|
Post by sayne on Apr 16, 2014 13:43:19 GMT -5
As for "Yesterday", it was a Beatles song because that's what they decided it was.I think that's the main point I've been trying to make. The surviving Beatles said ". . . not as long as John stays dead" and ". . . the Beatles are 4 guys." Because they said that, we accepted it as gospel. My theory is that if they said from the beginning that the Beatles could be 3 out of 4, then we'd accept that, too - generally. However, I do understand what Panther is claiming. There is a limit. Keith Richards said that they are at the point that if they lost either him or Mick or Charlie, then the Stones would be no more. The Monkees can be with only three members, but not two. I think a three member Beatles would have been accepted, IF they had said it could be from the beginning of the reunion rumors. Of course, we'd all be clamoring for the 4th member to join up, like Nesmith with the Monkees, but we'd go with the "bird in the hand." I also understand where Panther is coming from in regards to hardcore fans NEVER accepting less than the original members. There are fans of Yes, Journey, Starship, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Van Halen, etc, who never accepted different versions of the band. I admit that I, too, decided not to see Yes without Jon Anderson. So, I get it. Ultimately, I think it's the hardcore fans that have the problem. Most other people would accept it, even though it could take a bit to get used to it. My gosh, look at all the people that have seen the Wilson-less Beach Boys and now the Mike Love Beach Boys or the Moon/Entwhistle-less Who. (As an aside, can the Quarrymen tour and record without Paul and George?)
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Apr 16, 2014 14:28:09 GMT -5
For better or worse this problem never became an issue.
I think my view would be that whatever they said it was I would accept. Especially, if it was John making the decision/choice.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 16, 2014 14:39:27 GMT -5
I think that's the main point I've been trying to make. The surviving Beatles said ". . . not as long as John stays dead" and ". . . the Beatles are 4 guys." Because they said that, we accepted it as gospel. My theory is that if they said from the beginning that the Beatles could be 3 out of 4, then we'd accept that, too - generally. I don't think I would, as even in my own opinion I feel The Beatles were these four guys. I don't think it felt the same when it was Jimmy subbing for Ringo, nor did I feel that the early band was as good and iconic with Pete and Stu (and no Ringo). But I understand the point you're trying to make in general about "judging by what The Beatles said"; however, that's not all I'm judging by. I don't think so. I think that, regardless of The Beatles' own "rules", most fans just felt that this wouldn't be The Beatles without these four individuals. I think it's the hardcore who don't have the problem and are perfectly willing to Let It Be.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 16, 2014 21:59:13 GMT -5
I don't think I would, as even in my own opinion I feel The Beatles were these four guys. I'm not meaning this to pick on you, but rather asking the question to a person who shares the same opinion that a lot of others do. Would you, therefore, have dismissed any "Beatles" record or tour by not buying if a 4th member was not there? I ask because as I said about fans of other bands, many of them stopped being fans when the band continued without a key member. There is no right or wrong answer, simply a preference. There are people who stopped listening to AC/DC when Bon Scott died. So, I get it. Would you have been like that with a 3 person Beatles? Others can respond, too.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 17, 2014 6:25:06 GMT -5
I'm not meaning this to pick on you, but rather asking the question to a person who shares the same opinion that a lot of others do. Would you, therefore, have dismissed any "Beatles" record or tour by not buying if a 4th member was not there? I ask because as I said about fans of other bands, many of them stopped being fans when the band continued without a key member. There is no right or wrong answer, simply a preference. There are people who stopped listening to AC/DC when Bon Scott died. So, I get it. Would you have been like that with a 3 person Beatles? . The only logical answer would be to say that I don't know for sure until it occurred, to see how I reacted. However -- I doubt very much in the case of The Beatles that I would accept anything other than the four of them. Because I think The Beatles, more than any other band I can think of, were a "four-headed monster" that HAD to be these four individuals and no other combination or substitutes. I have seen the Monkees without Davy Jones and without Mike Nesmith on various occasions, and the Stones without all of their original members. But I have refused to see Fleetwood Mac in concert without Christine MacVie or Stevie Nicks (I hear Christine's returning this year so I may go and see them). I wouldn't see The Supremes without Diana Ross... I wouldn't see Herman's Hermits without Pete Noone... I wouldn't see The Four Seasons without Frankie Valli .... I wouldn't see The Jacksons without Michael... But on the other hand, as a "Beatles Collector", today I collect all 4 Solo Beatles albums and go to see their shows. So if John and George were still alive today, and say only two or three of the members were out touring the circuit as "The Beatles". would I STOP collecting them and buying? Maybe not. I think this is something I would have had to experience to know for sure which way I'd go.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 17, 2014 9:40:10 GMT -5
. . . I have seen the Monkees without Davy Jones and without Mike Nesmith on various occasions, and the Stones without all of their original members. I wouldn't see Herman's Hermits without Pete Noone... Funny. I once saw the Monkees without Nesmith and opening for them were Hermans Hermits without Peter Noone, the Grass Roots, without original members and Gary Puckett and the Union Gap without originals, too. This notion of incomplete bands has gone to the extreme when NONE of the original members are in the band, but people will still go see them. Seems to be really prevalent with R&B and Soul bands.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 17, 2014 9:56:19 GMT -5
. . . I have seen the Monkees without Davy Jones and without Mike Nesmith on various occasions, and the Stones without all of their original members. But I have refused to see Fleetwood Mac in concert without Christine MacVie or Stevie Nicks (I hear Christine's returning this year so I may go and see them). I wouldn't see The Supremes without Diana Ross... I wouldn't see Herman's Hermits without Pete Noone... I wouldn't see The Four Seasons without Frankie Valli .... I wouldn't see The Jacksons without Michael... But on the other hand, as a "Beatles Collector", today I collect all 4 Solo Beatles albums and go to see their shows. So if John and George were still alive today, and say only two or three of the members were out touring the circuit as "The Beatles". would I STOP collecting them and buying? Maybe not. I think this is something I would have had to experience to know for sure which way I'd go. I think you're right that it just might be determined by context. Some bands we'd accept and others we wouldn't. With the Beatles, I think if George had kept walking when he left in the late 60s and was replaced by Eric Clapton, I think we would have been okay with it. But, if Billy Preston had been made a full member like they had briefly discussed, we might not have seen him as a "Beatle." The thing we have to remember is back in the day, we saw the Beatles as a band, the biggest and bestest, yes, but still a band. Today, we see them in mythological terms, so anything other than the 4 we know would be seen differently today than back then.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 17, 2014 12:51:44 GMT -5
McCartney Harrison and Starr should have tapped the talented Mike Smith when John left. Man, that guy could sing and play a mean keyboard AND write great tunes! Would Paul have held him down and would Dave Clark had let him go?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 17, 2014 13:04:32 GMT -5
McCartney Harrison and Starr should have tapped the talented Mike Smith when John left. Man, that guy could sing and play a mean keyboard AND write great tunes! Would Paul have held him down and would Dave Clark had let him go? I really like Mike Smith and the DC5. But I wouldn't have wanted to see Mike (or anyone) in The Beatles. It ended nicely in early 1970...a special fairytale finale, with a flawless history. I wouldn't have wanted the phony Beatles to go on and produce their 'Disco Jesus', 'Ballad of Gilligan's Island', or 'Harlem Shuffle' . -- Even WITH retaining J,P,G, and R past 1970!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 17, 2014 14:08:38 GMT -5
McCartney Harrison and Starr should have tapped the talented Mike Smith when John left. Man, that guy could sing and play a mean keyboard AND write great tunes! Would Paul have held him down and would Dave Clark had let him go? I really like Mike Smith and the DC5. But I wouldn't have wanted to see Mike (or anyone) in The Beatles. It ended nicely in early 1970...a special fairytale finale, with a flawless history. I wouldn't have wanted the phony Beatles to go on and produce their 'Disco Jesus', 'Ballad of Gilligan's Island', or 'Harlem Shuffle' . -- Even WITH retaining J,P,G, and R past 1970! But, what if they had released their Maybe I'm Amazed or Imagine or My Sweet Lord or It Don't Come Easy or Number 9 Dream or Cloud 9 or Tug of War, etc? Assuming that the best of post-Beatles songs would have been written, it's not likely that they would have been phony.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Apr 17, 2014 14:40:33 GMT -5
But, what if they had released their Maybe I'm Amazed or Imagine or My Sweet Lord or It Don't Come Easy or Number 9 Dream or Cloud 9 or Tug of War, etc? Assuming that the best of post-Beatles songs would have been written, it's not likely that they would have been phony. What I'm saying is, it would only be a matter of time before The Beatles recorded some real flop (which they never really did while they were together). They could not keep it up indefinitely and I'm very pleased that they split up before they did. It wouldn't have mattered to me if they ultimately succeeded with those fine solo works you mention here; there would be flops in between (much like the solo Beatles did not have consistent gold in between those songs you've pointed out). I think all of those superb solo recordings you name here worked as well as they did just as they are -- namely, NON-Beatle songs. There is this feeling out there by Beatles fans that automatically and unconditionally, any great SOLO song would have been even BETTER if it had been a Beatles song. And there is no way I agree with that at all, just as some sort of "given". For instance, we have been discussing George's solo song, "All Things Must Pass", and I think it's a classic just as it is; put the other three Beatles on it and singing harmonies or playing this or that and it isn't the same song, nor the same production. I don't think it would have been as effective.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Apr 17, 2014 15:43:37 GMT -5
Before my age hit double figures I probably would have accepted a Beatles "-1" (could have even been the name for their greatest hits at a later date!) had they toured and continued making music without a significant quarter of the band. Simply because that would be the way things were at the time. I would have been too young to have formed any real opinion.
Maybe if I was little older or as I got a little older I would have considered that the original Beatles were better than the Beatles "-1". However we really don't know how it would have worked out?
I think there is enough quality in the best solo output to suggest that the Beatles could have continued on into the late 1970s at the top. After that though I suspect that any incarnation of the Beatles would have faded through the 1980s. There would still be periods when they would be back in vogue for a while. But ultimately I think they would have either ended up like a tribute band to themselves, doing a greatest hits on tour year after year like the Stones.Or they would have split up anyway at some stage and rested on their laurels.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Apr 17, 2014 20:02:51 GMT -5
Before my age hit double figures I probably would have accepted a Beatles "-1" (could have even been the name for their greatest hits at a later date!) had they toured and continued making music without a significant quarter of the band. Simply because that would be the way things were at the time. I would have been too young to have formed any real opinion. Maybe if I was little older or as I got a little older I would have considered that the original Beatles were better than the Beatles "-1". However we really don't know how it would have worked out? I think there is enough quality in the best solo output to suggest that the Beatles could have continued on into the late 1970s at the top. After that though I suspect that any incarnation of the Beatles would have faded through the 1980s. There would still be periods when they would be back in vogue for a while. But ultimately I think they would have either ended up like a tribute band to themselves, doing a greatest hits on tour year after year like the Stones.Or they would have split up anyway at some stage and rested on their laurels. What you and JoeK are saying has some likelihood of what COULD have happened. What I like to think of what MIGHT have happened would be that they'd be more like Crosby, Stills, and Nash - quietly putting out albums for a more discerning adult audience Using the basis of Watching the Wheels, they perhaps would never be at the top again, but that would not matter to them. They would leave the mania and spotlight behind - having given it up to Michael Jackson, Duran Duran, Guns and Roses, and everyone else who got big post-MTV. Again, though, this would all depend on another alternative universe necessity - John and Paul being able to treat George as an equal and Paul being able to let the others truly contribute their muse to the zeitgeist (no telling others what to play). They would HAVE to have another producer. It would not have to be George Martin, but it would have to be someone that knew what made the Beatles work and who could stand up to them and make the constructive objective decisions that were often not there during the solo recording. One thing that I think we always sometimes forget. There WAS something special about the 4 of them. When they were in sync, it was magic. It seems that most of us presume that they would never be able to be "as one" during the 70s and beyond. Perhaps, but as we saw with Free as a Bird and Real Love, if they were able to work like that post-1970, perhaps they would not have been shadows of themselves or phony. The Beatles could always do things better than other bands or could do things that other bands could not even think of doing. So, If they could be in the right frame of mind as they were when they did their best work, there is no reason NOT to believe that they could not have a twilight career as Dylan, Paul Simon, CSN, Eric Clapton, and so on. Yes, I know. IF, if, if, if, if, if.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 18, 2014 7:08:14 GMT -5
Before my age hit double figures I probably would have accepted a Beatles "-1" (could have even been the name for their greatest hits at a later date!) had they toured and continued making music without a significant quarter of the band. Simply because that would be the way things were at the time. I would have been too young to have formed any real opinion. Maybe if I was little older or as I got a little older I would have considered that the original Beatles were better than the Beatles "-1". However we really don't know how it would have worked out? I think there is enough quality in the best solo output to suggest that the Beatles could have continued on into the late 1970s at the top. After that though I suspect that any incarnation of the Beatles would have faded through the 1980s. There would still be periods when they would be back in vogue for a while. But ultimately I think they would have either ended up like a tribute band to themselves, doing a greatest hits on tour year after year like the Stones.Or they would have split up anyway at some stage and rested on their laurels. What you and JoeK are saying has some likelihood of what COULD have happened. What I like to think of what MIGHT have happened would be that they'd be more like Crosby, Stills, and Nash - quietly putting out albums for a more discerning adult audience Using the basis of Watching the Wheels, they perhaps would never be at the top again, but that would not matter to them. They would leave the mania and spotlight behind - having given it up to Michael Jackson, Duran Duran, Guns and Roses, and everyone else who got big post-MTV. Again, though, this would all depend on another alternative universe necessity - John and Paul being able to treat George as an equal and Paul being able to let the others truly contribute their muse to the zeitgeist (no telling others what to play). They would HAVE to have another producer. It would not have to be George Martin, but it would have to be someone that knew what made the Beatles work and who could stand up to them and make the constructive objective decisions that were often not there during the solo recording. One thing that I think we always sometimes forget. There WAS something special about the 4 of them. When they were in sync, it was magic. It seems that most of us presume that they would never be able to be "as one" during the 70s and beyond. Perhaps, but as we saw with Free as a Bird and Real Love, if they were able to work like that post-1970, perhaps they would not have been shadows of themselves or phony. The Beatles could always do things better than other bands or could do things that other bands could not even think of doing. So, If they could be in the right frame of mind as they were when they did their best work, there is no reason NOT to believe that they could not have a twilight career as Dylan, Paul Simon, CSN, Eric Clapton, and so on. Yes, I know. IF, if, if, if, if, if. Up until a few years ago, I had serious Stonus envy. How come the Beatles couldn't stick it out like the Stones? I really believe they could have been a big force in the 70s as a studio band, hope they wouldn't have done disco or punk (punk would have looked silly for them), but the 80s might have been more difficult. The more we know now though, the more we realize it just wasn't meant to be. They would have never done a live thing- too much pressure- with upgraded sound systems, couldn't make excuses. Ringo would be too inebriated to play for two hours. Paul would have to embrace George as an equal, Yoko would want to be on the stage with Linda and so on. I really do believe the Paul, George and Ringo studio thing could have carried them through the decade, and John would probably always do a cameo. But in the 70s- they would be like the Dave Clark 5 for TV appearances. Lip Sync city, just like George with the Brady perm. That would have been the compromise with the "live" monger Paul to carry on. That is not a put down of Paul. He was and still is a brilliant live performer. None of the other three had that much passion, though Ringo comes close these days.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 18, 2014 9:45:59 GMT -5
I will say that what John Lennon lacks live in pure, technical musical skill he more than makes up in passion, amazing charisma and presence and that powerful, wonderful voice of his!
At One-To-One, he screws up the words, may sing some bum notes, may not be as polished as Paul on the piano but man, one can't take their eyes off him. He is so charismatic and powerful. It is that presence and charisma that first appealed to a young Paul at a village fete, that drew in George Harrison, originally a Paul school friend, drew in Brian Epstein who helped make big things happen and then drew in millions of us fans, even decades after he is gone.
I think the Beatles could have continued strong, had all four stayed together, through at least the mid-1970's but that's it. I believe that based on the quality of the solo music released. Their best solo music was largely 1970 through 1974.
By the late 1970's and certainly by the 1980's, there would be serious legacy damage had The Beatles carried on. I love the Stones but that band hasn't been a musical mover and shaker since 1981's Tattoo You with their monster single "Start Me Up." The Stones are still a great draw for concerts but it is all golden oldies like Paul and Ringo.
Someone mentioned The Who. I think that band lives for so long as Pete Townsend lives; sorry Roger, John and Keith.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Apr 18, 2014 10:03:25 GMT -5
I will say that what John Lennon lacks live in pure, technical musical skill he more than makes up in passion, amazing charisma and presence and that powerful, wonderful voice of his! At One-To-One, he screws up the words, may sing some bum notes, may not be as polished as Paul on the piano but man, one can't take their eyes off him. He is so charismatic and powerful. It is that presence and charisma that first appealed to a young Paul at a village fete, that drew in George Harrison, originally a Paul school friend, drew in Brian Epstein who helped make big things happen and then drew in millions of us fans, even decades after he is gone. I think the Beatles could have continued strong, had all four stayed together, through at least the mid-1970's but that's it. I believe that based on the quality of the solo music released. Their best solo music was largely 1970 through 1974. By the late 1970's and certainly by the 1980's, there would be serious legacy damage had The Beatles carried on. I love the Stones but that band hasn't been a musical mover and shaker since 1981's Tattoo You with their monster single "Start Me Up." The Stones are still a great draw for concerts but it is all golden oldies like Paul and Ringo. Someone mentioned The Who. I think that band lives for so long as Pete Townsend lives; sorry Roger, John and Keith. I never had a problem with John's slopiness live. His presence on a live stage was absolute dynamite. But- he did not enjoy being on stage.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Apr 18, 2014 10:31:20 GMT -5
Interesting topic. I'm a big fan of Barenaked Ladies and, of course, they have carried on without their John--i.e., Steven Page--for two albums now. Some people don't think they are as good as the original line-up, but I've been to a few of their live shows over the past few years and they still are great performers and the "spirit" of Barenaked Ladies still seems intact. Would they be even better with Steven Page? My guess is yes, but I still look forward to their music together. So, I would be happy with a band that included 3 out of the 4 Beatles if they had wanted to carry on.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Apr 18, 2014 11:21:55 GMT -5
I will say that what John Lennon lacks live in pure, technical musical skill he more than makes up in passion, amazing charisma and presence and that powerful, wonderful voice of his! At One-To-One, he screws up the words, may sing some bum notes, may not be as polished as Paul on the piano but man, one can't take their eyes off him. He is so charismatic and powerful. It is that presence and charisma that first appealed to a young Paul at a village fete, that drew in George Harrison, originally a Paul school friend, drew in Brian Epstein who helped make big things happen and then drew in millions of us fans, even decades after he is gone. I think the Beatles could have continued strong, had all four stayed together, through at least the mid-1970's but that's it. I believe that based on the quality of the solo music released. Their best solo music was largely 1970 through 1974. By the late 1970's and certainly by the 1980's, there would be serious legacy damage had The Beatles carried on. I love the Stones but that band hasn't been a musical mover and shaker since 1981's Tattoo You with their monster single "Start Me Up." The Stones are still a great draw for concerts but it is all golden oldies like Paul and Ringo. Someone mentioned The Who. I think that band lives for so long as Pete Townsend lives; sorry Roger, John and Keith. I never had a problem with John's slopiness live. His presence on a live stage was absolute dynamite. But- he did not enjoy being on stage. Very true and my comments weren't implying that you were criticizing John. When John did go on a stage, he gave it his all even if throwing up beforehand(Toronto and Thanksgiving 1974). I am very impressed at how strong he is vocally and on his acoustic guitar at the John Sinclair rally in Ann Arbor. Even though he did his STINYC songs(not among his most beloved), they are powerfully and well performed! The man could really play live when he felt the need to.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on May 26, 2014 21:16:30 GMT -5
NO
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 27, 2014 2:37:45 GMT -5
About John live, we should pause to remember that he NEVER really played live. He did a couple of one-off things, but that's hardly any way to judge a major artist's performance ability. The first half-dozen gigs of any tour are always the worst. John just wasn't interested in live performance very much (as musician or as fan), and was too lazy to really go for it. If he had played a 20-date tour like George and Paul and (eventually) Ringo did, then maybe we could judge his abilities live.
Now back on topic: While the chemistry of the four Beatles is obviously highly important, the fact is that they were a band on the way to the top before they got Ringo, and Ringo's arrival just cemented their success. They were very much "The Beatles" before Ringo joined, so clearly the chemistry of the 4 of them isn't everything. Likewise, after they broke up -- in 1970 and 1971 certainly -- they continued, separately, to produce work that rivaled and at times surpassed the best work they had ever done. The first serious chink in their armor was 1972, when Paul produced a workmanlike album of fluff, John produced his worst piece of crap album ever (missed the top 40), and Ringo and George did nothing of note. By 1973, John was a housebound husband, Ringo began a career as a "former Beatle", and Beatle-nostalgia took hold of the public for the first time with the Red & Blue Anthologies, and other things.
So, what I'm saying is: the chemistry was hugely important (as for any great band), but equally important is the context of the times. For most of the 60s' generation of bands, their contextual time was roughly 1962 to 1971. By the mid-70s, they were no longer contemporary. So, even if John, Paul, George, and Ringo had got together to play a concert or make an album in 1979, to me it wouldn't really be "The Beatles". It would be the same 4 guys who used to be in The Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 27, 2014 5:57:34 GMT -5
John had a fantastic stage presence whether he wanted to be there or not. But he didn't have the perserverence to go the distance as you say. The irony from a live perspective is that he was seriously working out a full world tour circuit, and we would have seen if he had the goods to stick it out (I say yes). Paul would have likely joined him somewhere for a token song, and there would have been some sort of 10 song "controlled" reunion concert (100 people in a live studio) for Anthology, but in general there would have been no full comeback of the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 27, 2014 7:57:51 GMT -5
The irony from a live perspective is that he was seriously working out a full world tour circuit... We often hear this, but what evidence is it based on? I think John mentioned that he might be interested in touring again, but I don't necessarily believe it. It's not like he did any actual preparation. Let's pause to remember all the mega-projects John and Yoko talked about in 1970-71. Not one of them really happened. There was supposed to be a massive, biggest-concert-of-all-time for peace in 1970, with the solo Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis, etc., and it never happened. Obviously, if he'd lived on, at some point he would have done something live. But I'm not sure about touring.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 27, 2014 8:08:11 GMT -5
While the chemistry of the four Beatles is obviously highly important, the fact is that they were a band on the way to the top before they got Ringo, and Ringo's arrival just cemented their success. They were very much "The Beatles" before Ringo joined, so clearly the chemistry of the 4 of them isn't everything. I completely disagree. I don't think The Beatles with Pete Best would have made it nearly as big, nor do I believe we would be here talking about them as the phenomenon they are today. They may have been popular in Liverpool with Pete, but even up to the point where Ringo enters the story, there is nothing "great" going on with this other four. We've heard Pete's terrible drumming on "Love Me Do" as well... this was not the stuff of great music, either. The Bottom Line for me is, they ended when they were still Great, and it was the right move. We don't know how it might have gone had they reunited and made new music, but I don't think they would have kept it up without a few bombs along the way. History worked out nicely with them disbanding in 1970 and never looking back. Luckily, nobody really much recalls that terrible funeral dirge which was "Free As A Bird".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 27, 2014 8:11:31 GMT -5
We often hear this, but what evidence is it based on? I think John mentioned that he might be interested in touring again, but I don't necessarily believe it. It's not like he did any actual preparation. Agreed. In Lennon's last RKO interview only hours before his death, he said he felt it would be fun, and if they could be accepted as JohnandYoko, he'd be happy to go out there. But nothing was finalized or got beyond the "what if" stage.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 27, 2014 9:22:29 GMT -5
The irony from a live perspective is that he was seriously working out a full world tour circuit... We often hear this, but what evidence is it based on? I think John mentioned that he might be interested in touring again, but I don't necessarily believe it. It's not like he did any actual preparation. Let's pause to remember all the mega-projects John and Yoko talked about in 1970-71. Not one of them really happened. There was supposed to be a massive, biggest-concert-of-all-time for peace in 1970, with the solo Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis, etc., and it never happened. Obviously, if he'd lived on, at some point he would have done something live. But I'm not sure about touring. One of the interviews- not sure which, he clearly said the two would tour and include different versions of Beatle hits. Jack Douglas and others have confirmed this. Whether or not actual venues were set up is doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 27, 2014 9:27:55 GMT -5
We often hear this, but what evidence is it based on? I think John mentioned that he might be interested in touring again, but I don't necessarily believe it. It's not like he did any actual preparation. Let's pause to remember all the mega-projects John and Yoko talked about in 1970-71. Not one of them really happened. There was supposed to be a massive, biggest-concert-of-all-time for peace in 1970, with the solo Beatles, Bob Dylan, Elvis, etc., and it never happened. Obviously, if he'd lived on, at some point he would have done something live. But I'm not sure about touring. One of the interviews- not sure which, he clearly said the two would tour and include different versions of Beatle hits. Jack Douglas and others have confirmed this. Whether or not actual venues were set up is doubtful. take this with whatever value you want, but this was not my source: tour
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on May 27, 2014 19:45:28 GMT -5
When Ringo first played with the other three...
"the band lifted, to what it was about to become" - Paul McCartney
Check out this short clip. Specifically to what Paul says between 1:00 - 1:20. Nuff Said.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 28, 2014 4:30:12 GMT -5
Notwithstanding the existence of others who can legitimately be called Beatles, The Beatles for all significant purposes were/are John, Paul, George and Ringo. Take away any one of them, and what you have is not The Beatles.
Does that explain songs like Yesterday, Julia, I Me Mine? Yes, it does, because each recorded track was processed through The Beatles machine. A track on a Beatles record went through composition, editing, arrangement, recording, and approval, all of which were integral to a track arriving on product presented to the public. Every Beatle was not always involved in every stage, but they all had input in the editing and approval stages (the sole exception being Long And Winding Road), and that is what makes the tracks Beatles records.
Had The Beatles started 10 years later, who knows what the prevailing attitudes would have been? Had they continued into the 70s, who knows what the prevailing attitude would have been?
I've been interested by everyone's comments and observations, much of which I have agreed with - I mainly disagree with (as is often the case) Joe, but I think only one one point: I think the Beatles Machine brought magic to what was recorded, and I think it would have brought that magic to much of the solo material (although some was clearly not really suitable for a Beatles project).
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 28, 2014 8:27:42 GMT -5
I don't think The Beatles with Pete Best would have made it nearly as big, nor do I believe we would be here talking about them as the phenomenon they are today. Who knows? I think, beyond doubt, they were going to 'make it' at some fairly big level with or without Ringo. Even if George Martin had Pete Best pushed aside in the studio for the next two years, they'd still have come out with 'Love Me Do', 'From Me To You', 'She Loves You', etc. The records would have been only marginally different in 1962 to 1964 or so. Of course, the band chemistry would have been completely different, and, after 'making it' at some level, the other 3 would probably have probably fired Pete anyway just because he didn't fit in socially. That's all speculation. But there is no doubt that they were "The Beatles" (the real thing, that is) before Ringo joined. He of course made them that much better, but they were already "The Beatles". They were going places, a big group, making good money -- like, 6 or 7 times more than any other group --, were stars overseas, had their own manager, had a record out in the shops, had a deal with EMI, had a fan club, etc. This is all before Ringo. History worked out nicely with them disbanding in 1970 and never looking back. Agree. But I think they could have stayed 'together' through 1970 and/or 1971 and everything would still be as it is. However, if they'd continued into 1972 or 1973, it would have been overkill and the purity of their legacy would have been tainted. Luckily, nobody really much recalls that terrible funeral dirge which was "Free As A Bird". Ha! I'm with you there. But, as I said, even if John Lennon had been alive and actively contributed to that record, I personally wouldn't consider it "The Beatles". The Beatles ended at the dawn of the 70s whether or not the four guys in the band worked together later or not.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on May 28, 2014 8:29:43 GMT -5
Notwithstanding the existence of others who can legitimately be called Beatles, The Beatles for all significant purposes were/are John, Paul, George and Ringo. Take away any one of them, and what you have is not The Beatles. After 1962, that's true. But before that...? 'Hello Little Girl', 'Love Me Do', 'PS I Love You', 'Please Please Me', 'I Saw Her Standing There', Hamburg, The Cavern, Brian Epstein, Lennon & McCartney songwriters, etc. -- all of these occurred WITHOUT the John, Paul, George, and Ringo combo.
|
|