|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 12, 2011 9:42:07 GMT -5
There seems to be agreement that whether this film was primarily about George the man or George the musician, Part 1 gets swallowed up in The Beatles and we get precious few insights on that experience for George. As I wrote above, there is a surprising amount of Lennon/McCartney music being played in a "George" documentary during Part 1. Maybe that symbolizes the creative oppression George felt in those years. Maybe George is deliberately downplayed in Part 1 to let us, the viewers, feel his pent-up frustration culminating in the epic ATMP. ;D By the way, Sir George Martin tells the unflattering story of how George Harrison shows up to the SPLHCB sessions with a song Sir George doesn't feel is up to what Martin already feels will be a majestic album and tells George that he should bring something better to the table which Hari ultimately does with "Within You Without You" which Martin rightfully praises. I take it that the song George first offered up was "Only A Northern Song?" Sir George wisely doesn't name the song he thought not Pepper worthy. John, I tend to take stories like that one not at face value because of the years that have passed (and foggy memories, too). It seems that would have come out sooner being the story it is. As for the movie, I think it was very much George the man. That's probably not what everyone else wanted, though.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 12, 2011 9:44:25 GMT -5
I guess I misunderstood it -- I thought Martin was saying that he thought "Within You, Without You" was boring, at first....?
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on Oct 12, 2011 11:58:17 GMT -5
Is there a problem with the DVD version of this? I went into HMV Liverpool on monday to buy myself a copy and there was only a couple of blurays and a single boxset on display.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 12, 2011 18:27:20 GMT -5
There seems to be agreement that whether this film was primarily about George the man or George the musician, Part 1 gets swallowed up in The Beatles and we get precious few insights on that experience for George. As I wrote above, there is a surprising amount of Lennon/McCartney music being played in a "George" documentary during Part 1. Maybe that symbolizes the creative oppression George felt in those years. Maybe George is deliberately downplayed in Part 1 to let us, the viewers, feel his pent-up frustration culminating in the epic ATMP. ;D By the way, Sir George Martin tells the unflattering story of how George Harrison shows up to the SPLHCB sessions with a song Sir George doesn't feel is up to what Martin already feels will be a majestic album and tells George that he should bring something better to the table which Hari ultimately does with "Within You Without You" which Martin rightfully praises. I take it that the song George first offered up was "Only A Northern Song?" Sir George wisely doesn't name the song he thought not Pepper worthy. I believe Geoff Emerick recounts the G. Harrison song offering on SPLHCB in his book as well and says G. Martin did not like "Only A Northern Song" as did John &/or Paul, so G. Harrison dropped it and came back with "Within You."
|
|
|
Post by theman on Oct 12, 2011 21:09:19 GMT -5
Okay, I've got your point. The thing is -- is it really a significant thing in his 31-year "solo" history? I mean, it's all relative, but is it more significant than the entire Cloud 9 project? Certainly not. Is it more significant than the birth of his child and his second marriage? Certainly not. Is it more significant than his entire 1974 to 1987 stretch of music? No way. I think all those things would logically deserve more attention than a money-dispute behind the scenes in courtrooms. That's like saying a John Lennon documentary shouldn't have details like John's fight to stay in America, or the political sides of John's life away from his music. Of course things like George's "My Sweet Lord" controversey should have been mentioned -- how long would it have taken? Five minutes' screen time? I also think the lawsuit could have added something spicy to the film. It didn't have to be approached from the side of the court; it could have been approached from George's benefit, on his side. But I don't see why there has to be a "what's more important, CLOUD 9 or (blank)" approach. Why not just cover it all? I agree. The My Sweet Lord lawsuit and George's reaction to it, both negative (as someone who was always very concerned about his finances) and positive (his tongue in check musical response with "This Song) are a major part of his story. Again, I really feel like the film almost suggests that he did not have a music career after 1974 (other than the obligatory Wilburys part).
|
|
|
Post by theman on Oct 12, 2011 21:13:21 GMT -5
There seems to be agreement that whether this film was primarily about George the man or George the musician, Part 1 gets swallowed up in The Beatles and we get precious few insights on that experience for George. As I wrote above, there is a surprising amount of Lennon/McCartney music being played in a "George" documentary during Part 1. Maybe that symbolizes the creative oppression George felt in those years. Maybe George is deliberately downplayed in Part 1 to let us, the viewers, feel his pent-up frustration culminating in the epic ATMP. ;D By the way, Sir George Martin tells the unflattering story of how George Harrison shows up to the SPLHCB sessions with a song Sir George doesn't feel is up to what Martin already feels will be a majestic album and tells George that he should bring something better to the table which Hari ultimately does with "Within You Without You" which Martin rightfully praises. I take it that the song George first offered up was "Only A Northern Song?" Sir George wisely doesn't name the song he thought not Pepper worthy. I believe Geoff Emerick recounts the G. Harrison song offering on SPLHCB in his book as well and says G. Martin did not like "Only A Northern Song" as did John &/or Paul, so G. Harrison dropped it and came back with "Within You." And he was probably right. "Only a Northern Song" would seem very out of place on "Pepper", unlike "Within You, Without You."
|
|
|
Post by beatleroadie on Oct 12, 2011 22:42:33 GMT -5
As a soundscape with some delicious psychedelic ideas, "Only a Northern Song" works well. It's just that the melody isn't all that great. It's too bad John or Paul didn't take some time to help George improve that aspect a little bit.
I guess the only other track Martin may have been referring to is "It's All Too Much," but to me, that would have been a great addition to Pepper, only it wasn't recorded until a week before Pepper was released.
Slightly off topic, but anyone here know why the 8-minute version of "It's All Too Much" was not the one released on the 2009 MONO MASTERS CD? Because the only mono version was the original 8-minute edit. They must have edited it the same way as the stereo version for some odd reason.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 15, 2011 9:13:03 GMT -5
I felt the documentary told me about George, but it didn't show me much about George. For example, they told me about George's frustration with his songs not being done, but I didn't see much of it. They said George didn't like bullshit and was rather direct with people, but I didn't see it. Ringo talks about a dumb argument Paul and George had about the car keys. I would have liked to have seen examples of George's anger/stubbornness. They said George liked to be with people who were good at what they did, but I saw scant examples of it, other than the usual photo of Ravi, Eric, Jackie Stewart, etc. I was told that George could say a few words to a woman and they would fawn all over him. It would have been nice to see evidence of it.
Although it was nice to see the interviews, it was all the usual suspects. I would have liked to have seen a more diverse group of interviewees. You know, artists, pub owners, grocery clerks, Alvin Lee, Keith Richards, women whom he at least flirted with, film makers, people he partied with, people who felt his sting, etc.
I, too, struggled through the rather "Georgeless" first half. I would have liked to have seen examples of George being a "minor" member of the band. And, I would have liked to have seen more of George's major contributions to the band. Again, I was told, but not shown.
I guess what I'm saying is that the whole thing struck me as an "introduction" to George.
|
|
|
Post by brothermichael on Oct 16, 2011 20:05:40 GMT -5
There seems to be agreement that whether this film was primarily about George the man or George the musician, Part 1 gets swallowed up in The Beatles and we get precious few insights on that experience for George. As I wrote above, there is a surprising amount of Lennon/McCartney music being played in a "George" documentary during Part 1. Maybe that symbolizes the creative oppression George felt in those years. Maybe George is deliberately downplayed in Part 1 to let us, the viewers, feel his pent-up frustration culminating in the epic ATMP. ;D By the way, Sir George Martin tells the unflattering story of how George Harrison shows up to the SPLHCB sessions with a song Sir George doesn't feel is up to what Martin already feels will be a majestic album and tells George that he should bring something better to the table which Hari ultimately does with "Within You Without You" which Martin rightfully praises. I take it that the song George first offered up was "Only A Northern Song?" Sir George wisely doesn't name the song he thought not Pepper worthy. John, I tend to take stories like that one not at face value because of the years that have passed (and foggy memories, too). It seems that would have come out sooner being the story it is. As for the movie, I think it was very much George the man. That's probably not what everyone else wanted, though. Actually that story has been out there for a while, much longer than the Emerick book or something like that. I'm thinking 20-30 years at least. I'm not sure about the source (print or whatever), but I don't think Martin is having a "moment" here.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 31, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
I can now remember why I don't subscribe to HBO anymore(and I only did once when in law school of all times, it must have come with the rent): one sees the same movies over and over all month until one wants to scream. I have now seen Living In The Material World too many times so that I have become unduly critical of it and frankly numb on it! Even Part 2 which is better has become irritating to me. I am canceling my temporary subscription and maybe I'll wait 10 years to watch LITMW again! ;D
|
|
|
Post by brothermichael on Nov 1, 2011 21:35:11 GMT -5
I downloaded the movie and watched it last weekend.
First thought: it should have started with ATMP and traveled forward -- flashing back to Beatle days where appropriate. Scorsese took the opportunity to make his Anthology (IMO it's not George's version at all. The Beatles were careful about who spoke on their documentary, but with with Scorsese there's too much Clapton and some howlers from Yoko. That dig about A-sides was unnecessary, especially in this film.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 1, 2011 22:35:06 GMT -5
I downloaded the movie and watched it last weekend. First thought: it should have started with ATMP and traveled forward -- flashing back to Beatle days where appropriate. Scorsese took the opportunity to make his Anthology (IMO it's not George's version at all. The Beatles were careful about who spoke on their documentary, but with with Scorsese there's too much Clapton and some howlers from Yoko. That dig about A-sides was unnecessary, especially in this film. That A-Side crack, replete with Yoko's sarcastic giggle, was unnecessary. I took greater offense though to Yoko's statement that John was "always" very close to George when that was not true at all especially from August 1971 (Concert For Bangladesh snub of Yoko) to John's murder in Dec. 1980 when John was hardly on speaking terms with George. Yoko's most candid remark was that George could be very direct to the point of being blunt or rude. I agree with your suggestion that the film start at ATMP with only flashbacks to key Beatles moments that actually involved George! Rewatching Part 1 several times now, I still keep asking myself, "Is this Anthology-lite?" and "Wow, is this a documentary on George or what?"
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 2, 2011 6:15:10 GMT -5
I took greater offense though to Yoko's statement that John was "always" very close to George when that was not true at all especially from August 1971 (Concert For Bangladesh snub of Yoko) to John's murder in Dec. 1980 when John was hardly on speaking terms with George. Oh, I'd think she knew John a lot better than you or I, wouldn't you? Maybe John always felt close to George, even if he was hurt by him (when George snubbed Yoko and when George omitted John from the book I ME MINE). Only John and Yoko know what John really felt during Quiet Time. (And while John may have been sore at George with the Bangladesh thing, George also played on the IMAGINE album with John in the same period, so....)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 2, 2011 9:27:17 GMT -5
I took greater offense though to Yoko's statement that John was "always" very close to George when that was not true at all especially from August 1971 (Concert For Bangladesh snub of Yoko) to John's murder in Dec. 1980 when John was hardly on speaking terms with George. Oh, I'd think she knew John a lot better than you or I, wouldn't you? Maybe John always felt close to George, even if he was hurt by him (when George snubbed Yoko and when George omitted John from the book I ME MINE). Only John and Yoko know what John really felt during Quiet Time. (And while John may have been sore at George with the Bangladesh thing, George also played on the IMAGINE album with John in the same period, so....) The Imagine sessions were pre-Bangladesh in 1971, and per Philip Norman's newer book, things were never the same between John and George after George refused permission for Yoko to perform. Norman had the full cooperation and access to Yoko Ono when researching for the book although Yoko later disavowed the book saying Norman was "mean" to John. There is no doubt in my mind of the underlying affection John had for the other three Beatles his whole adult life but John and George were not "close" in the final years in my opinion and I go by John's own remarks in the Apple To The Core interviews of 1971("Paul is at least aware George thinks he is aware but is not, he has a point of view this big[John holds his thumb and index finger an inch apart]"), John's admission of being hurt and resentful of "I, Me Mine" in 1980's Playboy interview, the sharp dig on George on the one Dylan parody(from the househusband years) on Lennon Anthology, George's 1979 RS interview of not having any personal contact with John for years, Paul's statement that John was murdered before George and John could resolve their differences, etc. John certainly cultivated George during the Beatles years as an ally, especially against Paul. George himself had expressed some bitterness about sticking up for John, being in his corner and then John couldn't even be bothered to play on most of George's songs in 1968 and 1969. Paul wasn't the only Beatle who George was angry at towards the end. I guess my point is that Yoko's remarks in the film came off as forced with one specific dig at Paul and what I feel was an inaccurate and sugarcoated summary of a very complex relationship between John and George and I felt that was actually a subtle dig at Paul too, suggesting there was some special bond between John and George that didn't exist between John and Paul. That is how I took it in the context of when she said that in the film. Yoko knew George more than any of us for sure but she knew George less than about everyone else interviewed in the film! Frankly, for the most part John couldn't be bothered with George unless John needed something and that something often had to do with or against Paul McCartney. Yoko was right on when saying George could be blunt to the point of hurting feelings as Yoko was a recipient of that as she said. I actually think John had some justification to be honked off at George yet I recognize that John still deep down cared about all three even if he wasn't physically close to them towards the end.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 2, 2011 13:50:00 GMT -5
I guess my point is that Yoko's remarks in the film came off as forced with one specific dig at Paul and what I feel was an inaccurate and sugarcoated summary of a very complex relationship between John and George and I felt that was actually a subtle dig at Paul too, suggesting there was some special bond between John and George that didn't exist between John and Paul. That is how I took it in the context of when she said that in the film. Yoko knew George more than any of us for sure but she knew George less than about everyone else interviewed in the film! But she likely knew John's heart better than anyone, too. But whatever the case, you know I'm not usually a subscriber of the "hidden agenda digs" and "scandalous innuendo" of everyone, everywhere, any time in BeatleLand. I just get my moptop ruffled whenever there is the usual "Ah-Ha! I think so-and-so was making a jab at so-and-so", every single time, no matter what anyone says, or how they say it. (Remember not so long ago when someone -- was it you? - posted George in 1976 watching the video of THIS BOY, and it was charged that he was supposedly "laughing at Paul"...? I mean, why must everything be automatically presumed to be so "combative and spiteful"?). I'll drink to that.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 2, 2011 19:58:51 GMT -5
Oh, I'd think she knew John a lot better than you or I, wouldn't you? Maybe John always felt close to George, even if he was hurt by him (when George snubbed Yoko and when George omitted John from the book I ME MINE). Only John and Yoko know what John really felt during Quiet Time. (And while John may have been sore at George with the Bangladesh thing, George also played on the IMAGINE album with John in the same period, so....) The Imagine sessions were pre-Bangladesh in 1971, and per Philip Norman's newer book, things were never the same between John and George after George refused permission for Yoko to perform. Norman had the full cooperation and access to Yoko Ono when researching for the book although Yoko later disavowed the book saying Norman was "mean" to John. There is no doubt in my mind of the underlying affection John had for the other three Beatles his whole adult life but John and George were not "close" in the final years in my opinion and I go by John's own remarks in the Apple To The Core interviews of 1971("Paul is at least aware George thinks he is aware but is not, he has a point of view this big[John holds his thumb and index finger an inch apart]"), John's admission of being hurt and resentful of "I, Me Mine" in 1980's Playboy interview, the sharp dig on George on the one Dylan parody(from the househusband years) on Lennon Anthology, George's 1979 RS interview of not having any personal contact with John for years, Paul's statement that John was murdered before George and John could resolve their differences, etc. John certainly cultivated George during the Beatles years as an ally, especially against Paul. George himself had expressed some bitterness about sticking up for John, being in his corner and then John couldn't even be bothered to play on most of George's songs in 1968 and 1969. Paul wasn't the only Beatle who George was angry at towards the end. I guess my point is that Yoko's remarks in the film came off as forced with one specific dig at Paul and what I feel was an inaccurate and sugarcoated summary of a very complex relationship between John and George and I felt that was actually a subtle dig at Paul too, suggesting there was some special bond between John and George that didn't exist between John and Paul. That is how I took it in the context of when she said that in the film. Yoko knew George more than any of us for sure but she knew George less than about everyone else interviewed in the film! Frankly, for the most part John couldn't be bothered with George unless John needed something and that something often had to do with or against Paul McCartney. Yoko was right on when saying George could be blunt to the point of hurting feelings as Yoko was a recipient of that as she said. I actually think John had some justification to be honked off at George yet I recognize that John still deep down cared about all three even if he wasn't physically close to them towards the end. This photo is supposedly from 1974 (or later). So it is definitely post Bangladesh. How's the saying go; "A picture is worth a thousand words?" Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 2, 2011 22:17:47 GMT -5
The Imagine sessions were pre-Bangladesh in 1971, and per Philip Norman's newer book, things were never the same between John and George after George refused permission for Yoko to perform. Norman had the full cooperation and access to Yoko Ono when researching for the book although Yoko later disavowed the book saying Norman was "mean" to John. There is no doubt in my mind of the underlying affection John had for the other three Beatles his whole adult life but John and George were not "close" in the final years in my opinion and I go by John's own remarks in the Apple To The Core interviews of 1971("Paul is at least aware George thinks he is aware but is not, he has a point of view this big[John holds his thumb and index finger an inch apart]"), John's admission of being hurt and resentful of "I, Me Mine" in 1980's Playboy interview, the sharp dig on George on the one Dylan parody(from the househusband years) on Lennon Anthology, George's 1979 RS interview of not having any personal contact with John for years, Paul's statement that John was murdered before George and John could resolve their differences, etc. John certainly cultivated George during the Beatles years as an ally, especially against Paul. George himself had expressed some bitterness about sticking up for John, being in his corner and then John couldn't even be bothered to play on most of George's songs in 1968 and 1969. Paul wasn't the only Beatle who George was angry at towards the end. I guess my point is that Yoko's remarks in the film came off as forced with one specific dig at Paul and what I feel was an inaccurate and sugarcoated summary of a very complex relationship between John and George and I felt that was actually a subtle dig at Paul too, suggesting there was some special bond between John and George that didn't exist between John and Paul. That is how I took it in the context of when she said that in the film. Yoko knew George more than any of us for sure but she knew George less than about everyone else interviewed in the film! Frankly, for the most part John couldn't be bothered with George unless John needed something and that something often had to do with or against Paul McCartney. Yoko was right on when saying George could be blunt to the point of hurting feelings as Yoko was a recipient of that as she said. I actually think John had some justification to be honked off at George yet I recognize that John still deep down cared about all three even if he wasn't physically close to them towards the end. This photo is supposedly from 1974 (or later). So it is definitely post Bangladesh. How's the saying go; "A picture is worth a thousand words?" In 1974 and pre-Sean 1975, John more than the other three was talking Beatles reunions. It was a window that closed all too soon. John also worked with George while helping Ringo on "I'm The Greatest" post-Bangladesh but I stand by my citations above to different sources, including the Norman book written with full and candid access to Yoko, that suggests relations were forever strained between John and George post-Bangladesh. I forgot to mention the May Pang account where George grabbed John's glasses off his face and really let rip to John. John responded amazingly mature to that but it reveals pent up rage in George towards John for sure. As I wrote, I have no doubt the four always loved each other deep down but vanity, pride and petty beefs kept John, Paul and George from interacting with one another more than a few precious times from 1970 to 1980. With John gone it didn't get all that much better between Paul and George until perhaps the 1990's and Anthology. I think it shatters our Beatles fantasies to know that three of the four Beatles had very little use for each other even after all they went through together in the 1960's.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 4, 2011 7:24:21 GMT -5
[This photo is supposedly from 1974 (or later). So it is definitely post Bangladesh. How's the saying go; "A picture is worth a thousand words?" I was just listening to the September 1974 WNEW Lennon radio interview again (one of the very best things John ever did - if some of you never heard it, do so!!) and he talks of things being friendly with all the Beatles, and says he's going to see George.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Nov 4, 2011 8:51:17 GMT -5
[This photo is supposedly from 1974 (or later). So it is definitely post Bangladesh. How's the saying go; "A picture is worth a thousand words?" I was just listening to the September 1974 WNEW Lennon radio interview again (one of the very best things John ever did - if some of you never heard it, do so!!) and he talks of things being friendly with all the Beatles, and says he's going to see George. There may have been a reconciliation in 1973-74 but it didn't last because in the interviews just before his death John spoke bitterly at times about his relationship with George and the I Me Mine mini-biography. Still they were all four like brothers who fought at times. They all respected and loved each other deep down. Its just that at times it was too deep to manifest itself. BTW John looks completely out of it in that picture. It could be miscons(c)rued as a close personal moment. Its hard to tell.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 4, 2011 9:38:54 GMT -5
My guess is that John completely misread I, Me, Mine, which is hardly a biography at all, much more a statement of George's personal philosophies and beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Nov 4, 2011 12:42:10 GMT -5
The relationships between John, Paul, and George are certainly fascinating and could be the subject of numerous books, Ph.D dissertations, etc., in and of themselves.
My Grandfather once told me: [Panther], your sister may make fun of you and drive you crazy, but if anyone else says anything about you to her -- watch out!!" And I think that's how it was with The Beatles. They really were like brothers, very close and therefore prone to infighting.
As far as George and John go, I generally infer that their relationship went like this: 1957-1959: John views George as a young kid, not to be taken seriously. John said that George came to Mendips once, wanting to go to the movies, and John pretended not to be in because he was too embarrassed to be seen hanging out with a kid like George. 1960-1964: John and George are friends and have mutual respect, but there is clearly a George-wants-to-please-John vibe still, and John still views George as a bit of a kid. 1965-1968: Big change -- in 1965, George and John (and wives) take LSD together, and this seems to unite G & J. They become closer (even collaborating a bit on 'Tomorrow Never Knows'), and begin to form a sort-of alliance to balance Paul's sometimes over-earnestness and workaholic tendencies. G & J are also the two Beatles most committed to meditation and the Maharishi... until they leave. 1969-1970: In January at the 'Get Back' sessions, George and John come to physical blows and George walks out, temporarily quitting The Beatles. George was apparently angry at John's lack of commitment to the band, and also at Yoko's perennial presence in the studio. (John's seeming lack of interest in some of George's greatest compositions may also have been a factor.) John further disses George when All Things Must Pass comes out, but he later backtracks a bit when it becomes an enormous hit. Early-mid 1971: George and John are somewhat reconciled in anger towards Paul; George throws John a bone by coming to Tittenhurst to play on Imagine. August 1971: George refuses to allow Yoko to co-headline with John at The Concert for Bangladesh. This is the final straw in driving a wedge between J & G. Late 1975 (?): George loses his temper over the phone with John when the latter won't show up to sign the papers dissolving The Beatles.
There was clearly lots of love and mutual respect in the relationship, but there was also lots of jealously, hurt, and spite, especially after about 1968-69. As hard as John was sometimes to George, George always maintained good words for John. There's a wonderful 1973-1974 radio interview with George where he describes John as "a saint" (he means literally), despite the fact that they were fairly estranged at the time.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 4, 2011 12:42:58 GMT -5
[This photo is supposedly from 1974 (or later). So it is definitely post Bangladesh. How's the saying go; "A picture is worth a thousand words?" I was just listening to the September 1974 WNEW Lennon radio interview again (one of the very best things John ever did - if some of you never heard it, do so!!) and he talks of things being friendly with all the Beatles, and says he's going to see George. Yea, I have that interview on my ipod right after the entire Beatles catalogue plays out in chronological order. It follows I Me Mine, and right after it comes the two "Reunion" songs FAAB and RL, and I close out my Beatles catalogue with John (at the conclusion of the rooftop concert in 1969) thanking everyone and his classic remark; "I hope we passed the audition." I put it in to remind me of John's perspective on The Beatles in the 70's when he was not really angry about anything or anybody in the band at that moment. John could change his opinion on just about anything or anyone quicker than the weather changes. That interview catches him in a really good, honest moment I think. And he speaks warmly of his former bandmates.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 4, 2011 19:58:11 GMT -5
[This photo is supposedly from 1974 (or later). So it is definitely post Bangladesh. How's the saying go; "A picture is worth a thousand words?" I was just listening to the September 1974 WNEW Lennon radio interview again (one of the very best things John ever did - if some of you never heard it, do so!!) So how do I access it? Is it on YouTube?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 4, 2011 22:25:14 GMT -5
I was just listening to the September 1974 WNEW Lennon radio interview again (one of the very best things John ever did - if some of you never heard it, do so!!) So how do I access it? Is it on YouTube? This is the access to Part 1 of 4 of John's WNEW radio interview in 1974. You can easily access the other parts on youtube as well. John spent the day as guest DJ on the show and talked quite freely about The Beatles. He was in a very good mood that day.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Nov 6, 2011 21:33:16 GMT -5
So how do I access it? Is it on YouTube? This is the access to Part 1 of 4 of John's WNEW radio interview in 1974. You can easily access the other parts on youtube as well. John spent the day as guest DJ on the show and talked quite freely about The Beatles. He was in a very good mood that day. Cool! Thanks, LB!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2011 6:40:43 GMT -5
I downloaded the movie and watched it last weekend. Thanks for the tip...i've now acquired part 1 and i am currently acquiring part 2......I've also just scored Birth of the Beatles and Wings Rockshow.. I need to buy a few beers and kick back and have a Beatley night at the movies... ;D
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Nov 12, 2011 14:56:38 GMT -5
For all of us in the UK "Living in the Material World" is on BBC2 tonight (part 1) and concludes tomorrow night.
Set your recording equipment!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Nov 13, 2011 18:32:43 GMT -5
Well it's now been shown on TV in the UK and we didn't have to pay anything to watch it (other than our TV licence fee of course).
It's not what I expected. Not at all. I will give it another watch to digest the whole story. But it seemed to be all over the place. Was it about George the man, his music or his life and philosophy?
It seemed to be a part 1 about the Beatles until 1969. Using a lot of footage that we'd seen and heard from Anthology but in much more haphazard manner.
Then part 2 was about George walking out of the Get Back sessions and the break up of the Beatles. It almost felt like he went solo did All Things Must Pass , The Concert for Bangladesh, toured America, funded the "Life of Brian", took a decade off in the 1980s punctured by an interview alongside Ringo on a Micheal Aspel TV show and formed the Wilburys for the 1990s.
Where the Beatles Anthology had a logical and temporal progression, interspersed with their greatest songs and interviews and felt like you weren't missing the overall story. This left some huge gaps.
George's music was somewhat understated and ignored in large chunks. Although he was painted as a deeply spiritual guy I still have no idea what religion he subscribed to.
I'll have to watch it again.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 13, 2011 22:45:50 GMT -5
Well it's now been shown on TV in the UK and we didn't have to pay anything to watch it (other than our TV licence fee of course). It's not what I expected. Not at all. I will give it another watch to digest the whole story. But it seemed to be all over the place. Was it about George the man, his music or his life and philosophy? It seemed to be a part 1 about the Beatles until 1969. Using a lot of footage that we'd seen and heard from Anthology but in much more haphazard manner. Then part 2 was about George walking out of the Get Back sessions and the break up of the Beatles. It almost felt like he went solo did All Things Must Pass , The Concert for Bangladesh, toured America, funded the "Life of Brian", took a decade off in the 1980s punctured by an interview alongside Ringo on a Micheal Aspel TV show and formed the Wilburys for the 1990s. Where the Beatles Anthology had a logical and temporal progression, interspersed with their greatest songs and interviews and felt like you weren't missing the overall story. This left some huge gaps. George's music was somewhat understated and ignored in large chunks. Although he was painted as a deeply spiritual guy I still have no idea what religion he subscribed to. I'll have to watch it again. No, you nailed it perfectly stavros! It was all over the place. Sorry Hari fanatics but George is only important as a pop musician who was once a Beatle. If the film was supposed to be about George the spiritual person, then why? George's spiritual beliefs are no more, or less, important than any of us and films aren't made about us. The film miserably fails in tackling George's music, the sole reason he is important! I paid $23.00 to see it with the hidden costs and fees from the stupid cable company(they say $10.00 per month but my bill increased by $23.00 with taxes and bullshit surcharges!). The thing is I watched it a hundred times on HBO and it got worse each time!
|
|
|
Post by stavros on Nov 14, 2011 15:41:23 GMT -5
Well it's now been shown on TV in the UK and we didn't have to pay anything to watch it (other than our TV licence fee of course). It's not what I expected. Not at all. I will give it another watch to digest the whole story. But it seemed to be all over the place. Was it about George the man, his music or his life and philosophy? It seemed to be a part 1 about the Beatles until 1969. Using a lot of footage that we'd seen and heard from Anthology but in much more haphazard manner. Then part 2 was about George walking out of the Get Back sessions and the break up of the Beatles. It almost felt like he went solo did All Things Must Pass , The Concert for Bangladesh, toured America, funded the "Life of Brian", took a decade off in the 1980s punctured by an interview alongside Ringo on a Micheal Aspel TV show and formed the Wilburys for the 1990s. Where the Beatles Anthology had a logical and temporal progression, interspersed with their greatest songs and interviews and felt like you weren't missing the overall story. This left some huge gaps. George's music was somewhat understated and ignored in large chunks. Although he was painted as a deeply spiritual guy I still have no idea what religion he subscribed to. I'll have to watch it again. No, you nailed it perfectly stavros! It was all over the place. Sorry Hari fanatics but George is only important as a pop musician who was once a Beatle. If the film was supposed to be about George the spiritual person, then why? George's spiritual beliefs are no more, or less, important than any of us and films aren't made about us. The film miserably fails in tackling George's music, the sole reason he is important! I paid $23.00 to see it with the hidden costs and fees from the stupid cable company(they say $10.00 per month but my bill increased by $23.00 with taxes and bullshit surcharges!). The thing is I watched it a hundred times on HBO and it got worse each time! Underwhelming was the best description I could come up with. I just didn't get it at all. I wanted a soundtrack that showed George at his best. from All Things Must Pass to Brainwashed. interspersed by what was going on in each period of his life. But we got a hotch potch. Some of it very good and a lot of it poorly chosen. Maybe I was expecting a George Anthology type film? In fact using clips from the Beatles Anthology made me expect that. Where was his late 70s music? Did he even record Cloud 9 and tour Japan? Imagine was very well done. Wingspan was a bit sanitised but at least showed the story of Wings from the first flap to the last flight. Sorry George but this was so disappointing because the one thing people loved you for was your music. And that was almost sidelined to tell the world that you were really just a spiritual gardener who had his own film company and liked motor racing.
|
|