|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 20, 2014 7:30:46 GMT -5
Full of inaccuracies this post Joe, but, i think you knew that when you wrote it. I'm not correcting it either, you'll need to read up on Beatles history to get it right. Sorry, it's you who needs to read up and get it right. Mark Lewisohn -- Beatles Historian And Expert -- also considers ABBEY ROAD their final album. Even George Martin and The Beatles themselves have said so. As a George fan you should be thrilled, as it contains two of George's greatest songs which even outshine John and Paul's work on AR .
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 20, 2014 7:54:24 GMT -5
Here -- I'll save Snookeroo the trouble:
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 20, 2014 8:31:29 GMT -5
"Purely geographically descriptive"? There are 5 themes of geography: location, place, region, movement, and human-land interaction. Of those, I can only think of region to be where "oriental" could be used, but I doubt that any geographer uses it. Excuse me. I was under the impression that we were discussing everyday English in popular usage by the mainstream, and not the jargon of geographers. Let me revise my phrase, then, if it will please you: "Purely regionally descriptive". There. So, I agree that it is right to say it is a vernacular term, but that does not make it correct to use, like "colored," or "mongoloid." Okay. I didn't say it was correct to use it. I also didn't say it was incorrect. I don't, in fact, believe that language is correct or incorrect. I did say that, as a REGIONALLY descriptive word, I can't see any moral or intellectual reason why the word 'oriental' should be perceived pejoratively. But it's not really up to me to decide. That's why I said natural social phenomena decides. it's the Prime Meridian that divides the east from the west hemisphere. So, I guess that makes most of Europe oriental, too. Well, now you're just being silly. Obviously the Western conception of "the Orient" implies parts of Eurasia far and remote from Europe. I don't see what modern geographical (or are they?) standards of where the Prime Meridian is have anything to do with how we perceive 'the Orient'. Lexical choice is very important in how we understand one another and how we communicate feelings to one another, but this process is not determined by (a) academic accuracy (see: "geographical" vs. "regional") outside of academic contexts, or (b) people in an ivory-tower deciding what is politically correct and what isn't. For example, when a Japanese delivery guy in a small van ran my bike off the road yesterday, I called him a "asshole" under my breath. Now, in scientific accuracy he is not, in fact, an "asshole" (though he probably has one). And, there are lots of people out there who would consider unbecoming of me to call someone an 'asshole'. Yet I did, and I successfully communicated (well, if he'd heard me) my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 20, 2014 9:22:35 GMT -5
How would a 1980 Beatles album look as we would at least have a strong John(IMO) for the very last time, some cool stuff from Paul and if George could save some of his 1979 songs he put on GH(I don't think anything from Somewhere In England is Beatles worthy). LOL, Ringo would need a little help from his friends as his career was firmly in the toilet by 1980!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 20, 2014 9:33:53 GMT -5
How would a 1980 Beatles album look as we would at least have a strong John(IMO) for the very last time, some cool stuff from Paul and if George could save some of his 1979 songs he put on GH(I don't think anything from Somewhere In England is Beatles worthy). LOL, Ringo would need a little help from his friends as his career was firmly in the toilet by 1980! We don't know, because all we have is John's DOUBLE FANTASY songs to judge by in his case. And those songs were specifically about John and Yoko, and their life together apart from 'no friends and yet no enemies'. Would those songs be there on a 1980 Beatles album, and would they have sounded as good without the band that played on DOUBLE FANTASY? I mean, the same thing holds true for Paul and George's solo songs of this time. Would "Getting Closer" sound the same as a Beatles track? Would Linda be singing on it? I don't think George and Ringo would have sounded as strong as Laurence Juber and Steve Holly.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 20, 2014 11:33:44 GMT -5
As you know Joe, I love the Double Fantasy concept, a heart play, so I hear you but several of John's DF songs are great "stand alone" like "Woman," "I'm Losing You, "Watching The Wheels" and "Beautiful Boy."
The Beatles could pull those off in their sleep!
I want Paul's "Waterfalls" and he must hold back "Wanderlust" and "Tug of War" for such a 1980 Beatles album so he needs a rocker!
George must contribute "Your Love Is Forever," "Blow Away," and "Love Come To Everyone" if not more.
Ringo does "Life Begins At 40" written by John.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 20, 2014 15:28:54 GMT -5
I've read one of Doggett's books (about radical politics and the 60s/70s music counter-culture -- it was okay) but not this one. I'm a bit dubious of quotes like the one you supply above. Does Doggett have a reference for it? Before passing judgment on Paul for saying something like this, I'd like to know if he actually said it. Bit of a sad thing if he did. (I think it's normal for people of a certain vintage to continue to use the word 'oriental' -- my Grandma, at 85, still uses it to describe where I live. And, as the word is purely geographically descriptive -- dividing the west/east hemispheres into the Occident and the Orient -- there's nothing negative or objectifying about it, semantically-speaking. Therefore there is no logical reason not to use it, unless the people it describes object to it, and I've never heard anyone do so. The word has simply fallen out of fashion, and the reason some people consider it borderline 'negative' is because we associate with the WWII era when whites were casually and openly racist towards E. Asians. But of course, that doesn't mean the word itself needs to carry a stigma into today. That matter can be decided sociologically, by natural linguistic process. I'd say the jury is still out on the word 'oriental' -- I wouldn't be surprised if it makes a comeback!) Doggett doesn't quote the exact source in the book with a reference number however he does give an extensive bibliography in the book and if you read the particular chapter it is linked to a conversation that took place right in the middle of the Get Back Sessions to which he cites one of the sources as... Edit: The specific disc containing Paul uttering this phrase seems to be That all said I am wondering why you are lingering on a comment that here in England simply means people and things from the Far East (China, Korea, Japan etc.) whilst commenting on passing judgement on Paul for it? You seem to be implying it is racist/offensive and then backtracking and avoiding on actually coming out and saying it. I can assure you that it is no more considered offensive here than the Americans calling us "Limeys" or the Aussies calling us "Poms" so back in 1968 I cannot possibly see how it would be deemed offensive. Even though Paul's inference (if he said that) was obviously aimed at the presence of Yoko. That is the context it should be taken in and no deep hidden racial meaning is attached to it. Here's one our many local restaurants to illustrate the point. So back on topic...................
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 20, 2014 16:14:05 GMT -5
Stop talking sense Stavros. This is the internet. :-)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 20, 2014 16:25:23 GMT -5
As a matter of observation, I tend to see "oriental" used to indicate people of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Vietnamese etc. origin, especially to distinguish them from "asian", people of Indian, Pakistani etc. origin. I have never seen the slightest suggestion that there is a pejorative element in using teh word "oriental." Google it. If your argument relies on the idea of "slightest suggestion," this will inform you. You don't have to agree that it is pejorative to you, but you will see that it is to others - even if only to a certain number of people.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 20, 2014 16:30:39 GMT -5
but that does not make it correct to use, like "colored," or "mongoloid." I'm not saying that people who use those words are racist. I grant that they may be of a time when those words were used as identifiers, with no animus behind them at all. But, now is now. And yet, there is still the proud NAACP ("National Association For The Advancement Of COLORED People"). Yes, this PC Guidebook stuff gets absurd. Anyone have this week's edition, so none of us makes any unintentional mistakes? The term "colored" in the NAACP is always thrown out as a "gotcha." Perhaps people should simply Google them to get some historical perspective on why they still use the term. Same with the United Negro College Fund. Look it up and report back.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 20, 2014 16:34:29 GMT -5
Does anyone have the number for the booking office of The Orient Express?
I need a holiday.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 20, 2014 16:45:26 GMT -5
. . . I'd say the jury is still out on the word 'oriental' -- I wouldn't be surprised if it makes a comeback!) For some, I bet they can't wait for peckerwood, squaw, kraut,dago, mick, paki, hebe, kike, beaner, spick, nigger, faggot, frog, redskin, wetback, wop, pollack, raghead, chinaman, dothead, cracker, honky, chink, and other terms to make their comebacks, too. (Just exaggerating to make a point.) Did you guys know that there is still a diner in Southern California called Sambo's? Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 20, 2014 16:45:45 GMT -5
Does anyone have the number for the booking office of The Orient Express? I need a holiday. This thread has totally become dis-orientated.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 20, 2014 16:52:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 20, 2014 16:56:54 GMT -5
That totally 'derails' the thread now. Someone start a fresh one will you.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 20, 2014 17:02:59 GMT -5
it's the Prime Meridian that divides the east from the west hemisphere. So, I guess that makes most of Europe oriental, too. Well, now you're just being silly. Obviously the Western conception of "the Orient" implies parts of Eurasia far and remote from Europe. I don't see what modern geographical (or are they?) standards of where the Prime Meridian is have anything to do with how we perceive 'the Orient'. If you had said something like "anything east of the 34 degrees longitude is considered to be the orient," I would have let that go. Instead, you said the eastern hemisphere (east of 0 degrees longitude) was the orient. Just being a geographical stickler. It's sort of in my background.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 20, 2014 17:04:29 GMT -5
That totally 'derails' the thread now. Someone start a fresh one will you. I'm done . . . . . . How about them Spaniards in the World Cup?
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 20, 2014 18:14:29 GMT -5
Hey, coachbk, I know you originally specifically asked for track lists for a follow up album to Let It Be/Abbey Road, but how is this for the next one again. I'm assuming a late 1970, or early 1971 set precedes this offering.
Gimme Some Truth Too Many People Beware Of Darkness It's So Hard Dear Boy Run Of The Mill Eat At Home
Jealous Guy Oh My Love The Back Seat Of My Car How Do You Sleep? Ball Of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll) Imagine
Title: Imagine. 13 tracks. 46 minutes (22 side 1/24 side 2). 6 Lennon songs/4 McCartney songs/3 Harrison songs. Release date October 1971.
Before anyone criticises the inclusion of songs whose lyrics attack one Beatle or another, just assume that the words have been tweaked a little to minimise offence, or disguise the target, or that the individuals concerned actually had enough strength of character to take it on the chin.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 20, 2014 18:45:15 GMT -5
The term "colored" in the NAACP is always thrown out as a "gotcha." Perhaps people should simply Google them to get some historical perspective on why they still use the term. Same with the United Negro College Fund. Look it up and report back. Yes, I did "getcha". But I don't need to look up anything, mainly because I don't even use the words "Colored" or "Negro", if I must refer to a black person's race. Regardless of your waffling on this, my point remains -- nobody knows what the heck to call anyone anymore, and there are all sorts of "rules". Such-and-such a name is now "wrong", but another such-and-such name is "okay", as long as " there is some historical perspective and it's uttered only by the race to whom it pertains". I call it a double standard, and that's that. And remember what I told you not too long ago when you insisted that it was offensive to call a black person a black person, even though they're cool with it.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 20, 2014 19:02:13 GMT -5
Hey, coachbk, I know you originally specifically asked for track lists for a follow up album to Let It Be/Abbey Road, but how is this for the next one again. I'm assuming a late 1970, or early 1971 set precedes this offering. Gimme Some Truth Too Many People Beware Of Darkness It's So Hard Dear Boy Run Of The Mill Eat At Home Jealous Guy Oh My Love The Back Seat Of My Car How Do You Sleep? Ball Of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll) Imagine Title: Imagine. 13 tracks. 46 minutes (22 side 1/24 side 2). 6 Lennon songs/4 McCartney songs/3 Harrison songs. Release date October 1971. Before anyone criticises the inclusion of songs whose lyrics attack one Beatle or another, just assume that the words have been tweaked a little to minimise offence, or disguise the target, or that the individuals concerned actually had enough strength of character to take it on the chin. why not?? Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles did it all the time.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Jun 20, 2014 19:03:03 GMT -5
Ask people how they are using a word, don't tell them.
I'm off. I've got a train to catch.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 20, 2014 20:23:14 GMT -5
Hey, coachbk, I know you originally specifically asked for track lists for a follow up album to Let It Be/Abbey Road, but how is this for the next one again. I'm assuming a late 1970, or early 1971 set precedes this offering. Gimme Some Truth Too Many People Beware Of Darkness It's So Hard Dear Boy Run Of The Mill Eat At Home Jealous Guy Oh My Love The Back Seat Of My Car How Do You Sleep? Ball Of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll) Imagine Title: Imagine. 13 tracks. 46 minutes (22 side 1/24 side 2). 6 Lennon songs/4 McCartney songs/3 Harrison songs. Release date October 1971. Before anyone criticises the inclusion of songs whose lyrics attack one Beatle or another, just assume that the words have been tweaked a little to minimise offence, or disguise the target, or that the individuals concerned actually had enough strength of character to take it on the chin. why not?? Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles did it all the time. True.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 20, 2014 20:34:34 GMT -5
Early 1971 Album:
What Is Life God My Sweet Lord That Would Be Something Isn't It A Pity (version 1)
Love Man We Was Lonely Hold On Behind That Locked Door Isolation I'd Have You Anytime Beaucoups Of Blues
Mother Oh Woman, Oh Why I Found Out Let It Down Oo You Moma Miss America
Apple Scruffs Another Day Working Class Hero Every Night Remember Awaiting On You All
Title: What Is Life? 2 LP set. 86 minutes (23 Side 1/20 Side 2/23.5 Side 3/20.5 Side 4). 8 Lennon songs/7 McCartney songs/8 Harrison songs/1 Starr Song. Release Date: February 1971.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 20, 2014 21:18:23 GMT -5
Stavros, thanks for supplying some context for Paul's "oriental" comment. If it's just some banter, never intended to be heard by anyone, on the 'Get Back' tapes, that's quite believable. Still, what was Paul thinking when he said that? As Paul well knew, the song had been written (and recorded) before The Beatles went to India and John hooked-up with Yoko. And it didn't change much when they re-recorded it in January 1969, so what was this "oriental" influence? Was the referring to India itself? Paul talks quite a bit about India in the Let It Be film, even though it happened 10 months before. He was still thinking about it. Or, was it just a snide aside towards Yoko? If he had said this comment about 'Revolution 9' or something, it would at least make sense.
According to what some of you are saying, the word "oriental" appears to be used more comfortably in British English than in North America, where it's very uncommon and generally considered offensive by people younger than 50 or 60 years old. (None of which has any bearing on Paul, who was born in World War II and would have heard the word regularly growing up.)
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 20, 2014 21:21:54 GMT -5
. . . I'd say the jury is still out on the word 'oriental' -- I wouldn't be surprised if it makes a comeback!) For some, I bet they can't wait for peckerwood, squaw, kraut,dago, mick, paki, hebe, kike, beaner, spick, nigger, faggot, frog, redskin, wetback, wop, pollack, raghead, chinaman, dothead, cracker, honky, chink, and other terms to make their comebacks, too. (Just exaggerating to make a point.) But your point is invalid. As I went to (great) lengths to explain, the term 'oriental' is geographical regional, and therefore is not in itself an objectifying term (unless you consider half the earth an objectified region). I also explained that I've never heard an 'oriental' person (and I know, work with, live with, and have slept with thousands) express offense at the word. Both these points are in sharp contrast to the large list of words you posted.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jun 21, 2014 5:11:18 GMT -5
and have slept with thousands) express offense at the word. A bit boasty, but more power to your elbow.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 21, 2014 6:24:24 GMT -5
Stavros, thanks for supplying some context for Paul's "oriental" comment. If it's just some banter, never intended to be heard by anyone, on the 'Get Back' tapes, that's quite believable. Still, what was Paul thinking when he said that? As Paul well knew, the song had been written (and recorded) before The Beatles went to India and John hooked-up with Yoko. And it didn't change much when they re-recorded it in January 1969, so what was this "oriental" influence? Was the referring to India itself? Paul talks quite a bit about India in the Let It Be film, even though it happened 10 months before. He was still thinking about it. Or, was it just a snide aside towards Yoko? If he had said this comment about 'Revolution 9' or something, it would at least make sense. According to what some of you are saying, the word "oriental" appears to be used more comfortably in British English than in North America, where it's very uncommon and generally considered offensive by people younger than 50 or 60 years old. (None of which has any bearing on Paul, who was born in World War II and would have heard the word regularly growing up.) Yes in Britain 'Oriental' is still used although more so to describe objects (a person's nationality would tend to be used to describe them). There is no sensitivity about the word whatsoever. Paul's choice of words is quite clear to me. There was an annoyance at Yoko turning up at every session and he carefully chose that phrase to convey his belief that Yoko was an unwanted presence. Maybe you have to be British to get that?
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 21, 2014 7:48:56 GMT -5
As you know Joe, I love the Double Fantasy concept, a heart play, so I hear you but several of John's DF songs are great "stand alone" like "Woman," "I'm Losing You, "Watching The Wheels" and "Beautiful Boy." The Beatles could pull those off in their sleep! I want Paul's "Waterfalls" and he must hold back "Wanderlust" and "Tug of War" for such a 1980 Beatles album so he needs a rocker! George must contribute "Your Love Is Forever," "Blow Away," and "Love Come To Everyone" if not more. Ringo does "Life Begins At 40" written by John. Finally back on topic. I think there is so much early 1970s output that cutting everything down to a single or even double album is simply too hard to do. I really can't decide on that one. As for a 1980(ish) album I also find that difficult. In 1979-1981 period older bands were seen as dinosaurs by a generation sick of glam rock, prog rock and cheesy pop. Disco was still popular but about to fade away. Punk had evolved into a more commercial 'New Wave' rock sound. There were also bands like the Specials and Madness with their ska influenced take on things. The American bands Blondie, the Cars, the B52s and Talking Heads were also becoming popular. Synth bands like Depeche Mode & the Human League were also about explode onto the scene and the Police had suddenly become massive with their fusion of reggae and rock. It was certainly an awkward period for Beatles music in the UK. So let's make a few assumptions. The Beatles have not split up. They've done some stuff solo but also continued to make regular albums as the Beatles. After their massive Rockshow tour in 1976 ;)John Lennon decides he wants a long break to spend more time with his family. Paul, George and Ringo have all recorded some solo work but the plan is to get back together at the turn of the decade and re-unite the Fab Four again. The problem is the music scene has changed as highlighted above. What are the Beatles going to do? Follow trends, use synths, go new wave or even disco? In reality John Lennon's Double Fantasy album slipped down the charts not long after release in the UK until a certain event. In fact Yoko's songs on that album are more contemporary sounding for 1980. In the end I think that compromises would be made and we'd end up with something 'commercial' like this: Side 1 ============= Starting Over Getting Closer Blow Away Watching the Wheels Arrow Through Me Love Comes to Everyone Coming Up Side 2 ============== Woman One of these Days All Those Years Ago Losing You Waterfalls Your Love is Forever Baby's Request A slightly different version of "Starting Over" for a Beatles comeback makes sense. Getting Closer is a rock song in the vein of "Get Back", "Junior's Farm" and would fit as a Beatles songs. "Blow Away" sounds very like the "Happy Rishikesh" song. Maybe there is an argument over the writer of that one? After that the album sort of mellows out with "Watching the Wheels","Arrow Through Me" and "Love Comes to Everyone". I think John would have loved working on "Coming Up" and joining in a very silly video for it so it has to be there to end side 1. Side 2 opens with a track John even called a Beatle song, "Woman". I threw "One of these Days" in as it's one of the better tracks on 'McCartney II' but not an obvious one. George's "All Those Years Ago" would have to have different lyrics. "Losing You" is a great Lennon track and if the Beatles made it more like the Cheap Trick/Lennon version all the better. "Waterfalls" is a good McCartney ballad that might have sounded better with a full orchestral arrangement. "Your Love is Forever" is a gorgeous hidden gem of a Harrison song and "Baby's Request" is the type of song that sounds like it would fit on the White Album (and probably annoy John as well as being 'granny music'). I am not sure how a 1980/81 record buying public would have taken to such an album. You could make a harder more rockier album, but George's songs don't really fit. Ringo may get a track to sing on as was usual except on LIB. And it's entirely possible that the Beatles may have written entirely different tracks that were never written in reality.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 21, 2014 9:22:46 GMT -5
As good as a 1970 or 1971 Beatles album would have been, it is impossible to imagine what it would have been like. I say this because -- esp. in the cases of John and George, but also Paul to an extent -- everything they wrote and recorded individually in 1969 to 1971 was, to some extent, a response to The Beatles' break up. For example, in late 1969 Paul wanted to prove that he could do it all by himself, so he made McCartney. George wanted to have an album that showed his spiritual enlightenment, so he made All Things Must Pass. John wanted to do the most naked, pants-down, cathartic thing possible, so he did JL/Plastic Ono Band.
None of these records -- except some of Paul's, maybe -- would have been possible if they'd been recording together. George would never, ever have even considered bringing a song like 'My Sweet Lord' to John Lennon. (That one would likely have remained only a Billy Preston track.) The other Beatles might not have reacted well to a Lennon song like 'Mother', and obviously something like 'God' is inconceivable in a Beatles context.
Another Beatle album would have been good, but it wouldn't have featured the famous songs we know from 1970-71.
|
|
|
Post by theman on Jun 21, 2014 10:38:22 GMT -5
As you know Joe, I love the Double Fantasy concept, a heart play, so I hear you but several of John's DF songs are great "stand alone" like "Woman," "I'm Losing You, "Watching The Wheels" and "Beautiful Boy." The Beatles could pull those off in their sleep! I want Paul's "Waterfalls" and he must hold back "Wanderlust" and "Tug of War" for such a 1980 Beatles album so he needs a rocker! George must contribute "Your Love Is Forever," "Blow Away," and "Love Come To Everyone" if not more. Ringo does "Life Begins At 40" written by John. I did a quick, mini review on the book "Still the Greatest" in the "book review" section recently. While the book is not perfect, it is extremely well done and a highly engaging and entertaining read for those of us who believe that there are a significant amount of Beatles quality and Beatles worthy songs in their solo catalog (and not just in the '70s, but even up to current times).
|
|