JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Jul 25, 2008 21:15:08 GMT -5
How very harsh. Being that John was the Beatles, I suspect that you have not even reached the equivalent of a "normal life span" as of yet. When you do, please return with more credible remarks. You're wrong there, sonny Jim. Let me explain it to you, I'll type slow so maybe you can understand. The Beatles were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. Get it? Not any one of them alone, the four of them together. What part of that statement don't you understand? And for your information, a lot of people don't make it to 54. I've still got another 20 years in me, hopefully. Come back when you pull your head out of your ass.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jul 25, 2008 21:56:51 GMT -5
Interesting discussion about possibly the greatest album ever. I went through a Revolver period when I was sure it was better -- but the fantastic individual songs there don't add up to whole of Pepper. That said, I probably listen to White Album more than either. But that's another essay.
As for Pepper, I listen to it only in mono, actually. "She's Leaving Home" is much different in that mix and one of my favorite Fab tracks.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 26, 2008 3:46:18 GMT -5
What BigK said. Squared.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 26, 2008 9:58:01 GMT -5
I would tend to agree but I have it as: John 35%, Paul 35%, George 20% and Ringo 10%. I 100% agree that as to The Beatles, "the whole being greater than the (already considerable) sum of its parts." I just don't think the parts are equal.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 26, 2008 11:52:55 GMT -5
I've often thought of this idea in this way: What if the individual Beatles had been replaced when they first left the band, and the band continued? Here have been some of my thoughts, mostly based on some anecdotes and statements made at the time: If Ringo had left the band, he COULD have been replaced by Keith Moon. Farfetched, maybe, but Keith was always wanted to join the Beatles. In fact, in his own playful Keith manner, pestering them to get rid of Ringo. The Beatles were getting heavier, so it MIGHT have happened. If so, a "plus". If George had left, the Beatles might have brought in Eric Clapton. Eric once was asked which band would he rather be in, the Beatles or the Stones, and he choose the Beatles. It was about the songs, for him. If this had happened, a "plus". Even if he didn't join, with Paul and John double-tracking guitar parts, things would be fine. If Paul had left the band, I don't know who they would have brought in as bass, maybe Klaus, but Billy Preston might have been brought in, George's songwriting role, surprisingly would not be as big as one would expect. Maybe more "roots" oriented, bluesy. Longer songs, very FM (60s and early 70s definition). ASSUMING, John could keep himself together and interested, not a "plus or minus", but a much different band. I suspect less commercial. If John left, no replacement. ASSUMING George and Paul could work with each other, George would have a greater songwriting role than if Paul was gone and John was in. I suspect the songs would be much softer, but still melodic. Even the rockin' songs would be a bit softer. Without the edge, the Beatles would be seen as less rock and more pop. This is just what I've surmised. Obviously, there are a bunch of factors which would play into these scenarios and assumptions to be made to determine the viability of the Beatles without one of the key lads. I guess the bottom line for me is that if I assume that the remaining members were still really into the band and George Martin still produced them, the Beatles would have been strong and probably stronger without George or Ringo, mellower and "crafty-er" without John, and harder and less AM friendly without Paul. Even with all this, I don't make any assertion that the Beatles wouldn't have broken up in the 70s anyway. I'm just looking at the band from 1968-1972. IF the respective combinations could keep it together beyond 1972, I would guess that a George-less or Ringo-less Beatles would maintain it's viability and integrity for a long long time. However, a Paul-less Beatles would eventually slow down and release albums sparingly, while a John-less Beatles would eventually join the ranks of Air Supply, Chicago, Journey, the Bee Gees, Billy Joel, Phil Collins, etc - popular, but not meaningful. That's my take. What's yours?
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 26, 2008 14:58:40 GMT -5
How very harsh. Being that John was the Beatles, I suspect that you have not even reached the equivalent of a "normal life span" as of yet. When you do, please return with more credible remarks. You're wrong there, sonny Jim. Let me explain it to you, I'll type slow so maybe you can understand. The Beatles were John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. Get it? Not any one of them alone, the four of them together. What part of that statement don't you understand? And for your information, a lot of people don't make it to 54. I've still got another 20 years in me, hopefully. Come back when you pull your head out of your ass. It makes no difference of how fast or slow you type. It is a ridiculous attempt on your part to attempt to inflect your intellectual superiority over mine. Down boy!!!!. Come back with another example that at least can be observed. For all I know, you may be nothing more than a blithering idiot that took two hours to type the previous passage. Then again, professing to type slower may even reinforce my suspicions on my last remark. My remark about John being the Beatles is fully and completely described to the tee by Sayne's previous post. I simply took offense to your describing John as a screwed up individual who was bitter. If anyone was truly bitter in the Beatles, it was Paul with his filing lawsuit petitions and slamming John with "Too Many People". I'll gladly pull my so-called head out of my ass as soon as you finish the ass procedure you started and then please convey with fast and timely typing as of how it is done.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 26, 2008 16:39:57 GMT -5
To my ears, there's no one person who "WAS" the Beatles. They are the ultimate musical example of the whole being greater than the (already considerable) sum of its parts. My two cents. -Big K I agree wholeheartedly (welcome back too, Big K!!). And I say this as someone whose favorite is John Lennon... The Beatles would not be The Beatles without ANY of these four. And yes, that includes Ringo and his charm. As for the "take what Lennon says about The Beatles with a grain of salt" thing.... that's CERTAINLY true at certain times; but Paul is the one who sugarcoated most things and re-wrote a lot of history. John tended to be more candid and told it like it was, the bad as well as the good. I see we MAY have our first "battle" of the new boards here in this thread... but I'm glad I didn't start it! ;D
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Jul 27, 2008 6:16:31 GMT -5
I think any extended Beatles line-up that continued into the 1970s would probably have mirrored the Stones in terms of quality of output. I'm sure a re-vamped Beatles would have still produced great records up until about 1972-73, but tapered off after that. The world was moving on slowly but surely. By 72-73 Bowie and Roxy Music were in the ascendent and any re-heated Beatles line-up would have started to lose centre stage and not seemed very cutting edge.... ....By 1977 the game would have been up. No future. As the Clash put it, "No Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones".
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Jul 27, 2008 8:59:26 GMT -5
[quote author=chokingsmoker board=general thread=104 post=973 time=1217102320 For all I know, you may be nothing more than a blithering idiot that took two hours to type the previous passage. [/quote] I type v-e-r-y slowly; all of the time. Take care with the "blithering idiot" innuendoes. I have a lot of time to kill...
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Jul 27, 2008 11:41:52 GMT -5
Take care with the "blithering idiot" innuendoes. Isn't 'blithering idiot' a sort of English chattering-classes insult from the 1930s? As in, "I say, that chap over there is a blithering idiot. Pass the cucumber sandwiches and pour me a cup of Earl Grey, old fruit." Anyone for tennis?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 27, 2008 12:35:32 GMT -5
I think any extended Beatles line-up that continued into the 1970s would probably have mirrored the Stones in terms of quality of output. I'm sure a re-vamped Beatles would have still produced great records up until about 1972-73, but tapered off after that. The world was moving on slowly but surely. By 72-73 Bowie and Roxy Music were in the ascendent and any re-heated Beatles line-up would have started to lose centre stage and not seemed very cutting edge.... ....By 1977 the game would have been up. No future. As the Clash put it, "No Elvis, Beatles or the Rolling Stones". Good points. I am very glad that "The Beatles" did not carry on with Klaus Voorman and Billy Preston both filling in for Paul. I like both of those men but not as permanent Beatles!
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 27, 2008 14:29:15 GMT -5
[quote author=chokingsmoker board=general thread=104 post=973 time=1217102320 For all I know, you may be nothing more than a blithering idiot that took two hours to type the previous passage. I type v-e-r-y slowly; all of the time. Take care with the "blithering idiot" innuendoes. I have a lot of time to kill... [/quote] Sorry to see you react that way. In no way was my remark intended to insult any poster that typed slowly. I'm not exactly Mario Andretti on the keyboards you know. I simply responded to an unwarranted insult that was perpetrated it seems by a fellow poster that you have a liking for. Too bad we don't share that sentiment. I'll trade insults, innuendos and whatever means is necessary if the situation warrants it. I suggest you re-read the previous posts before laying your heart on the line as you seem to have done. Your friend innuendoed and coyly tried to reduce me to an idiot. I just responded without beating around the bush. Any other observations on your part are welcome.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 27, 2008 14:40:42 GMT -5
I would tend to agree but I have it as: John 35%, Paul 35%, George 20% and Ringo 10%. I 100% agree that as to The Beatles, "the whole being greater than the (already considerable) sum of its parts." I just don't think the parts are equal. 1963-64 John 50%, Paul 35%, George 10%, Ringo 5% 1965-1966 John 45%, Paul 35%, George 15%, Ringo 5% 1967-1970 John 35%, Paul 35%, George 20%, Ringo 10% That is my rough estimation. That is why John gets the nod in IMHO. John is the X Factor!!!!
|
|
|
Post by gripweed on Jul 27, 2008 20:04:19 GMT -5
Well, the Beatles didn't become a phenomenon until after Ringo joined. To say that John WAS the Beatles is just a fatuous statement.
A Day in the Life is what makes Pepper a masterpiece and Paul worked just as hard if not harder on it than John. One of the all time top bass lines in Rock and Roll history. Ringo's drumming on that track has to be considered right at the top also. A tremendous collective effort on the song.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 28, 2008 3:17:40 GMT -5
Every now and then someone undertakes an exercise in trying to reduce the Beatles down to percentages - you're not the only one, chokingsmoker. I always feel that it is an exercise in futility and completely misses the point about what made The Beatles The Beatles. As has been said above, the chemistry required all four of them. Try driving a car without the spark plugs in. After all, they are only a small percentage...
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Jul 28, 2008 7:07:04 GMT -5
I view SPLHCB as a magical timewarp: it may be dated around the edges but it retains its mystery, color and allure even now. It transports the listener to somewhere else without leaving the room. I can only liken the emotions the album conjures up to those scenes in the Harry Potter series where the kids cross over from modern London into Diagon Alley, the throwback magical, trippy economic hub of the Magic World. Like Diagon Alley, SPLHCB is mostly wonderful and happy but there are some darker and slightly sinister corners or undercurrents within it. Those areas are about but they never intrude. I play SPLHCB maybe twice a year but I pull out all the stops when I do. I can't listen to it casually but must get in the right frame of mind. From a more worldly aspect, SPLHCB is very well recorded and it is apparent that a lot of effort went into it. I truly lament that "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Penny Lane" got separated from SPLHCB. Yet I wouldn't want anything else cut to make room for them(this is one example where the c.d. format would have been handy in 1967, there'd been plenty of room for all on a c.d.). SPLHCB is not really a "concept album" but it is a beautiful timepiece that is pure magic; something to be savored and admired. A great description, JSD. I agree with everyting you say -- 'Pepper' just sounds different to any other Beatles record. There is a sort of ethereal, colourful sound-scape that permeates the entire piece - and makes it unique. McCartney is in super-optimist mode pretty much throughout and on no other album does this contrast so effectively with Lennon's sardonic wit and darker perspectives. Even my least favourite track, 'Within you without you' has been described as a necessary 'half-time' pause for reflection. Personally, I prefer a cheeseburger with diet coke, but each to their own. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cosmos on Jul 28, 2008 8:52:55 GMT -5
Sorry to see you react that way. In no way was my remark intended to insult any poster that typed slowly. I'm not exactly Mario Andretti on the keyboards you know. (ChokingSmoker wrote) Just my way of stirring up the pot, ChokingSmoker. It's kinda my thing to "defend" the computer Neanderthals around here. I also firmly believe that most people on this board are perfectly capable of defending themselves without any aid from me. That's why I'm here; it is always a good read.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 28, 2008 9:04:36 GMT -5
Every now and then someone undertakes an exercise in trying to reduce the Beatles down to percentages - you're not the only one, chokingsmoker. I always feel that it is an exercise in futility and completely misses the point about what made The Beatles The Beatles. As has been said above, the chemistry required all four of them. Try driving a car without the spark plugs in. After all, they are only a small percentage... Hell, even Paul McCartney tried to reduce The Beatles down to percentages as he and Miles did in the book Many Years From Now on who wrote what on Lennon/McCartney songs. Fans and critics are not the only ones. I think that it is a fun but inexact exercise for sure. But sorry Ringo fans, it is just not reasonable to argue that Ringo was just as important as John, Paul or even George to The Beatles. He wasn't. Geoff Emerick's book seems to make that clear. My giving Ringo 10% seems fair and is better than I'd give any other drummer except those like Dave Clark, Keith Moon and Charlie Watts, also of that era.
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Jul 28, 2008 10:09:09 GMT -5
I agree that reducing the Beatles each to percentages just doesn't work. I always thought and still do that John & Paul were equals. They both complemented each others work so well. Just think of the Classic singles where each had a side(Paperback Writer/Rain..Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out..SFF/Penny Lane..) All amazing! I think the Beatles offered a little bit of everything to the fans(that's why there are so many of us). George may not be considered in the league w J &P but he added yet another great color to the band(and Ringo too).
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Jul 28, 2008 12:49:15 GMT -5
I think the only real relevance of reducing the Beatles to percentages is in the following context: If one member had left the band in 1970 and the other three decided to carrry on with a replacement member, how would the 'sum-of-the-parts' have been affected? Replace Ringo with Keith Moon and the group would have continued to thrive for a year or two, IMO. To use Vectis' analogy, the spark plugs would have been removed, but the engine would have spluttered on quite convincingly, I think -- especially if the new songs had been up to scratch. Replace McCartney and there's a much bigger void to fill. Bigger void, bigger percentage. I think JSD's calculation is about right, to be honest. Earlier in their career, I agree. The chemistry and group dynamic was all-important and 'percentages' seem irrelevant...
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Jul 28, 2008 15:14:44 GMT -5
If it was about percentages (and I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent, because I admit that I've played the percentages game from time to time), then McCartney's live performances over the years sould have something approximating the Beatles' magic, because there have been some live performances which get very close to the original records. But I can't put my finger on it other than to say that I can smell the magic, but I can't taste it.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 28, 2008 15:27:54 GMT -5
Earlier in their career, I agree. The chemistry and group dynamic was all-important and 'percentages' seem irrelevant... Percentages are absurd in general. They are fun, but flawed. This I agree on. My contention is, is if John was not there in the beginning and the other three were with another front man, would it have worked? Who really knows? No question about their charm and chemistry being integral in the early days. And I think John was the primary wit and leader that kept that thing going all along. But that is my opinion, and does not hold a lot of water on this board. It is fun to speculate though.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 28, 2008 16:52:01 GMT -5
And I think John was the primary wit and leader that kept that thing going all along. But that is my opinion, and does not hold a lot of water on this board. It is fun to speculate though. Hey, it holds some water with me. I firmly believe that there could be no configuration of The Beatles without John Lennon. The same is not true of the others, even Paul, and that is not knocking Paul at all.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 28, 2008 17:15:15 GMT -5
Let It Be is one of my favorite albums too. It is very underated not in small part because John said it was a load of $#!%. It really because his songs weren't the best on the album that was originally released. But what if they had completed the songs they rehearsed or demoed around that time that later became solo songs or were given away: 1. Two Of Us 2. All Things Must Pass 3. Child of Nature 4. Get Back 5. Isn't It A Pity 6. Let It Be 7. Across the Universe 8. Sour Milk Sea 9. Gimmie Some Truth 10. Junk 11. Don't Let Me Down 12. I've Got A Feeling 13 .One After 909 14. The Long and Winding Road This is an even better lineup. I like your list Pepperland but...no love for 'Maybe I'm Amazed' IMO one of Paul's best songs ever? Maybe I'm Amazed would have been great in this lineup, but I was trying to pick songs that had their origin around the time of Let It Be. I thought MIA was written later.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 28, 2008 18:09:36 GMT -5
And I think John was the primary wit and leader that kept that thing going all along. But that is my opinion, and does not hold a lot of water on this board. It is fun to speculate though. Hey, it holds some water with me. I firmly believe that there could be no configuration of The Beatles without John Lennon. The same is not true of the others, even Paul, and that is not knocking Paul at all. Glad that it holds some water with someone. I appreciate your honesty, but we all know of your devotion to John. Now, if we could only get RTP to concur. Sadly to report, RTP's response would be:-X Any dissensions on this one will be more than welcome.
|
|
|
Post by pbirdchat on Jul 28, 2008 19:27:14 GMT -5
For what its worth, my observation would be that "I Me Mine" was a fine record without John Lennon.....BUT, John was the magic if you will. The one that the other three looked to for approval. If John began to joke around, the others would follow suit. If John was in a creative mood, the others would go the extra mile to help him realize his vision.
You can see it in the bit on Anthology where the Threetles are sitting around reminiseing. Great stories, but it's almost as if they're waiting for John to show up to complete the gang. You know that if John walked into that dining room and sat down, the mood would have elevated. The jokes would have been funnier and the magic set to stun. I could even see them breaking into song if the guitars would have been around
It may have been in Geoff Emerick's book, but I read somewhere that a young emgineer was warned, ( Chris Thomas? ) If two Beatles are in the same room together it will be interesting. If three are in the same room together...look out BUT if you witness all four in the same room together....you'll witness magic. Something to that effect. I'm sure one of you has the quote.....AND THEY'LL POST IT........NOW
Darren D'Rito
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 28, 2008 20:21:58 GMT -5
For what its worth, my observation would be that " You can see it in the bit on Anthology where the Threetles are sitting around reminiseing. Great stories, but it's almost as if they're waiting for John to show up to complete the gang . . . If two Beatles are in the same room together it will be interesting. If three are in the same room together...look out BUT if you witness all four in the same room together....you'll witness magic . . . . . . and if 5 are in the room . . . How many of you believe that if John had still been alive at the time of the Anthology that he STILL would have had Yoko at his side and that she would have been in all of those "Threetle" shots? Do you think that after all those years, the other 3 would have gotten the balls to tell John off and to leave her home or at least off camera? I've sometimes wondered about this. After all, a 21 year old George vs a 23 year old John is much different than a George and John in their 50s.
|
|
|
Post by pbirdchat on Jul 28, 2008 20:33:43 GMT -5
Good point Sayne.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say that on the way to taping the interview, John says to Yoko, "listen Mother, I'd like to hang with the boys for a few hours. After all, it's been years. Don't wait up." Then as the camera is rolling on the Threetles, John sticks his head around the corner, gives his spastic look as says, I think you're all daft! Give us a kiss!"
He sits down and the The Beatles are whole again. The four headed monster! At least for a couple of hours. Daren D'Rito
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Jul 28, 2008 22:01:24 GMT -5
I would tend to agree but I have it as: John 35%, Paul 35%, George 20% and Ringo 10%. I 100% agree that as to The Beatles, "the whole being greater than the (already considerable) sum of its parts." I just don't think the parts are equal. 1963-64 John 50%, Paul 35%, George 10%, Ringo 5% 1965-1966 John 45%, Paul 35%, George 15%, Ringo 5% 1967-1970 John 35%, Paul 35%, George 20%, Ringo 10% That is my rough estimation. That is why John gets the nod in IMHO. John is the X Factor!!!! I told myself to stay out of this percentages stuff, but I can't let this stand without comment. First in 63-64 Paul is co-writing most of the great tracks. He's everywhere, as is John. It's 40/40. Then how can Paul still lag behind John in the 65-66 era that includes Revolver? Yes, John produced amazing work, but Paul was beside him with Eleanor Rigby, Got to Get You..., For No One, Here, There, and Everywhere, Michelle, Paperback Writer, We Can Work It Out, I'm Looking Through You," etc. It still must be 40/40.
|
|
|
Post by johnpaulharstar on Jul 28, 2008 22:31:48 GMT -5
I would agree with giving John the slight edge in the early period. He was more of a leader and a quick look at the albums shows him singing more than Paul. By the middle 65-66 period I would put it more equal. By the latter period I would give Paul a slight edge. John is less interested in the band. George's percentage would also rise. In America Ringo probably commanded the most attention in the early days so I'd put his percentage higher for 63-64. Plus his drumming was so important to the sound of the early hits. I wouldn't put Ringo higher than John or Paul, but he might be equal with George who only wrote one song up until then.
|
|