|
Post by sayne on Jun 21, 2014 10:54:54 GMT -5
. . . I've never heard an 'oriental' person (and I know, work with, live with, and have slept with thousands) express offense at the word . . . I tried to be done, but I couldn't. Do they identify themselves as being "oriental"? I suspect they don't. Just because a person doesn't fight about the use of a term used to name them doesn't mean that it's how they identify themselves. Sometimes things are accepted, even if hurtful, because it just takes too much energy to fight, or it's just too prevalent. That's the big umbrella issue of this admittedly hijacked topic - naming of the "other." There's power in naming the "other." American Indians didn't call themselves that and Gypsies generally don't use that term either. Gypsies can call themselves Romani or Travellers all they want, but the dominate culture will continue to call them Gypsies until they choose to be more accurate. By the way, for some of you out there, when you say you've been "gyped/jipped/gypped" or whatever the spelling is, you do know that it comes from "gypsy," don't you? By the way, "gypsy" comes from the word "Egyptian." It's always the dominate culture that does the naming AND the complaining when terms they use are questioned by the "other." It's also a false comfort for the dominate culture to use the fact that the "other" also uses the term as an act of legitimacy for the term. Yes, there are people who call themselves Indians, Gypsies, Colored, Oriental, etc, but sometimes it not worth the fight for segments of people. Now, watch how I cleverly take this back to the Beatles. The White Album is NOT called the "White Album." Those in power, the mass audience, have named it "The White Album." So, an inaccurate album name has become it's name. Even if it had mattered to Apple or the Beatles that it be called "The Beatles," the masses spoke. That same dynamic applies to naming of people or cultures. (Yes, I know I've pissed-off some of you for taking the thread of topic, but that's what I've always liked about Beatles discussions. They, like politics or philosophy, can lead into a myriad of tangents. The Beatles, as a concept or topic, are rich and deep.)
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 21, 2014 12:11:22 GMT -5
. . . I've never heard an 'oriental' person (and I know, work with, live with, and have slept with thousands) express offense at the word . . . I tried to be done, but I couldn't. Do they identify themselves as being "oriental"? I suspect they don't. Just because a person doesn't fight about the use of a term used to name them doesn't mean that it's how they identify themselves. Sometimes things are accepted, even if hurtful, because it just takes too much energy to fight, or it's just too prevalent. That's the big umbrella issue of this admittedly hijacked topic - naming of the "other." There's power in naming the "other." American Indians didn't call themselves that and Gypsies generally don't use that term either. Gypsies can call themselves Romani or Travellers all they want, but the dominate culture will continue to call them Gypsies until they choose to be more accurate. By the way, for some of you out there, when you say you've been "gyped/jipped/gypped" or whatever the spelling is, you do know that it comes from "gypsy," don't you? By the way, "gypsy" comes from the word "Egyptian." It's always the dominate culture that does the naming AND the complaining when terms they use are questioned by the "other." It's also a false comfort for the dominate culture to use the fact that the "other" also uses the term as an act of legitimacy for the term. Yes, there are people who call themselves Indians, Gypsies, Colored, Oriental, etc, but sometimes it not worth the fight for segments of people. Now, watch how I cleverly take this back to the Beatles. The White Album is NOT called the "White Album." Those in power, the mass audience, have named it "The White Album." So, an inaccurate album name has become it's name. Even if it had mattered to Apple or the Beatles that it be called "The Beatles," the masses spoke. That same dynamic applies to naming of people or cultures. (Yes, I know I've pissed-off some of you for taking the thread of topic, but that's what I've always liked about Beatles discussions. They, like politics or philosophy, can lead into a myriad of tangents. The Beatles, as a concept or topic, are rich and deep.) Paul even referred to it as "The White Album" in the video Anthology. And no mention of not liking that name. Can't recall if he or the others ever commented on not liking the nickname that album received.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 21, 2014 14:02:03 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. That would be a great album! You are right about guessing how it would do because Popular music was at such a trubulent crossroads in 1980! Yet a MOR rock band like REO Speedwagon had a monster hit with its High Infidelity album at least in the U.S. I am not comparing The Beatles to REO Speedwagon but just saying there was still a huge market for good Pop Music in 1980 and one didn't need to be Punk, or Reggae, or New Wave, or artsy fartsy to have hits. Who better than The Beatles at great Pop music and there was still a markket for it in 1980! I get goosebumps thinking of John Lennon providing searing harmony vocals on "Waterfalls" at the, "And I Need Love, Yeah I Need Love." Paul is really singing like he means it there and add John's harmony vocal and those bits would be intense.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 21, 2014 15:17:01 GMT -5
That would be a great album! You are right about guessing how it would do because Popular music was at such a turbulent crossroads in 1980! Yet a MOR rock band like REO Speedwagon had a monster hit with its High Infidelity album at least in the U.S. I am not comparing The Beatles to REO Speedwagon but just saying there was still a huge market for good Pop Music in 1980 and one didn't need to be Punk, or Reggae, or New Wave, or artsy fartsy to have hits. Who better than The Beatles at great Pop music and there was still a markket for it in 1980! I get goosebumps thinking of John Lennon providing searing harmony vocals on "Waterfalls" at the, "And I Need Love, Yeah I Need Love." Paul is really singing like he means it there and add John's harmony vocal and those bits would be intense. Across the pond REO Speedwagon had a big hit with "I Can't Fight this Feeling" but their only other top 20 singles were "Take it on the Run" and "Keep on Loving You". Styx with Babe was big albeit, a one hit wonder, over here. Toto also had a few hits. I seem to remember Dr. Hook being very popular in Britain and long assumed they were British. They were from N.Jersey and hardly made an impression to US audiences. Blondie also seemed to be more popular with us Brits even though they did well in the US too. Our own bands like Hot Chocolate and Dire Straits were appealing to more adult audiences and Bowie and Queen were still having hits (one of them together) around this time in the UK. And Abba were still massive if a little past their peak. So there was still a market out there. We didn't have MTV in those days but the age of video had just begun in the UK. That's why I think John would have really got into making a completely daft fun video with Paul for "Coming Up". It's not really a song I care for much and actually prefer the live version (which was not released here). But the video certainly helped promote it back here in Blighty (note the name of the band scribed on the drums)
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 21, 2014 16:08:48 GMT -5
If you don't have the Beatles solo albums then here is my 1980(ish) track listing courtesy of Youtube. Does it work as a Beatles album though?
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
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 21, 2014 19:10:53 GMT -5
Yes, it is a good set, Stavros.
However, I don’t mean to be picky, but:
If you deleted, say, Arrow Through Me and Baby’s Request, you would bring the aggregate time per side down to 24 minutes, or under, which I understand is about the maximum for a vinyl LP before audio quality starts to suffer.
That would also give John, Paul and George four songs apiece. It seems wrong to allocate six tracks to Paul and four to John on what would have been the latter's comeback.
All Those Years Ago originally had different lyrics to the ones we all know and was meant for Ringo. George re-recorded it in early 1981, after John’s death. Did you mean to include the Ringo version; otherwise the release date for your album becomes 1981?
These fantasy albums are harder to compile than is first apparent. What with trying to have consecutive songs flow from one to another, get some sort of theme working, ascertaining that recording dates fit a release date, deciding that a song would appear on one set and not a previous, or subsequent one, it can be difficult.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jun 21, 2014 19:54:10 GMT -5
Can we find a place for songs like "Oh My Love", "Back Seat of My Car", "Isn't it a Pity", "Remember" or "Uncle Albert"? A good start to the next Beatles album after the one I made up: SIDE 1: 1. Too Many People 2. Remember 3. Let It Roll 4. Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey 5. Oh My Love 6. Art Of Dying 7. Back Seat Of My Car SIDE 2: 1. Imagine 2. Dear Boy 3. Apple Scruffs 4. Coochy Coo 5. Look At Me 6. Eat At Home 7. Isn't It A Pity Clearly the Beatles had enough material to make a couple good albums post LET IT BE: one for release in late 1970 and another mid 1971. Ringo could still release SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY and BEAUCOUPS OF BLUES. George has enough of his more religious songs (My Sweet Lord, Hear Me Lord, Awaiting On You All) plus others for a single LP. John has enough other songs from PLASTIC ONO BAND and IMAGINE for a solo LP as does Paul with other tracks from MCCARTNEY and RAM. And by 1973 there is enough quality material for the next Beatles album!
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jun 21, 2014 19:58:42 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. I have been unable to log in on this site until today and posted my next album before I saw your post. We have a lot of the same songs!
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jun 21, 2014 20:02:40 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. I like the looks of this and think a 1979/80 Beatles album would have been great!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 22, 2014 17:34:38 GMT -5
Yes, it is a good set, Stavros. However, I don’t mean to be picky, but: If you deleted, say, Arrow Through Me and Baby’s Request, you would bring the aggregate time per side down to 24 minutes, or under, which I understand is about the maximum for a vinyl LP before audio quality starts to suffer. That would also give John, Paul and George four songs apiece. It seems wrong to allocate six tracks to Paul and four to John on what would have been the latter's comeback. All Those Years Ago originally had different lyrics to the ones we all know and was meant for Ringo. George re-recorded it in early 1981, after John’s death. Did you mean to include the Ringo version; otherwise the release date for your album becomes 1981? These fantasy albums are harder to compile than is first apparent. What with trying to have consecutive songs flow from one to another, get some sort of theme working, ascertaining that recording dates fit a release date, deciding that a song would appear on one set and not a previous, or subsequent one, it can be difficult. It's a good point re:the optimum length of the vinyl and I do agree that John, Paul and George would probably go with 4 songs each. It is a sensible compromise. Perhaps we take out "Coming Up " to be released as a single and one of either "Baby's Request" or "Arrow Through Me" is resigned to something else. I was aware George had written a totally different lyric to "All Those Years Ago" for Ringo and that would be the more likely version. I agree it is very difficult to come up with something which seems a simple fantasy at first if you want to keep a lot of the aspects of how tracks were created in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 22, 2014 17:57:58 GMT -5
Why are we even having a discussion about a 1979/1980 Beatles' album? It's a bit silly, isn't it? Not only is it completely inconceivable (not necessarily a reason not to discuss it), but it would have sullied the band's legacy badly as these tracklistings prove. In 1979, George, Ringo, and John were retired from being active, working musicians. The last thing they ever would have done is entertain a Beatle reunion. And if they had, it would have been a disaster.
The Beatles were dinosaurs by 1979, the magic was gone. Let's be honest and respectful to the band's legacy and not pretend otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 22, 2014 18:11:36 GMT -5
Why are we even having a discussion about a 1979/1980 Beatles' album? It's a bit silly, isn't it? Not only is it completely inconceivable (not necessarily a reason not to discuss it), but it would have sullied the band's legacy badly as these tracklistings prove. In 1979, George, Ringo, and John were retired from being active, working musicians. The last thing they ever would have done is entertain a Beatle reunion. And if they had, it would have been a disaster. The Beatles were dinosaurs by 1979, the magic was gone. Let's be honest and respectful to the band's legacy and not pretend otherwise. You're quite entitled to that view if you don't see this exercise as just a bit of fun. However had history have been different then it's not entirely impossible that the Beatles might have re-united. It was revealed in 2005 that Paul McCartney set the wheels in motion for a Beatles reunion with a clause in a CBS record label contract signed in 1979 .The terms of the contract stipulated that McCartney must be allowed to record under the name 'The Beatles'. John Lennon followed a year later with similar overtures to a Beatles reunion in November 1980 issuing an affidavit suing the producers of "Beatlemania" citing his personal interest regarding his future plans to involve himself with a Beatles documentary "The Long And Winding Road" along with a reunion concert as a tie-in to that project.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 22, 2014 22:14:24 GMT -5
I remember in early '80 hearing Lennon was recording a new album. I remember thinking "Why?". He didn't have a shot at having a hit album. 5 years was a long time in music back then. I thought, Paul was barely getting air play. I was the only one buying Wings' albums. We were a rockin' group of kids. There was always something on Paul's albums that if you didn't get up and skip it in time.... Even I had given up on George, although his later '70s albums were better than I realized.
But the Beatles were still popular. They were still winning favorite band contests on the radio. There was still a lot of talk about reunions. Between the four of them, I think they could have settled on some good songs that would have been a hit album.
Hopefully we would not have heard John singing background on Winter Rose.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 23, 2014 2:28:02 GMT -5
Why are we even having a discussion about a 1979/1980 Beatles' album? It's a bit silly, isn't it? Not only is it completely inconceivable (not necessarily a reason not to discuss it), but it would have sullied the band's legacy badly as these tracklistings prove. In 1979, George, Ringo, and John were retired from being active, working musicians. The last thing they ever would have done is entertain a Beatle reunion. And if they had, it would have been a disaster. The Beatles were dinosaurs by 1979, the magic was gone. Let's be honest and respectful to the band's legacy and not pretend otherwise. You're quite entitled to that view if you don't see this exercise as just a bit of fun. However had history have been different then it's not entirely impossible that the Beatles might have re-united. It was revealed in 2005 that Paul McCartney set the wheels in motion for a Beatles reunion with a clause in a CBS record label contract signed in 1979 .The terms of the contract stipulated that McCartney must be allowed to record under the name 'The Beatles'. John Lennon followed a year later with similar overtures to a Beatles reunion in November 1980 issuing an affidavit suing the producers of "Beatlemania" citing his personal interest regarding his future plans to involve himself with a Beatles documentary "The Long And Winding Road" along with a reunion concert as a tie-in to that project. I am firmly convinced had the tragic death of John been avoided in 1980, The Beatles would have re-united at some point in the studio. They all would have attended their induction into the R&R HOF in 1987. If John had attended, Paul would have gone. They would have likely jammed there, then settled the lawsuits, and gone into the studio, most likely in and around the Anthology project in the early 90's. At least one album would have been produced. John would have collaborated with George on some songs for a new Beatle album as well. Live Concerts less likely. Assuming George's death from cancer in 2001, it would have ended with the three survivors performing at The Concert For George in 2002. The best part would have been how much John & Paul might have collaborated on new song material from the Anthology on, whether for Beatle albums or for others. Or possibly music for other genres, like musicals. Today, John and Paul would have been good friends, seeing each other often, and reuniting with Ringo for the 50th Anniversary celebrations of their debut in America. They probably would have dragged Dhani into playing with them for the LA tribute done to the band this past January, and quite possibly gotten all their sons onto the stage for some jam sessions. Nice dreaming. Now back to reality....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 23, 2014 9:28:36 GMT -5
Why are we even having a discussion about a 1979/1980 Beatles' album? It's a bit silly, isn't it? Not only is it completely inconceivable (not necessarily a reason not to discuss it), but it would have sullied the band's legacy badly as these tracklistings prove. In 1979, George, Ringo, and John were retired from being active, working musicians. The last thing they ever would have done is entertain a Beatle reunion. And if they had, it would have been a disaster. The Beatles were dinosaurs by 1979, the magic was gone. Let's be honest and respectful to the band's legacy and not pretend otherwise. All perhaps true but it was just fun speculation and where I disagree is some of that music was/is very good. Whether it could have become "Beatles" music is subject to legitimate disagreement so I hear you. And besides, speculating about a 1980's Beatles album is more fun to me than speculating on Pete Best or Jimmy Nicol and whether either could have been the permanent drummer for The Beatles!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 23, 2014 17:37:07 GMT -5
True. I cannot fathom why this forum is so obsessed with Jimmy Nichol...
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 23, 2014 23:52:34 GMT -5
Plenty of licence being taken here:
1982 Beatles Album (tribute to John Lennon)
Nobody Told Me Borrowed Time Somebody Who Cares Every Man Has A Woman Who Loves Him Life Itself Grow Old With Me
Tug Of War All Those Years Ago Here Today Wrack My Brain Real Love Free As A Bird
Title: Free As A Bird. 12 tracks. 43 minutes (22 side 1/21 side 2). 6 Lennon songs/3 McCartney songs/2 Harrison songs/1 Starr song. Release date: early 1982.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on Jun 28, 2014 11:12:57 GMT -5
I personally like the Beatles' solo stuff in 1970 and 1971 more than I like The Beatles' material in 1963 (maybe), 1964, 1966, and 1967. (I don't mention 1965, 1968, 1969 since those years feature so many great Beatle songs.) It's beyond dispute that a late 1970, or 1971, final Beatle album *could* have, song-wise, easily matched any record they'd made to that point. But it's just hard to conceive of its actually existing in any plausible universe. They were ready to go their separate ways by about summer 1968, so staying together to record highly disparate songs in 1970/71 just couldn't have happened. 1966 and 1967 (along with 1965) were the Beatles most creative and innovative years! The list of great Beatles songs from 66 and 67 stacks up with the best anybody has ever had! PS-I wanted to respond to this post back when it was first posted, but at that time my computer was not letting me log in on this site. That problem has been fixed and for some reason I remembered I this post and was able to find it.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jul 1, 2014 18:54:03 GMT -5
1966 and 1967 (along with 1965) were the Beatles most creative and innovative years! The list of great Beatles songs from 66 and 67 stacks up with the best anybody has ever had! I don't disagree with you. And I prefer the 1970-71 music.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jul 21, 2014 19:15:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by beatleroadie on Aug 22, 2014 14:42:56 GMT -5
Just burned this to CD...and it flows really well. It also shows the Beatles being somewhat experimental (two instrumentals) and trying new things while still delivering some classic "beatle" sounds for the fans:
BEATLES - WAKE UP LP (1980)
Side One 1. Coming Up (Twin Freaks remix) 2. Just Like Starting Over 3. The Pound is Sinking 4. Woman 5. Wake Up My Love 6. Frozen Jap
Side Two 7. Temporary Secretary (Twin Freaks remix) 8. I'm Losing You 9. Dark Room 10. Circles 11. Blue Sway (original instrumental, not "orchestrated version") 12. Watching the Wheels
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jun 19, 2015 12:34:18 GMT -5
I've been thinking lately that Abbey Road is really that post-Beatles album that we talk about making for 70-71. It sounds like the seventies and not Beatley. I still love it, mind you. It Don't Come Easy, Real Love, Photograph, and Free As A Bird would fit right in on Abbey Road. Solo songs with fab backing vocals. You could list more songs for disk two of Abbey Road .
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 19, 2015 13:45:18 GMT -5
I've been thinking lately that Abbey Road is really that post-Beatles album that we talk about making for 70-71. It sounds like the seventies and not Beatley. I still love it, mind you. It Don't Come Easy, Real Love, Photograph, and Free As A Bird would fit right in on Abbey Road. Solo songs with fab backing vocals. You could list more songs for disk two of Abbey Road . Good point. I am always amazed at how polished AR is, both the recording of it and the playing and singing. As well as SPLHCB is recorded, it is nowhere as polished on the playing or singing. I always wished Paul would have saved "Come And Get It" for AR and The Beatles and given Badfinger "Maxwell!"
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 25, 2015 2:35:18 GMT -5
Abbey Road is the only Beatles album that sounds like it's from the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 25, 2015 7:27:55 GMT -5
Abbey Road proves that the Beatles could have saved some songs for group production as George himself suggested during Get Back. I don't think they could have made it too deep into the 70s though, because the pressure of becoming an "arena rock live band" would have been immense and only Paul was capable of pulling it off. Before I get "stones" thrown at me about John - watching him perform live even when choppy and words forgotten- he was an amazing performer and had the stage presence of no other rocker from Elvis to Dylan to even Paul. He just hated it. As did George. Ringo would have never been able to play live in his condition at that time.
But getting back on the more recent posts, Abbey Road was a good look at 70s Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 25, 2015 7:30:01 GMT -5
Top add to my point above, watching John sing Don't Let Me Down on the roof-top is arguably the best live Beatle band performance EVER.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jun 25, 2015 9:27:45 GMT -5
The rooftop was a confident live Beatles in Hamburg mode. Paul even jumps up and down like he was trying to break through the planks in order to Mach Shau. And they were a five piece again. Contrary to some authors who say George doesn't utter a word on the rooftop, he very clearly sings "Don't let me down" with John and Paul. They even had the Hamburg anarchy aspect with the police involvement.
Back to the early seventies album, I read recently that someone was being driven somewhere by George and George was playing a tape he had made of solo Beatle songs. I wonder what was on that tape.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 25, 2015 13:18:15 GMT -5
The Rooftop is awesome. I hope if nothing else, we get the entire Rooftop Session with gloriously restored audio and visual for the Let It Be DVD.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 26, 2015 15:37:40 GMT -5
The Rooftop is awesome. I hope if nothing else, we get the entire Rooftop Session with gloriously restored audio and visual for the Let It Be DVD. "Don't Let Me Down" should, without question, have been a track on the album. At least the balance was redressed when it was added to "Let it Be Naked". For all that has been said, at how bad 'Let it Be' was to make as an album and movie, the concert on the rooftop shows to me that the Beatles still had that special something when they played music together. That was a cold January day in the English winter but they all looked they were really having fun up there. The film (or at least a large chunk of it) was definitely restored digitally twenty years ago. A great opportunity was missed when 'Naked' was released. Another opportunity was lost in 2010 (the 40th anniversary and also nearly 30 years since it had been commercially available). We've debated the lack of a 'Let it Be' DVD release for some years. What is holding it back? I don't really know. I think it's time has probably passed now. Without the Beatles music it is a tedious watch. So I can't understand why it was never re-packaged as a "Making of Let it Be Documentary". Drop the boring bits, add some of the genuinely happier moments, throw in more music and ask Paul, Ringo, Yoko and even Michael Lindsay-Hogg,if he's still around, to talk about it. Add the full rooftop concert for us to watch uninterrupted at the end. C'mon Apple! Do something with all that footage before there's no original fans left.
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Jun 26, 2015 16:50:03 GMT -5
I've been thinking lately that Abbey Road is really that post-Beatles album that we talk about making for 70-71. It sounds like the seventies and not Beatley. I still love it, mind you. It Don't Come Easy, Real Love, Photograph, and Free As A Bird would fit right in on Abbey Road. Solo songs with fab backing vocals. You could list more songs for disk two of Abbey Road . The early Beatles solo album all contain real quality songs that could have kept the band at the top well into the mid- 1970s. Abbey Road was ".... a new phase BEATLES album" despite " Let it Be" claiming that title. I love Abbey Road and also go off it for periods as well. The production is second to none compared with any other Beatles album. But then it was also the first to utilize 8-track recording so I suppose it should be. It also flows perfectly when you listen to it. I was actually discussing how Beatles' albums sound today with a few friends last weekend and we came to the conclusion that the quality of songs is what really drives the Beatles 1962 - 1967 singles and albums. The lack of the much better recording facilities that were available in the 1970s and beyond did not prevent the Beatles from consistently creating top quality music. "Pepper" is brilliant but lacks 'something' to make it sound like anything post-1970. It's often claimed as the Beatles finest hour (or however long it runs for!). But it also sounds stuck in the 1960s. I would say that is it's charm as well? The White Album is the Beatles gone 'indie' and so the production suits it fine. That, I would guess, is why it has a more modern feel to it that gives it credibility with younger generations. Although I am quite fond of "Let it Be" the consensus was that it sounds like White Album outakes (at best!). I think it's a much better album than that! Abbey Road sounds so 1970s though because it's the same as saying "Message in A Bottle" by the Police, or "London Calling" by the Clash sounds like the 1980s. There is no sudden cut-off point at the end of a decade where the whole music industry decides to to change direction. It's a gradual evolution and the last year of a decade is not very different from the first year of a new one!
|
|