|
Post by sayne on Jul 29, 2008 2:19:28 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 That would have been a great moment. Alas, maybe in a parallel universe.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Jul 29, 2008 3:01:58 GMT -5
. . . and if 5 are in the room . . . The results would have been hilarious! Even with the Threetles format, I sensed a bit of tension between George and Paul. Add into the mix John -- with Yoko perched in the corner atop a cushion, staring distractedly into the middle distance.... knitting a cardie and munching chocolate digestive biscuits throughout. It's an exquisite thought! It would never have happened, though. The very idea would have been vetoed (unanimously, probably) in the delicate negotiations beforehand.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 29, 2008 9:10:40 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. You know that John is my favorite, but I think it's absurd to think Paul was expendable in any way. I'd even go so far as to say that Paul could have succeeded on his own without John, to be honest. Now, I am speaking MUSICALLY, not in a "leadership" way. John needed Paul in the earlier days more than Paul needed John. Just think of their first meeting when John was so impressed by Paul. John KNEW he needed this guy in his nowhere band, to make it fly.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 29, 2008 9:43:15 GMT -5
It would never have happened, though. The very idea would have been vetoed (unanimously, probably) in the delicate negotiations beforehand. I think that might be the issue behind my little post. It's obvious that NO unanimity (or even singular dissent) kept Yoko away back in the late 60s. Would George, Ringo, and Paul have "manned up" in 25 years? Or, would they have just let John have his way -- again. Your use of the words "delicate negotiations" is part of the point. Why give John the power? My feeling is that at over 50 years of age, no Beatle SHOULD have been in any position to "pull rank." I'm not so sure I wouldn't have minded anyone, even Ringo, saying, "Look, John, no disrespect intended, but I don't want Yoko around. I love her and everything, but this is our project and people want to see us. I don't know how the others feel, but my life does not revolve around the Anthology. I'm at the age were I don't have to do anything I don't want to do and I don't want to do this unless it's just us. I love Barbara as much as you love Yoko, and I'm sure the same goes for Paul and George with Linda and Olivia and we don't insist on them being on camera . . . " If John were around at the time of the Anthology, how many of you would have been okay with John getting his way again, or would have been okay with the others putting their feet down? Yes, I know that a living John NOT involved would make it a rather odd endeavor, but why should John still get to push everyone around? Since it would be a living John and NOT a dead John being out of the picture, maybe the scenes of the "Threetles" could have been funny with their poking asides at John.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Jul 29, 2008 9:59:25 GMT -5
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. You know that John is my favorite, but I think it's absurd to think Paul was expendable in any way. I'd even go so far as to say that Paul could have succeeded on his own without John, to be honest. Now, I am speaking MUSICALLY, not in a "leadership" way. John needed Paul in the earlier days more than Paul needed John. Just think of their first meeting when John was so impressed by Paul. John KNEW he needed this guy in his nowhere band, to make it fly. I agree 100%, Joe. John may well have ended up in jail rather than on that Hamburg stage without Paul! IMHO, the *X* factor was neither John OR Paul. It was when John AND Paul teamed up as songwriting partners. That splendid rivalry, the ying and yang of their complimenary gifts, was at the heart of the Beatles success. There is no configuration without either man. J/P 50/50; G/R 25/25 = 150%. No disrepect intended to Klaus Voorman who was suggested as a possible replacement, but is Klaus a bass player, singer, songwiter, composer, melodist, multi-instrumentalist, stage performer and chick magnet at the level of Paul McCartney???!!! Is (or was) ANYBODY??? I rest my case...
|
|
|
Post by melody on Jul 29, 2008 10:18:44 GMT -5
[quote author=sayne board=general thread=104 post=1117 time=1217342595
If John were around at the time of the Anthology, how many of you would have been okay with John getting his way again, or would have been okay with the others putting their feet down? Yes, I know that a living John NOT involved would make it a rather odd endeavor, but why should John still get to push everyone around? Since it would be a living John and NOT a dead John being out of the picture, maybe the scenes of the "Threetles" could have been funny with their poking asides at John. [/quote]
Like when George poked fun at John's absence the last time the other three were in studio recording over-dubs (or whatever it was) for 'I Me Mine'??
I was NOT okay with John having Yoko attached to his hip and auditioning her as the 5th Beatle or else I'll quit in 1968-1970 and I would be totally in support of the other's putting their collective feet down against more of the same, for the Anthology.
But I'd expect that John would not have insisted at that point in time, anyway. Whose to know if their marriage would have even survived that long....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 29, 2008 10:54:26 GMT -5
You know that John is my favorite, but I think it's absurd to think Paul was expendable in any way. I'd even go so far as to say that Paul could have succeeded on his own without John, to be honest. Now, I am speaking MUSICALLY, not in a "leadership" way. John needed Paul in the earlier days more than Paul needed John. Just think of their first meeting when John was so impressed by Paul. John KNEW he needed this guy in his nowhere band, to make it fly. I agree 100%, Joe. John may well have ended up in jail rather than on that Hamburg stage without Paul! IMHO, the *X* factor was neither John OR Paul. It was when John AND Paul teamed up as songwriting partners. That splendid rivalry, the ying and yang of their complimenary gifts, was at the heart of the Beatles success. There is no configuration without either man. J/P 50/50; G/R 25/25 = 150%. No disrepect intended to Klaus Voorman who was suggested as a possible replacement, but is Klaus a bass player, singer, songwiter, composer, melodist, multi-instrumentalist, stage performer and chick magnet at the level of Paul McCartney???!!! Is (or was) ANYBODY??? I rest my case... Time out. I am not advocating the dropping of Paul or supporting the idea of The Beatles carrying on without him. I am just saying that it was a fact that when Paul announced his leaving The Beatles and then the litigation the other three were pissed and discussed bringing in others like Voorman and Preston to carry on The Beatles. Do I think that would have been wise or an improvement, hell no. In 1970 apparently three Beatles thought, albeit briefly, that they could carry on without Paul. George Harrison always made it clear both pre-John's murder and after that there could be no Beatles without John Lennon. He never made that statement about Paul. In the solo years, George would have played with John at the drop of a hat(he said as much) as would Ringo. Ringo would play with Paul if asked but George is quoted as saying in 1974 that he was not sure that he would ever play music with Paul again. No John but Paul in the Beatles then no George period, maybe no Ringo. No Paul but John then George and Ringo might listen to what John was proposing. That was certainly true in 1970. True, Ringo "wanted" to see all three when he went to town but it would have been tempting to him if John and George wanted him to join them sans Paul. Thank God that Paul was always a Beatle for the duration of the band but my observation was that for there to be George and Ringo in The Beatles there had to be John but I don't feel that was true the other way: that for there to be George and Ringo in The Beatles, there had to be Paul. It all leads back to the conclusion that The Beatles broke up at exactly the right time because even though I feel that the other three might be willing to carry on as Beatles without Paul, it would not have been the same at all.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 29, 2008 11:28:25 GMT -5
I actually think if Paul didn't get pissy at Ringo and release the break-up announcement, you might have gotten a Paul, George and Ringo Threetle single...maybe even a Paul and George driven album-but probably not that far.
I Me Mine was a Threetle recording from scratch. Perhaps an A side could have been It Don't Come Easy-in reality started with George Martin at the production in March of 1970. John was not coming back, but would not have pulled a Roger Waters either because of contractural reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 29, 2008 11:50:17 GMT -5
If John were around at the time of the Anthology, how many of you would have been okay with John getting his way again, or would have been okay with the others putting their feet down? Yes, I know that a living John NOT involved would make it a rather odd endeavor, but why should John still get to push everyone around? While I understood what was happening with JohnandYoko in 1968 and 1969, I would not really have appreciated them being joined at the hip for Beatles projects later on, and especially for The Anthology. It would have to be just the four Beatles present for me.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 29, 2008 11:53:18 GMT -5
even though I feel that the other three might be willing to carry on as Beatles without Paul, it would not have been the same at all. How could you think the other three Beatles would have continued "as Beatles" without Paul? They all wanted out!! It was only Paul who wanted the group.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 29, 2008 12:11:02 GMT -5
JSD wrote:
In 1970 apparently three Beatles thought, albeit briefly, that they could carry on without Paul. George Harrison always made it clear both pre-John's murder and after that there could be no Beatles without John Lennon. He never made that statement about Paul.
RTP wrote:
I seriously doubt that first statement. George didn't make the statement about Paul you referred to because Paul was alive and well. If Paul had been dead and John alive...
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 29, 2008 12:20:15 GMT -5
JSD Stated: Thank God that Paul was always a Beatle for the duration of the band but my observation was that for there to be George and Ringo in The Beatles there had to be John
RTP Stated:
I'm not sure what you mean here. It was Paul who got George and Ringo in the band in the first place. George was Paul's friend first before John and Paul actively sought to have him in the group. And Paul was the most vocal about replacing Pete Best. Being the bass player, he had to have a drummer he could work with. Paul is notoriously hard on drummers as the years have shown.
You see John didn't found the Beatles. He founded that nowhere land group (good line JK) the Quarrymen who were amazed at Paul's drive to become a successful and famous professional musician. Their only gig up to then was a relative's wedding. John and Paul founded the Beatles and it was up to them as to whether the group would continue. They could have gone on for a while without John with the idea that he would return after some solo highjinx with Yoko. They certainly had plenty of material between Paul and George. But when Paul got fed up, it was over for good.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 29, 2008 14:42:05 GMT -5
JSD Stated: Thank God that Paul was always a Beatle for the duration of the band but my observation was that for there to be George and Ringo in The Beatles there had to be John RTP Stated: I'm not sure what you mean here. It was Paul who got George and Ringo in the band in the first place. George was Paul's friend first before John and Paul actively sought to have him in the group. And Paul was the most vocal about replacing Pete Best. Being the bass player, he had to have a drummer he could work with. Paul is notoriously hard on drummers as the years have shown. You see John didn't found the Beatles. He founded that nowhere land group (good line JK) the Quarrymen who were amazed at Paul's drive to become a successful and famous professional musician. Their only gig up to then was a relative's wedding. John and Paul founded the Beatles and it was up to them as to whether the group would continue. They could have gone on for a while without John with the idea that he would return after some solo highjinx with Yoko. They certainly had plenty of material between Paul and George. But when Paul got fed up, it was over for good. Yes, Paul announced first that he was leaving. I am just saying that there is some evidence as found in some of the texts that it was possible(it was discussed and considered) that The Beatles could have carried on as John, George, Ringo, Klaus and Billy(at least for awhile) basically as a "f_ck-you" to Paul but there is no evidence that there was ever even a remote chance of Paul, George, Ringo carrying on with some new guitarist or keyboardist other than John. George would not ever consider that. George and John didn't much like Paul by 1970 or at least didn't want to work with him. John and George could tolerate each other it seems back then. Ironically Paul, George and Ringo worked well together on "I Me Mine" but that was four months before Paul's big announcement through a self-penned press Q & A to promote McCartney. It was just John missing another Harrison session but on paper The Beatles were still a group. John, George, Ringo, Klaus and Billy never merged as "Beatles" as John ultimately said screw it and off he went, fast out of the gates with his best two solo albums back to back(the first featuring Ringo the second featuring George). Lennon held the cards to any reformation of The Beatles. George may have said it best, "You[John] had control of our smiles and our tears."
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 29, 2008 21:52:00 GMT -5
But what would have happened if Paul didn't make the announcement? Would they have pretended to still exist? John was done plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 29, 2008 22:42:36 GMT -5
But what would have happened if Paul didn't make the announcement? Would they have pretended to still exist? John was done plain and simple. It would have come to a head somehow, that's for sure. The Klaus and Billy as Beatles idea was apparently because John was furious that Paul beat him to the punch with the announcemnt. It was a,"Fine, let him go we don't need him and we can carry on without him" thing but I suspect that in the end John thought better of it. As you say, he was already gone but was pissed at Paul and himself for not being the one to officially end it.
|
|
|
Post by johnpaulharstar on Jul 29, 2008 22:44:57 GMT -5
I don't think John would ever have agreed to be in a Beatles without Paul. I remember a quote of John's about "I Am The Greatest" from the Ringo album and John saying that it was great fun, but the only downer was George talking about a reformed Beatles with Klauss Voormann and Billy Preston. John may have been down on Paul at times, but he knew that there was no real Beatles without him.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jul 30, 2008 0:09:58 GMT -5
I don't think John would ever have agreed to be in a Beatles without Paul. I remember a quote of John's about "I Am The Greatest" from the Ringo album and John saying that it was great fun, but the only downer was George talking about a reformed Beatles with Klauss Voormann and Billy Preston. John may have been down on Paul at times, but he knew that there was no real Beatles without him. I'm not sure that John's quote or sentiment had anything to do with Paul, per se. I think it had more to do with the bullshit of being in a set band again or trying to relive a myth. He felt he had grown up and had moved on. Playing with the "boys" was fun, but "old." Like high school reunions, they are fun, but who wants to go back to school?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 9:24:53 GMT -5
Lennon held the cards to any reformation of The Beatles. George may have said it best, "You[John] had control of our smiles and our tears." Do you think George's line referred in any way to something like John being the one who would decide if the Beatles were to reform or not? Also - once The Beatles were gone in 1970, the band would never have reformed without all 4 of the original members. Nobody, including George and Ringo, were expendable. If three had said "yes" but Ringo held out and said "no", a reunion would not have happened. And I have always praised the four of them for that.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 30, 2008 10:42:35 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. There probably would not have been an Anthology if he were still alive. I've always thought that if he hadn't past, the reunion would have occurred at Live Aid. They would have been the final act and the rest would have been blissful history. For arguments sake though, he would have told Yoko to bugger off for this occasion. It would be about reminiscing the good old days, and not revisiting the turmoil that she was largely responsible for. Anyway, the other three would have probably refused if she was to sit in.
|
|
|
Post by ChokingSmoker on Jul 30, 2008 10:52:48 GMT -5
I agree 100%, Joe. John may well have ended up in jail rather than on that Hamburg stage without Paul! IMHO, the *X* factor was neither John OR Paul. It was when John AND Paul teamed up as songwriting partners. That splendid rivalry, the ying and yang of their complimenary gifts, was at the heart of the Beatles success. There is no configuration without either man. J/P 50/50; G/R 25/25 = 150%. No disrepect intended to Klaus Voorman who was suggested as a possible replacement, but is Klaus a bass player, singer, songwiter, composer, melodist, multi-instrumentalist, stage performer and chick magnet at the level of Paul McCartney???!!! Is (or was) ANYBODY??? I rest my case... It all leads back to the conclusion that The Beatles broke up at exactly the right time because even though I feel that the other three might be willing to carry on as Beatles without Paul, it would not have been the same at all. You are absolutely right on this account. They almost had to break up with all the distractions from the music. It should have been a temporary breakup though. After all the bullshit on the Let it Be sessions, they put their differences aside temporarily for Abbey Road and blistered out one of their best works in my opinion. There was a lot of game still left in the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 30, 2008 11:48:44 GMT -5
Lennon held the cards to any reformation of The Beatles. George may have said it best, "You[John] had control of our smiles and our tears." Do you think George's line referred in any way to something like John being the one who would decide if the Beatles were to reform or not? Yes. It referred to John's ability to influence them(esp. George) in most Fab matters.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 30, 2008 12:53:25 GMT -5
Lennon held the cards to any reformation of The Beatles. George may have said it best, "You[John] had control of our smiles and our tears." Do you think George's line referred in any way to something like John being the one who would decide if the Beatles were to reform or not? Also - once The Beatles were gone in 1970, the band would never have reformed without all 4 of the original members. Nobody, including George and Ringo, were expendable. If three had said "yes" but Ringo held out and said "no", a reunion would not have happened. And I have always praised the four of them for that. That's why it was so crushing to Paul when he did not want anything to do with Allen Klein (a 3 to 1 vote) the others still made him the manager. That was the first time they had made at least an important move without all agreeing. On the Fly on the Wall LIBN disc, you hear Ringo rejecting the idea of playing overseas. He did not want to make a trip to America. Paul says well I guess that's it, we're not going to America.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 13:39:15 GMT -5
Yes. It referred to John's ability to influence them(esp. George) in most Fab matters. That's quite a stretch of imagination, IMO.\ When George sings "You had control of our smiles and our tears", that just sounds to me like John's general ability to reach people through his music. Unless you think John was the one who controlled George to the point of even telling him when he could cry or smile! Eh, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 30, 2008 16:51:20 GMT -5
Yes. It referred to John's ability to influence them(esp. George) in most Fab matters. That's quite a stretch of imagination, IMO.\ When George sings "You had control of our smiles and our tears", that just sounds to me like John's general ability to reach people through his music. Unless you think John was the one who controlled George to the point of even telling him when he could cry or smile! Eh, whatever. It is interesting because per my view, George was saying in that line that John could make them laugh but he could also rip them a new one and make them cry. The line is only half flattering but it recognized the emotional power John held over the others, especially George. Paul got George in the band by asking John but we know from Cynthia's book and from Astrid of Hamburg that George quickly became a disciple of John's, a serious case of hero worship. Imagine how hurt George was later when John quit really participating on George's songs. Yet in 1974 George is still saying that he'd be in any band that had John Lennon in it! Maybe George had had enough by the time of the book I Me Mine and certainly he finally got John's attention which may be all he wanted to do by omitting John from the book! It is tragic that those two were never to reconcile that, at least in this world.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 17:05:04 GMT -5
we know from Cynthia's book and from Astrid of Hamburg that George quickly became a disciple of John's, a serious case of hero worship. Yes, I know. This is something I do acknowledge, and it has even come from John himself. And John at first thought little George was like a pain-in-the-neck kid hanging around! But here is something interesting on this subject --- there was an interview somewhere (in the late '80s during the CLOUD 9 release time) where George was asked about this! Yes... I forget who interviewed him, but I definitely recall George's reaction... the interviewer told him that John had said George was always hanging around and idolized him in those early days, and George chuckled and while laughing said "well, that's what he thought!" -- and then he composed his laughter and conceded, "oh, I certainly liked him very much..." (I don't recall the rest of the interview clip... these things are scattered all over my room on hundreds of tapes and/or DVDs!).
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jul 30, 2008 21:11:55 GMT -5
we know from Cynthia's book and from Astrid of Hamburg that George quickly became a disciple of John's, a serious case of hero worship. Yes, I know. This is something I do acknowledge, and it has even come from John himself. And John at first thought little George was like a pain-in-the-neck kid hanging around! But here is something interesting on this subject --- there was an interview somewhere (in the late '80s during the CLOUD 9 release time) where George was asked about this! Yes... I forget who interviewed him, but I definitely recall George's reaction... the interviewer told him that John had said George was always hanging around and idolized him in those early days, and George chuckled and while laughing said "well, that's what he thought!" -- and then he composed his laughter and conceded, "oh, I certainly liked him very much..." (I don't recall the rest of the interview clip... these things are scattered all over my room on hundreds of tapes and/or DVDs!). I wonder now if that is why Paul started giving George a hard time musically. Here Paul and George were schoolmates who rode the bus together, discussed their love of rock and roll together, started strumming guitars together and Paul eventually sticks his neck out and convinces older John, a cynical cat with a sharp tongue, to let George in the band and against his better judgment, John says yes. Do George and Paul then form the tightest friendship in the world? No, and in fact the evidence suggests that they were never to be as close as they were before George joined John and Paul. Young George instantly thinks that John Lennon is the coolest dude in the world and by John's and Cynthia's mutual account(the only thing they agree on post-divorce), George always follows John around, a benevolent stalker! Paul must be thinking, "Wow, some thanks I get!" Maybe Paul was so tough on George out of good old fashioned jealousy, he was hurt that he got his schoolfriend George in and now George worships John. Not to mention George was taking John time away from Paul( not really though as John couldn't be bothered with George hardly at all in those first few years). Now I am wondering if Paul came to resent bringing in George for reasons that had little or nothing to do with George's guitar playing. Just fun sociological wondering. ;D
|
|