|
Post by pbirdchat on Aug 11, 2008 21:56:37 GMT -5
Ever since I was in high school, there were always people, some of them my friends, who thought the Beatles were over rated. Even as an adult, I still find people who just don't get it!
I think one of the reasons people don't see the greatness, is because they just haven't seen the right performances. Take the solo Beatles for instance...
If I were to put together a DVD of Ex Beatles performances that captured their greatness, here is what I'd include:
1. John Lennon singing Gimme Some Truth from the Gimme Some Truth DVD
2. Paul McCartney and Wings doing Junior's Farm from McCartney Years DVD
3. George Harrison playing slide on Cloud 9 live from Japan from Dark Horse DVD
4. Ringo doing Instant Amnesia from his DVD Ringo Rama DVD
5. Cold Turkey John, Live In New York City Video
6. Venus and Mars / Jet Paul, Wings Over America DVD
7. While My Guitar Gently Weeps George and Ringo Bangladesh DVD
8. Ringo with Marc Bolan Children Of The Revolution T REX DVD
9. Yer Blues John, Rock n Roll Circus DVD
10. Get Out Of My Way Paul, Saturday Night Live performance 93'
11. Cracker Box Palace Promo George, Dark Horse DVD
12. I Was Walkin' Ringo and Roundheads, Hard Rock VH1 performance
What would the rest of you include?
Darren D'Rito
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Aug 11, 2008 22:14:08 GMT -5
When I was in high school (late 60s, early 70s) two good friends of mine thought Simon & Garfunkel were greater then the Beatles. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 11, 2008 22:17:09 GMT -5
I think any of those George live in Japan performances are great. My favorite is "Cheer Down."
|
|
|
Post by pbirdchat on Aug 11, 2008 22:22:27 GMT -5
I love Cheer down too! Most people have never seen George play the slide live. And the tone!!!!! Great. Darren D'Rito
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 11, 2008 23:34:16 GMT -5
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for a former member of a mega-famous band to maintain his/her status and relevance as a "solo" artist. One good example is Sting, who saw no decrease in his popularity and profile for a good ten or more years after The Police ended (maybe he did in the UK, but not in the rest of the world). There are other examples from the 'pop' world like George Michael and Robbie Williams, who in sum did better after their "groups" than as solo performers.
So, my thesis is that the conventional theory of "nothing possibly being able to follow The Beatles" is not valid, and especially considering how young the guys were when The Beatles came crashing down.
I think the reason a lot of people after the 60s were less than fascinated by the former Fabs' careers is... the ex-Beatles were far too inconsistent. Unless you're a super-fan of a prolific artist, you're going to invest only in the things that are force-fed you by mass media, or in the things that you've heard/you know are the best bang for the buck. So, if you were coming-of-rock-age (say, age 15) in 1977, you might not be that tempted to buy 33&1/3 or "Mull of Kintyre" when you could just get a few Beatles LPs (probably compilations).
You also have to consider how much the "Live Spectacle" of RAWK became the norm in the 70s (which it never was in the smaller-scale 60s). None of The Beatles toured much or at all in the 70s (I guess Paul did a couple of large-scale tours; George did one short one; John did none; did Ringo tour in the 70s at all? Don't think so). So, the inconsistent former Fabs were studio-only artists for most young fans, and thus seemed less 'real' and accessible.
But, in the end, it all comes down to records and their quality -- none of The Beatles made consistently great albums. For me, George's first two studio albums are both great (both US #1 hits, in fact); John's first two post-Beatle LPs are also great, but the third is awful, and the rest are middling; Ringo made one or two pretty good ones, but nothing major; Paul recorded (too) prolifically and it hurt his output -- he was all over the map, but I personally find none of his releases consistently satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 12, 2008 10:01:41 GMT -5
Ever since I was in high school, there were always people, some of them my friends, who thought the Beatles were over rated. Even as an adult, I still find people who just don't get it! I think one of the reasons people don't see the greatness, is because they just haven't seen the right performances. Take the solo Beatles for instance... What would the rest of you include? John Lennon: Mother, Instant Karma, Cold Turkey, Imagine and Come Together from the night performance as shown on the ABC television special of the One To One Concert, where Geraldo hosts. Very powerful performances. This would instantly shut-up the guys from school who blew us crap for liking The Beatles or the four members. John is unbelievable on these, I fully expected to see him walk over thin air and over the audience after these performances. Other bands had heavier musical backing but John had the ultimate rock and roll stage presence and charisma here. Ringo Starr: The Vh-1 Storytellers is quite good as is the Soundstage performance. Even very casual Beatles' fans or nonfans might begrudgingly enjoy. George Harrison: An entire professionally shot concert from Japan or, better yet, the one time concert George did in England to help a political party friendly to the environment. This was in 1992 I believe and from the boot video I have, George is on fire, pumped to be playing back in England. I do love watching George play his guitar on those selections from the Japanese Tour on the Dark Horse dvd. "Beware Of Darkness" from Bangladesh is terrific. Paul McCartney: Rockshow or the dvd from 2002. Both show Paul at the top of his live game and he is irresistable musically in these two movies. Even the Beatle haters would have to concede that Paul's got live game, a true master.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 12, 2008 11:45:49 GMT -5
I said in another thread that most fans only only got to see the afternoon rehearsal of Lennon's only full concert in the 70s (or ever-Toronto was just a set).
I agree the evening show is Lennon at his best. At least some were put on Anthology, but not Imagine.
To my knowledge, Ringo's only live performance in the 70s other than the two Bangladesh shows was the Last Walz with the Band.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 12, 2008 12:16:51 GMT -5
Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for a former member of a mega-famous band to maintain his/her status and relevance as a "solo" artist. One good example is Sting, who saw no decrease in his popularity and profile for a good ten or more years after The Police ended (maybe he did in the UK, but not in the rest of the world). There are other examples from the 'pop' world like George Michael and Robbie Williams, who in sum did better after their "groups" than as solo performers. So, my thesis is that the conventional theory of "nothing possibly being able to follow The Beatles" is not valid, and especially considering how young the guys were when The Beatles came crashing down. I think the reason a lot of people after the 60s were less than fascinated by the former Fabs' careers is... the ex-Beatles were far too inconsistent. Unless you're a super-fan of a prolific artist, you're going to invest only in the things that are force-fed you by mass media, or in the things that you've heard/you know are the best bang for the buck. So, if you were coming-of-rock-age (say, age 15) in 1977, you might not be that tempted to buy 33&1/3 or "Mull of Kintyre" when you could just get a few Beatles LPs (probably compilations). You also have to consider how much the "Live Spectacle" of RAWK became the norm in the 70s (which it never was in the smaller-scale 60s). None of The Beatles toured much or at all in the 70s (I guess Paul did a couple of large-scale tours; George did one short one; John did none; did Ringo tour in the 70s at all? Don't think so). So, the inconsistent former Fabs were studio-only artists for most young fans, and thus seemed less 'real' and accessible. But, in the end, it all comes down to records and their quality -- none of The Beatles made consistently great albums. For me, George's first two studio albums are both great (both US #1 hits, in fact); John's first two post-Beatle LPs are also great, but the third is awful, and the rest are middling; Ringo made one or two pretty good ones, but nothing major; Paul recorded (too) prolifically and it hurt his output -- he was all over the map, but I personally find none of his releases consistently satisfying. According to Billboard, Paul was the No. 1 recording artist of the 1970s beating out Elton John by a narrow margin. I don't know what all this talk is about not doing well after the breakup. Certainly Paul did well. He had a slide in the 1980s but came back strong by the end of the decade.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 12, 2008 12:22:58 GMT -5
A great performance was Paul doing a spot on version of My Love on his 1973 TV Special. It was a better performance than the record. There was a good performance of Live and Let Die on the same special.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 12, 2008 16:39:21 GMT -5
If I was Jan Brady I'd moan to RTP : "Paulie, Pauile, Paulie!!!!"
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Aug 12, 2008 17:39:57 GMT -5
I don't know what all this talk is about not doing well after the breakup. Certainly Paul did well. I agree. He rapidly became a master purveyor of froth and bubble. And as most consumers want nothing more demanding than that, he did just fine. What slide? As the 70s became the 80s (and 90s and noughties), he smoothly became frothier and bubblier. Paul has been nothing if not consistent.
|
|
|
Post by pbirdchat on Aug 12, 2008 20:56:55 GMT -5
I remember seeing the One TO One special but it was in 1972 on a 13 inch black and white TV. What performances on the Live In New York VHS is from the evening show? None right? I thought it was mostly if not all from the afternoon show.
My other question is this....when will it come out on DVD? If it does, I hope it's remixed because I always thought the Elephants drummer sucked and his snare drum sounded crappy and flabby. He needs to be mixed down or out and let Jim Keltner supply the majority of the back beat. Include rehearsals and Geraldo's Goodnight America segment. Darren D'Rito
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 12, 2008 22:20:51 GMT -5
According to Billboard, Paul was the No. 1 recording artist of the 1970s beating out Elton John by a narrow margin. I don't know what all this talk is about not doing well after the breakup. Certainly Paul did well. He had a slide in the 1980s but came back strong by the end of the decade. (Yawn...) Is it necessary to come to Paul's defense every time a poster doesn't rate him as his personal deity, as you do? No one is saying he didn't "do well". I said he wasn't consistent. Which wasn't my point. I was commenting on the original poster's point (that a lot of people aren't familiar with the post-Beatles stuff) and trying to explain why it might be so. Certainly we all know Paul did well commercially, but then again so did Madonna and Bon Jovi.
|
|