doubt it. But it is much more in Paul's character to want to do it.
Could Paul had talked John into working on George demos after George had passed? I think so. Any Road Will Take You There might have ended up as a Beatle's track.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 13, 2014 23:52:44 GMT -5
It is in no way "absurd" to explain that Yoko, for all intents and purposes since her husband's death, officially "speaks for John" . What you said is, " all 4 Beatles... including John" approved it. You didn't say "all 3 Beatles and Yoko speaking for John". Yoko speaking legally for John's estate does not equal John. Fans can view the validity of the 90s farce-singles however they want. I'm not personally arsed whether they are really "The Beatles" or not. For me, The Beatles as a group ended in late 1969/early 1970, and therefore any new product created after that and called "The Beatles" is not really The Beatles. The fact that Paul and Ringo (twisting George's arm) agreed to call it so is neither here nor there, since the guy who started the group was dead.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 14, 2014 6:07:00 GMT -5
What you said is, " all 4 Beatles... including John" approved it. You didn't say "all 3 Beatles and Yoko speaking for John". I said that all four Beatles approved of the idea of making a documentary telling their own story ever since the 1970s -- including John. This project was kicking around since the '70s, and John even mentioned the desire to make this documentary with all old footage when he appeared on NY's TODAY Show back in 1974.. that is what I said, in the context in which I said it. (By the way, this 1974 period was when John was extremely active, and it was not what you deemed "his lazy Dakota period"...).. Back then the impending working title was always thought to be "The Long And Winding Road", but it ultimately became what ANTHOLOGY was. All four Beatles talked about this intended documentary while John was still alive. As for the inclusion of two new Beatles songs to this project, this is a different topic... The postings here on this topic show that way more often than not I have gone out of my way to say "--and Yoko speaking for John". Over and over I have carefully stipulated this. Unfortunately for you, yeah - it kinda does since his death. That is just the way it works. And now the same with Olivia and Dhani handling George's posthumous affairs... Doesn't matter what you or I (or other fans) think; it only matters what Paul, George, Ringo, and Yoko (officially speaking on John's behalf) deem the recordings to be. It's really not complicated to grasp.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 14, 2014 6:08:28 GMT -5
My beef with Anthology is that John is not well represented throughout and while we get contemporary filmed interviews with Paul, George and Ringo who agreed to extensive interviews specifically about the Beatles, for John we get either just scratchy audio interviews from God knows when or grainy filmed interviews from Dick Cavett or Mike Douglas or Tom Snyder where John was there for reasons other than The Beatles but gets asked some quick question on The Beatles, snuck in by one of those guys, and John gives an equally quick response. I regret this as well -- but what else could they do?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 14, 2014 6:22:48 GMT -5
If John were alive, no they would not have used a cassette tape of his demos. He would have sang live in a full fledge reunion. Or not. If Paul were dead, would they have agreed to use Paul demos and call it the Beatles. I doubt it. But it is much more in Paul's character to want to do it. Could Paul had talked John into working on George demos after George had passed? I think so. Any Road Will Take You There might have ended up as a Beatle's track. In John's case, I wonder if a man who released stuff like REVOLUTION 9 and the albums TWO VIRGINS and LIFE WITH THE LIONS would have been put off to the use of his demo.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 14, 2014 16:55:37 GMT -5
What you said is, " all 4 Beatles... including John" approved it. You didn't say "all 3 Beatles and Yoko speaking for John". I said that all four Beatles approved of the idea of making a documentary telling their own story ever since the 1970s -- including John. This project was kicking around since the '70s, and John even mentioned the desire to make this documentary with all old footage when he appeared on NY's TODAY Show back in 1974.. that is what I said, in the context in which I said it. (By the way, this 1974 period was when John was extremely active, and it was not what you deemed "his lazy Dakota period"...).. Back then the impending working title was always thought to be "The Long And Winding Road", but it ultimately became what ANTHOLOGY was. All four Beatles talked about this intended documentary while John was still alive. As for the inclusion of two new Beatles songs to this project, this is a different topic... The postings here on this topic show that way more often than not I have gone out of my way to say "--and Yoko speaking for John". Over and over I have carefully stipulated this. Unfortunately for you, yeah - it kinda does since his death. That is just the way it works. And now the same with Olivia and Dhani handling George's posthumous affairs... Doesn't matter what you or I (or other fans) think; it only matters what Paul, George, Ringo, and Yoko (officially speaking on John's behalf) deem the recordings to be. It's really not complicated to grasp. In the early 70's (1974?) John did say once in an interview (paraphrased); "I can see us getting together and working on an album, because when we see each other, we tend to fall into that pattern. We are more likely to do that when the (record) contracts come up for renewal in '76. We are less likely to do that at the rate we get paid now!" Sadly, time ran out before that could come to fruition due to unsettled lawsuits in the 70's, and Dec. 1980.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 14, 2014 17:24:46 GMT -5
If John were alive, no they would not have used a cassette tape of his demos. He would have sang live in a full fledge reunion. Or not. If Paul were dead, would they have agreed to use Paul demos and call it the Beatles. I doubt it. But it is much more in Paul's character to want to do it. Could Paul had talked John into working on George demos after George had passed? I think so. Any Road Will Take You There might have ended up as a Beatle's track. In John's case, I wonder if a man who released stuff like REVOLUTION 9 and the albums TWO VIRGINS and LIFE WITH THE LIONS would have been put off to the use of his demo. My point being, if John were alive, the question would be moot. Why use a cassette tape when he could just sing it. Now if you get a clairvoyant and really reach John's spirit, he probably wouldn't had cared. And he'd probably say "You can take my name off Yesterday if you take it off Silver Hammer too".
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Oct 14, 2014 21:37:33 GMT -5
I am continually amazed at Beatles "fans" who don't think "Real Love" is a great song. It is beautiful. "Free As A Bird" is also an interesting song. I like that John, Paul, and George also get to sing solo. The videos for each are excellent too, with "Free As A Bird" being one of the best videos ever. I'm glad they did them and they are a fine addition to the Beatles recorded output!
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Oct 14, 2014 21:52:49 GMT -5
I am continually amazed at Beatles "fans" who don't think "Real Love" is a great song. It is beautiful. "Free As A Bird" is also an interesting song. I like that John, Paul, and George also get to sing solo. The videos for each are excellent too, with "Free As A Bird" being one of the best videos ever. I'm glad they did them and they are a fine addition to the Beatles recorded output! I don't mind them either. Real Love does sound beautiful and I like George's guitar on Free As A Bird. I'm not saying they are of the first rate, but they are perfectly acceptable to me. Now And Then sounds like it could have been a great song if John had had more time for development.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 15, 2014 5:50:48 GMT -5
This project was kicking around since the '70s, and John even mentioned the desire to make this documentary with all old footage when he appeared on NY's TODAY Show back in 1974.. John also said it would be a good idea to have holes dug into The Beatles' skulls to relieve pressure on their brains. Are you saying that if Paul, George, Ringo, and Yoko approve of a non-musical, spoken LP instructing listeners on how to dig holes into their brains, that they're justified in calling it "The Beatles" because John approved it? John vaguely mentioning the existence of a proposed Beatle bio (of some yet undetermined type) in 1974 has ZERO bearing on the likelihood of John wanting some crap Dakota demos recycled as new "Beatles" songs. And -- shock! -- everyone on this forum is well aware of the legality of Yoko's having say over John's estate. We get it. We got it decades ago. What's perplexing is that you think and fervently believe (to the point of defensiveness) that this legality is the be-all and end-all of everything that is "The Beatles". That's both sad and incredibly insulting to The Beatles' legacy.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 15, 2014 7:32:42 GMT -5
John also said it would be a good idea to have holes dug into The Beatles' skulls to relieve pressure on their brains. Are you saying that if Paul, George, Ringo, and Yoko approve of a non-musical, spoken LP instructing listeners on how to dig holes into their brains, that they're justified in calling it "The Beatles" because John approved it? Yours is a typically wild and unlikely exaggeration (which you often do), and our current on-topic discussions of the "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" recordings are not even in the same nutty ball park of insanity like you propose. However, I suppose that if the surviving Beatle members (or their Estate, speaking on their behalf) wanted to consider such a spoken LP as a brand new release being "The Beatles", then that is precisely what it would be. Whether I liked it and wanted it, or not. First - John did not "vaguely" mention "The Long and Winding Road" documentary - as I have told you at least twice now, this had been a long time in the four Beatles' intentions. You keep mentioning "John not necessarily wanting crap demos used as new Beatles songs", and I can appreciate that point -- but then we get back to the hard and unsettling fact that John doesn't get a say now because Yoko speaks for John... to which you say "but we already know that!!"... Everyone gets it except YOU, apparently (well, and perhaps also FabFour) - because it does not sink into your brain, and I constantly have to remind you because you resist accepting it. If you supposedly "know" about the legal issues by heart at this time, why do you keep asking the same questions and challenging the same things over and over? Elvis is long dead, for example -- but outtakes, demos, calendars and coffee mugs which he may never have approved of in his life still come out for release in his name, and are titled as "Elvis Presley". And it's not just about "posthumous decisions" in this case ... with The Beatles Anthology songs, we had THREE of the four Beatles themselves alive and well, and deciding of their own accord to willingly re-group as THE BEATLES for those songs, albeit for a brief time in the studio - imagining that John was on a break. (Led Zeppelin's surviving members, for instance, could go into the studio tomorrow and agree to record one new song together with the late John Bonham's surviving home demo drum track, and they along with the rep from Bonham's Estate could also agree to it being released by LED ZEPPELIN). And yes, John Lennon was represented also through his wife, whose decisions he always trusted, relied on, and asked for. Even if he hated and disagreed with any decision Yoko had ever made, it's all moot because he is dead, and has no say in the matter, unfortunate but true. If you want to resist the idea of these songs as "The Beatles" only because John did not literally give his own consent -- that's your right, but my point is that would only be in your mind, as legally they are still Beatles Songs. I can be objective about this. I think FAAB and RL are already kind of insulting to The Beatles' Legacy -- and also the LOVE mish-mashing project. Don't blame me; I didn't condone them....the surviving Beatles and their Estates did --- As I have said, I personally don't care for "Free As A Bird" or "Real Love" (though I like "Real Love" better). As far as I am concerned, I would have preferred these songs were never done, or that they had used the name "The Fungus Mushrooms" or something else for their group if they wanted to record them. But they decided to consider themselves re-formed as "The Beatles" for a brief time, so that is what we have. And I would take this even further into that saccharine LOVE project... would John have approved of the album release mish-mash that is called LOVE? Releasing outtakes without his own individual permission (and only his Estate's approval)? I really dislike LOVE myself, but Paul, Ringo, and George (before his death) sanctioned LOVE as "The Beatles", even though the versions of the songs are something entirely different that originally intended... the LOVE songs are old Beatles songs but something new as well, because so many sounds and things not of the original recordings were added.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 15, 2014 7:40:49 GMT -5
I am continually amazed at Beatles "fans" who don't think "Real Love" is a great song. It is beautiful. "Free As A Bird" is also an interesting song. I like that John, Paul, and George also get to sing solo. The videos for each are excellent too, with "Free As A Bird" being one of the best videos ever. I'm glad they did them and they are a fine addition to the Beatles recorded output! I don't mind the recording of "Real Love" too much; I like it okay, but wish John's voice didn't sound so distant. I appreciate that "Free As A Bird" offers a chance for both Paul and George to each take a line. What I dislike about it is firstly that it's very slowly plodding and dirge-like.. and then because John again is so distant and poorly recorded, and lastly because Ringo's simple and child-like tapping of the drum does him no favors when it comes to those who like to pick on his drumming.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 15, 2014 8:46:27 GMT -5
...that's your right, but my point is that would only be in your mind Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner!(except it would actually be in about 10,000,000 people's minds)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 15, 2014 10:06:03 GMT -5
...that's your right, but my point is that would only be in your mind Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner!(except it would actually be in about 10,000,000 people's minds) Oh, I'm sure it would be in many people's minds.. there are many stupid people out there. Now tell me... how many other Beatles songs do you like to pretend are not really Beatles songs?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 15, 2014 10:30:59 GMT -5
A more accurate artist-name for this release, instead of "The Beatles", would be "George and Ringo's Retirement Fund with Paul McCartney's Ego". Except that all four ex-Beatles had been wanting to do this project since the 1970s, when John was still alive. THAT is what is accurate. But don't let the facts stop you from deciding whatever you personally want to be true, kid.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 15, 2014 12:17:15 GMT -5
I am continually amazed at Beatles "fans" who don't think "Real Love" is a great song. It is beautiful. "Free As A Bird" is also an interesting song. I like that John, Paul, and George also get to sing solo. The videos for each are excellent too, with "Free As A Bird" being one of the best videos ever. I'm glad they did them and they are a fine addition to the Beatles recorded output! I don't mind the recording of "Real Love" too much; I like it okay, but wish John's voice didn't sound so distant. I appreciate that "Free As A Bird" offers a chance for both Paul and George to each take a line. What I dislike about it is firstly that it's very slowly plodding and dirge-like.. and then because John again is so distant and poorly recorded, and lastly because Ringo's simple and child-like tapping of the drum does him no favors when it comes to those who like to pick on his drumming. It's been 20 years now since FAB & RL were recorded and released. How about a re-master and re-mix using 2014 technology to perhaps among other things, bring John's voice to where it matches Paul & George's voices in quality, and really sounds like they were all in the studio together. Isn't that possible now? Giles Martin; Are you listening?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 15, 2014 12:35:05 GMT -5
It's been 20 years now since FAB & RL were recorded and released. How about a re-master and re-mix using 2014 technology to perhaps among other things, bring John's voice to where it matches Paul & George's voices in quality, and really sounds like they were all in the studio together. Isn't that possible now? Giles Martin; Are you listening? Agreed. And there is a much better John vocal(subsequently found I think) for "Grow Old With Me" so the Milk And Honey track could be greatly improved.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Oct 15, 2014 16:31:06 GMT -5
A more accurate artist-name for this release, instead of "The Beatles", would be "George and Ringo's Retirement Fund with Paul McCartney's Ego". Except that all four ex-Beatles had been wanting to do this project since the 1970s, when John was still alive. THAT is what is accurate. But don't let the facts stop you from deciding whatever you personally want to be true, kid. I don't really want to dwell on the semantics of this debate but I tend to side with you Joe. The releases of FAAB and Real Love were officially released as "The Beatles" . We can argue all day whether it should have been so but the fact is they are "Beatles" tracks as that is what it says on the record cover or link when you download it from an online site. It doesn't say "Threetles", "Paul and The Ladders", or "Plastic Beetles", it says "The Beatles". Anyway here's a 1975 clip of John talking about his old pals on the BBC show "Old Grey Whistle Test" He seemed particularly positive, but also not totally committing to, any Beatles re-union. I think by the mid-1970s that the occasional 'feeler' was put out by John, Paul and Ringo, with George always publicly seeming the least enthusiastic for any full time re-union. But plans were definitely on the drawing board for what was to become "the Anthology". If you watch the 1978 film of "The Rutles" this is very close to the style of the Anthology even though it preceded it by more than a decade. Did George have something to do with that? I suspect he did as he features in the production. As to Anthology itself. Can it be rebooted? FAAB and Real Love could be improved with modern technology. John's vocal tracks could certainly be enhanced and made clearer with added presence. As for video, a Blu-Ray 'Anthology' release could work as the whole series would probably fit on a couple of discs now. Although I am not sure how much would be convertible to HD quality. But this is a very different world than it was back in the mid-90s when CDs were little more than a decade old. A remix and remaster of a couple of mediocre 'Beatles' songs really aren't going to create a buzz like the original releases did. The market for Beatles product falls between the regurgitation of their most popular songs, every decade or so for new generations, and the rarer stuff for us die-hard fans. A Beatles Anthology that goes on to cover the solo careers would be nice but probably too Paul-centric as already pointed out. And George's "Living in the Material World" sadly lost it's focus on his music in a very muddled second half. I guess what I am trying to say is that, as a Beatles fan, I would love to see something released for the 20th Anniversary of the Anthology. I want something new and I want it to be value for money. But alas I have totally lost faith in anything that may actually materialize. The self interests of the individual Beatles (and their benefactors) and this new age of internet delivered multi-media means we are in a much different market than we were back when the internet was in it's infancy and CD and VHS were still kings.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 17, 2014 4:41:41 GMT -5
I don't really want to dwell on the semantics of this debate but I tend to side with you Joe. The releases of FAAB and Real Love were officially released as "The Beatles" . The issue I'm raising (with Joe) isn't the issue about whether those recordings were officially released as 'The Beatles' or not -- it's clear enough that they were. The issue I am raising -- for about the 20th time, and Joe hasn't comprehended it yet -- is that there are levels of meaning, and very important ones at that, beyond (and indeed, above) what is officially or legally defined in a given way. In my view, the court of public opinion (which, eventually, often bears enormous influence on the legal one) has priority over what corporations and lawyers say or argue. So, for example, Axl Rose and his five or six hired hands have released a mostly-ignored album and done a poorly-received tour, legally and officially, as "Guns'n'Roses" because, in a petulant fit in the early 90s, Rose made the other original members of Guns'n'Roses give him legal right to the name. But does the average Guns'n'Roses fan view them as really Guns'n'Roses, or as Axl Rose and hired hands? Then, what takes priority in forming our shared view of this real-life situation -- the legal right to the name, or the millions of (ex?-)fans' perspectives? And which of those views will prove more important in forming history's lasting impression of the period of Guns'n'Roses as an active rock band? (This is just one random example among dozens such in rock circles.) Fortunately, no such taking and abusing of the band's name (as with The Byrds or Guns'n'Roses) occurred with The Beatles. Yet one Beatle -- the 'chief' one, at that -- died at 40, and since his death, a plethora of Beatle releases have been legally sanctioned and released (far more than those released when he was alive). A 2nd Beatle died in 2001, and more of the same has occurred. There are more important considerations than what is (legally) written on a record sleeve. It does not logically follow that the legal definition of "Beatles" is more important and final than the consensus view of millions of Beatle fans. That is the issue I'm raising. However, Joe consistently denies that my point is valid, and that the only point of reality is legality. At this point, I don't think we're going to agree on it, so I'm going to LET IT BE...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2014 5:45:55 GMT -5
In my view, the court of public opinion (which, eventually, often bears enormous influence on the legal one) has priority over what corporations and lawyers say or argue. So have you polled every Beatles fan on the face of the Earth, to determine what "public opinion" deems? With the Beatles example we had THREE of the four still-living members participating, as well as John's Estate. I'd like to see hard and unshakable evidence of this so-called "consensus", worldwide, one way or the other.. Then for that matter, millions of fans could deem that REVOLUTION 9 is not truly "a Beatles song", so it would cease to be considered a Beatles song...? Suppose that FREE AS A BIRD had utilized an amazing vocal tape from John, and the result was a fantastic hit song which was as great as anything The Beatles released in the 1960s... would you then suddenly consider it "a Beatles song"? Is it purely a matter of aesthetic quality? I would bet that is exactly the case.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 17, 2014 7:28:47 GMT -5
Personally, I would have preferred the three remaining Beatles to re-record John's songs as opposed to trying to use crumby demos.
I would have also liked to see them do a bunch of new songs with vocals by all three. That obviously didn't happen, though one Paul George song "All For Love" has been long rumored.
Whether or not they called it the Beatles, Threetles or the Shemps would have been completely up to them. But with the arguements taking place, Pink Floyd would have ended in 1968, The Stones in 1969, the Who in 1978, the Moody Blues in 1967, Wings in 1973, Fleetwood Mac in 1970, etc.
I hate when some marginal left-over member of an old classic band, still uses the name, and can even clearly see the contempt for Axl Rose reforming Guns and Roses with a bunch of new musicians. But as Dave Gilmour said in 1987 when Waters left, (to paraphrase)"I worked hard to get Pink Floyd to where it is, why should I stop using the name because one member wants out?"
Why shouldn't the remaining Beatles and surviving estates continue to be able put out product? Maybe a bunch of it is regurgitated garbage, but if it sells, who are we to say stop?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 17, 2014 9:30:18 GMT -5
Joe, your endless hitting-a-brick-wall of "There is only one objective truth" suggests an intellect of limited capacity for continuing this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 17, 2014 10:31:58 GMT -5
Joe, your endless hitting-a-brick-wall of "There is only one objective truth" suggests an intellect of limited capacity for continuing this discussion. Pot, meet Kettle. Maybe you ought to hope that the surviving Beatles (with Yoko and Olivia) do put out that "brain pressure" book you suggested... you could certainly benefit from it. You made a statement that is impossible for you to back up, determining the "public opinion of millions of Beatles fans" toward these Anthology songs. Now you opt to quit.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 17, 2014 21:34:20 GMT -5
Nowhere did I suggest that the public opinion of millions of Beatle fans is that these Anthology songs are not by The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Oct 17, 2014 22:20:29 GMT -5
Free A A Bird, Real Love, and Now And Then are awesome. It's the bloody Beatles. "Shut up!" (to paraphrase Paul on THE WHITE ALBUM and whether it should have been just one album)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 18, 2014 5:30:16 GMT -5
Nowhere did I suggest that the public opinion of millions of Beatle fans is that these Anthology songs are not by The Beatles. Semantics aside, this is exactly what your case is. That "the court of public opinion" trumps legality. You suggested as an analogy: And also: Now you're splitting hairs and are basically saying: "(welllllll... I did not literally word it ) that the public opinion of millions of Beatle fans is that these Anthology songs are not by The Beatles..."
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 18, 2014 6:04:49 GMT -5
Whoosh! (air goes over Joe's head again)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 7:02:10 GMT -5
Just to point out: the fact that Dakota-John lazily said he might theoretically agree to a Beatle-project of (what became) the Anthology does not mean that John in 1990-something would have wanted crappy living room demos of his released as "Beatles" records. To suggest that Yoko's legal approval of such a project equals (large-size font) "all 4 Beatles" is absurd. Good point Panther, however, realism is frowned on here, it gets in the way of ones agenda
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 7:07:30 GMT -5
I am continually amazed at Beatles "fans" who don't think "Real Love" is a great song. It is beautiful. "Free As A Bird" is also an interesting song. I like that John, Paul, and George also get to sing solo. The videos for each are excellent too, with "Free As A Bird" being one of the best videos ever. I'm glad they did them and they are a fine addition to the Beatles recorded output! They are not Beatles songs, that is the main issue for me. i can't fathom how people really, honestly, think they are, everyone knows the story about these songs and why the fab 3 added their musical input to them. If they weren't looking to promote the Anthology then the Fab 3 would never have agreed with Yoko to augment John's demo's. How does that make them Beatles songs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2014 7:13:42 GMT -5
Bing! Bing! Bing! We have a winner!(except it would actually be in about 10,000,000 people's minds) Oh, I'm sure it would be in many people's minds.. there are many stupid people out there. Now tell me... how many other Beatles songs do you like to pretend are not really Beatles songs? it's only the Anthology gimmicks that are in question. The question being, how can anyone really believe they are Beatles songs, considering the circumstances they were recorded in, long after they had broken up, one member dead and the remaining Beatles being given John demo to augment. Apart from the remaining Beatles and John's estate, only a con artist would have the balls to sell this type of gimmick to the masses.
|
|