|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 4, 2008 10:19:08 GMT -5
I'm sitting here listening and watching YouTube videos of the reunion of the four Monkees in the UK in 1997 (supporting the album Justus) and it hit me that all this talk about a real Beatles reunion, if it could have really happened, may not have been the good idea we'd like to think. Admittedly, with the quality of the stuff I'm watching it's hard to take, but honestly, the reunited Monkees didn't sound that great to begin with. (Justus was a bore, to begin with.) They sounded like four separate individuals , rather than a group. Nez, who I worship, especially has to get the blame for that.
The Beatles would have fallen into the same hole. They would have been four individuals, not a group. Each individual, as they (and their estates, as the case may be), would have their own interests, not the group. I will admit the Anthology did work well, but who knows what would have happened if John had really been there. Not to say that he would have caused problems, but who knows what would have happened among the four of them.
Am I thinking too much here, folks? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 4, 2008 10:34:07 GMT -5
I remember during the 1970s really hoping that they would re-unite, but in retrospect, I'm really glad they didn't get back together. I think any reunion would have been an anti-climax.
The seventies was a great decade for music anyway, even without a re-united Beatles. The world had moved on. Yearning for the Beatles to get back together would have been hankering after an, albeit wonderful, past.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 4, 2008 10:38:55 GMT -5
I remember during the 1970s really hoping that they would re-unite, but in retrospect, I'm really glad they didn't get back together. I think any reunion would have been an anti-climax. The seventies was a great decade for music anyway, even without a re-united Beatles. The world had moved on. Yearning for the Beatles to get back together would have been hankering after an, albeit wonderful, past. I would have loved it to have happened if it would have been great. Maybe I'm expecting too much and knowing it couldn't be perfect. But they've always said you can't go back. The Monkees reunion was a good example of that. I'm interested to see what Old Fred will say, since he's a big Monkees fan.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 4, 2008 10:58:26 GMT -5
Reluctantly, I have to agree with both Steve and superhans. [Sigh....] BTW, superhans, your English is impressive! (I'm reminded of the clip where John Lennon is talking about when the Beatles came back from Hamburg and impressed the crowds, who thought they were German! I'm sure you know which clip I mean!)
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 4, 2008 12:14:21 GMT -5
Such reunion, and only for studio recordings(they could never have pulled off a live reunion), would had to have occured in 1974 or early 1975 at the latest to be successful as there was brief parity then in the solo careers of John and Paul. Paul had Band On The Run which overnight made him a contender again and John, who flew high with POB and Imagine, was climbing back from SINYC and in 1974, early 1975, was on a roll doing very well comercially with Walls And Bridges and also contributing to big No. 1's with Elton John and David Bowie.
And John was separated from Yoko and that would have been absolutely critical for him to successfully work in the studio with Paul(and George and Ringo). I am not knocking Yoko but John only had room in his life artistically for either Paul or Yoko and not both. If Yoko was not around, I guarantee that Paul would have had Linda stay away too.
In 1974/75, Ringo was riding high(it was all about to crash) so he would have gotten star treatment from the others and maybe contributed a good song. George's 1974 sucked but he may have tolerated Paul to work again with a Yoko-less John to take some weight off of his shoulders as he had already learned by 1974 that a solo career was hard work. And a reunion might have helped George earn some needed cash! There would be no George though if no Yoko-less John, in my opinion.
After John went back to the Dakota in 1975, no way to a reunion because the musical parity was gone. John lost his muse and/or voluntarily left the music biz for several years while Paul's career skyrocketed.
I would like to think that a Beatles album in late 1974 might have been very special. I think that is the only time it could have been pulled off both physically and artistically with the constraints of December 8, 1980. Anytime sooner and the anger would have still been there and anytime later than mid-1975 and John would have been a mere ghost of himself(until the Summer of 1980) as one just needs to look at that ghastly Polaroid of him in the inner gatefold to Ringo's Rotogravure to see that he could not have stood up to Paul in those final years of the 1970's.
Late 1974, early 1975 would have allowed the four Beatles to work together again by themselves in the studio without significant others. Left to their own devices, they could have created magic.
Alas, we will never know and I limit my opinion to just studio recordings. I would not have wanted a live tour or even a single concert from them as playing live was not their strength.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 4, 2008 13:41:13 GMT -5
anytime later than mid-1975 and John would have been a mere ghost of himself(until the Summer of 1980) as one just needs to look at that ghastly Polaroid of him in the inner gatefold to Ringo's Rotogravure to see that he could not have stood up to Paul in those final years of the 1970's. I have never seen this picture. Does anyone have a link to it? BTW, you make a lot of good points, Huck. If only....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 4, 2008 14:21:33 GMT -5
anytime later than mid-1975 and John would have been a mere ghost of himself(until the Summer of 1980) as one just needs to look at that ghastly Polaroid of him in the inner gatefold to Ringo's Rotogravure to see that he could not have stood up to Paul in those final years of the 1970's. I have never seen this picture. Does anyone have a link to it? BTW, you make a lot of good points, Huck. If only.... Not great but John is first picture on left, bottom row, left side. When I was a 7th grader in 1976 looking at that photo I was appalled. John looked very emotionally weak in that photo and pasty white unlike the tan, assured Macca in the same set. Paul and Ringo are together in top row, right side in the middle. Paul and Linda are right side, 4th row from top in middle espousing vegetarianism I thought that it might be best that John was taking time off back then if he looked so frail.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 4, 2008 14:23:51 GMT -5
I think the only read tragedy of the post-1970 period (vis-a-vis The Beatles collectively) is Lennon's murder in late 1980. I think it's all for the best that they didn't reunite. It would have taken a massive surge of collective ambition and goodwill on the part of all 4 of them to even think of entering the studio as part of that celestial quartet, given the unimaginable weight of expecation (and burden) on them.
The thing I miss is what would have been Lennon's 1980s/90s music. I also think John's contribution to Anthology would have been fantastic, and would have made that whole project so much better. His biting wit is really missing from the finished film, which has way too many aspects of McCartney-isms in it to take all of it seriously.
But no, I don't think a Beatles reunion would have ever worked. It would have been hell on all of them, and we'd now be left with a schzophrenic album with bad mid-70s production.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 4, 2008 15:13:05 GMT -5
I disagree in general, whether it would have been a studio album, single, concert or tour- it could have been huge-because if you got all four in the room "magic" would likely have happened- and it would have happened best circa 74/75 when they were all writing and performing live-as mentioned above.
Don't ask then why Toot and Snore was so bad-they were all stoned and just jamming to oldies. Plus Paul played drums and not too good at that.
I think anything live would have needed an entourage-Preston, Voorman, Keltner, even back up singers. Their egos may have been too big to allow that, but it would have been necessary to pull it off. Anything else there would be too many arguements on the solo stuff. Yes-they would have to either do Beatle versions of 70s hits or new music in addition to 60s hits- otherwise it would have been an oldies act. If it happened say 1975- they would have to do Maybe I'm Amazed or Band on the Run, Imagine, It Don't Come Easy or Photograph, and probably What is Life or Dark Hoarse (wrong spelling intended based on George's voice during this period). No way they do My Sweet Lord. After all that if they made it to the stage, the riots outside would have probably shut everything down.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Oct 4, 2008 17:17:54 GMT -5
And they get back together so that George can have his two songs, Ringo can be patronized, John can believe the hype about his intelligence and genius and wit, Paul can display those famous organizational talents ...
No, I think it would have been a catastrophe. I'm glad it never happened. I wish they had not even got together after the White Album. 1969 was a blot on the landscape of their reputation. (And don't tell me about Abbey Road: the creative flood-tide of the Beatles had long ebbed away, to be replaced by well produced "polite" music.)
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 4, 2008 18:58:26 GMT -5
I remember during the 1970s really hoping that they would re-unite, but in retrospect, I'm really glad they didn't get back together. I think any reunion would have been an anti-climax. The seventies was a great decade for music anyway, even without a re-united Beatles. The world had moved on. Yearning for the Beatles to get back together would have been hankering after an, albeit wonderful, past. I would have loved it to have happened if it would have been great. Maybe I'm expecting too much and knowing it couldn't be perfect. But they've always said you can't go back. The Monkees reunion was a good example of that. I'm interested to see what Old Fred will say, since he's a big Monkees fan. Ok Steve, here we go! Being a huge fan of both the Beatles and the Monkees, back in the 70's I too longed for reunions by both groups. The 'Ringo' album was a pseudo-Beatles reunion, with the other three Fabs contributing to the album, with John, George and Ringo together in the studio for 'I'm The Greatest', with Klaus Voorman filling in for Paul on bass. (Ironically, after Paul left the Beatles in 1970, there was speculation that Klaus would replace Paul in the group. 'I'm The Greatest' gives us a small sample of what that configuration of The Beatles would have sounded like.) Subsequent groupings of various Beatles on each others' records indicates that despite separate directions in music, the various members were able to work quite well together. If John had lived on through the 80's into the 90's and beyond, it's interesting to speculate where his musical muse would have led him. That he and Paul patched things up by the late 70's, the possibility of them working together was quite strong. John himself had voiced the possibility in later interviews. It's unfortunate that John and George had a falling out which was never reconciled due to John's tragic murder, but I'm pretty certain they would have patched things up, George being quoted in the mid-70's that he would join John in a group anytime. If John were alive to fully participate in the Anthology project, there'd be no doubt that his contributions would have been interesting. There most likely might have been a level of friction while they worked things out on the songs, as there was between Paul and George during the making of the Threetle songs, but I think they would have been professional enough to work things through. Despite the sad fact that John wasn't "really there", I think 'Free As A Bird' and 'Real Love' are quite good with what Paul, George and Ringo had to work with. To quote Ringo during the playback of the completed songs, "It sounds like the ****ing Beatles!!!". As for the actual Monkees reunions, I've been able to experience several of them, going back to 1976 with Davy and Micky joining their former songwriters Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart for Dolenz, Jones, Boyce & Hart. Note that 1976 is a pivotal year in that the Monkees first came onto the public scene in 1966 with the debut of their TV series and their first records. At the time 1976 marked 10 years since the Monkees first came on the scene, so it was a pretty exciting time for Monkees fans to at least see half of the group in concert in that year. However, I envied the fans in California who attended the July concert in Disneyland when D, J, B & H were joined on stage by Peter Tork. I have a tape of that show and you can hear the shrieks of excitement from the fans when Peter came onstage. The trio would reunite again a year later at the Starwood Club in California, again to a delirious crowd. Flash forward to the 1980's. I was involved in several fan sponsored Monkees conventions which kept growing with each passing year that the conventions had to be held at ever larger venues. This culminated in the incredibly successful 1986 20th anniversary Monkees reunion tour which featured Dolenz, Jones & Tork. Nesmith, at the time was busy as a video and movie producer with his Pacific Arts company to participate in the reunion, but he gave the other three his blessings. He did join the other three in a surprise and historic show at the Greek Theater in L.A. in September of '86. Watching the video of that amazing show is just as thrilling today as it was then. And a couple of months later, the four Monkees filmed a special Christmas video for MTV which I had the great pleasure of attending, and where I got all four autographs on the December issue of the Monkees Business Fanzine which I was a contributing writer on. It's of course a treasured part of my collection. The four wouldn't reunite again till 1989 when the Monkees received their star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I was again present at this event and Peter even formally introduced me to Nesmith as a longtime and loyal fan. The night before the ceremony all four Monkees performed their first fully rehearsed concert as a group since 1968. Believe me, the atmosphere inside the Universal Amphitheater was absolutely electric and everyone shed tears of emotion, including the Monkees. 1996 marked the 30th anniversary of the Monkees and they decided to record their first album of new material as a group since 1968. With Nesmith helming the project, they took the step of producing the album themselves, writing all the songs and playing all the music, no outside musicians or songs, thus, the concept of the album being 'Justus'. I myself like the album, it has a crunchy, almost garage band quality to it. My major criticism of the album is that it has only one Nesmith lead vocal on it and no Nesmith ballads. Nesmith has written and sung some excellent ballads on his solo albums, and I felt 'Justus' was seriously lacking of a Nesmith ballad. The Monkees did a special one-off show in L.A. to premiere the album. I have a video of the show they did and the excitement level was extremely high. I have friends who attended the show and said it was an amazing experience. Unfortunately, this show would be the very last time all four Monkees would ever perform a concert in the United States together. They filmed a TV special whose premise was that the Monkees TV series was never canceled, they just kept filming episodes which never aired. Nesmith directed this special and it was pretty much his view of what the Monkees were, which seemed a bit cynical. The group embarked on a tour of England with the intention that they would continue the tour in the States. Unfortunately, the British press savaged them unmercifully, the British press is considered the worst in the world, and the way the Monkees were treated on this tour was an example of it. I have friends who attended the shows in England and felt the shows were fantastic. After reading the reviews, they wondered if the critics even saw the same show they did. The consensus was that the critics were nasty just for the sake of being nasty. Nesmith, who never really enjoyed touring, felt he didn't need the aggravation and bowed out of the American leg of the tour, causing a rift with the other three which has never healed. As far as I know, none of the other three Monkees have spoken to Nesmith since then. Now, I have a video of the full show the four Monkees did in Birmingham, England from the 1997 tour. I'm not sure if this is the show Steve has seen videos of, and if it is, I agree the picture quality is not the best, so it doesn't do visual justice to the show. But, from what's there, I thought it was a pretty good show. The early part of the show had the four Monkees performing on their own for the first few songs, then joined on stage by various other musicians who were veterans of the Monkees' reunion tours of the 80's and Nesmith's solo concerts. The show even featured solo performances by each individual Monkee, a practice they started back when the band first began touring in the 1960's, showcasing the individual talents of each member. I felt this portion of the show worked well in showcasing each member and their different musical styles. The Monkees closed off the final section of the concert as a foursome again, and I think the mash-up of 'Listen to the Band' with 'Porpoise Song', led by an aggressive lead vocal by Nesmith, segueing into a spirited finale of 'Pleasant Valley Sunday', is some of the best live music I've ever seen the Monkees perform. After Nesmith pulled out of the American leg of the 1997 tour, the remaining three Monkees retained the structure of the British shows and I went to a couple of the shows on this tour and I felt that tour was perhaps one of the best I ever saw them do, and I've seen them do many shows. My friend Ken Michaels, whose name some may recognize from his Beatles radio shows on XM, attended one of the shows. When the group got to the part of the show with the 'Listen to the Band'/Porpoise Song' segment, when he heard the first familiar strains of 'Porpoise Song', he turned his head to me and mouthed, "Is this....?", and I nodded my head and he told me later that the mixing of the songs worked incredibly well in concert. It was a great tour, but unfortunately after a falling out with Peter Tork, the 2001 reunion tour would be the last tour done with the Dolenz, Jones & Tork configuration of the Monkees. The three members have since reconciled, with Tork making surprise appearances at solo concerts by Dolenz and Jones and Micky making an appearance at one of Peter's concerts. From what I've heard in Monkees circles, while things are more friendlier among the touring members of the band, there won't be any more future Monkees concerts. In conclusion, going back to the Fabs, I think IF the Beatles did reunite in some fashion, and did some kind of tour, I'd like to think that they might have done something similar to what the Monkees did where they would perform group songs together and have segments that showcased the individual talents of the group members, thus satisfying each Beatle and acknowledging their solo work. Of course, this is all speculation, but, something nice to imagine. Dolenz, Jones, Boyce & Hart - 1976 Monkees - Greek Theater 1986 Monkees - Universal Amphitheater 1989 Monkees - 'Listen to the Band'/'Porpoise Song' 1997 Monkees - 'Pleasant Valley Sunday' 1997 Michael Nesmith Solo - Propinquity
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 4, 2008 19:23:33 GMT -5
Fred: Wow. That was very very interesting. Thanks for all that. Not to mention the picture ...
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 4, 2008 19:28:25 GMT -5
Fred: Wow. That was very very interesting. Thanks for all that. Not to mention the picture ... My pleasure Steve.
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Oct 4, 2008 23:05:42 GMT -5
I've always been a firm believer in the finite quality of time. The Beatles time at the top and at the top of their game was 1964 to 1970. In the early 70's I wanted to see the Beatles reunite, but from the vantage point of 38 years, I'm glad they didn't. The Beatles went out at the top of their game and a very impressive run they had. Who could ask for anything more?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 4, 2008 23:52:09 GMT -5
I'm going to open this discussion to the website readers. We'll see where it goes from here. Thanks to everyone who has participated so far.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 5, 2008 2:42:33 GMT -5
When their minds were all pointed in the same direction, there was magic. There would have been magic again, although it is possible - likely, even - that the world may have moved on in the meanwhile.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 5, 2008 10:44:21 GMT -5
OldFred's post convinced me...I'm glad, down-on-my-knees thankful, that a Beatle reunion never happened.
See the Paperback Writer book.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 5, 2008 12:17:53 GMT -5
OldFred's post convinced me...I'm glad, down-on-my-knees thankful, that a Beatle reunion never happened. See the Paperback Writer book. Yes! I was thinking of the exact same thing, especially when he menitioned the "guests/backup" musicians.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 5, 2008 13:03:23 GMT -5
If it was going to be a make "cents" tour, it would have been an unwieldy, disjointed, and labored affar. If it was going to be a make "sense" tour, I think it would have been as competitive as any tour out there at the time, IF a whole lot things fell into place. For it to be a great tour, all 4 would have had to be as one - like the Sullivan shows. At the time, only Paul appeared to be up on the state-of-the tour conditions in the 70s.
The Beatles were very professional early on, but less so as concerts became pointless musically. Concerts in the 70s had become very well-oiled machines. The loose (not in a good Grateful Dead kind of way) Beatles concerts of the 60s would not have been accepted in the light of what the Stones, Led Zep, Tull, ELP, Yes, etc were all able to do. Preparing for tours and the tours themselves were/are hard work. You can't mail it in. You have to WANT to do it. Would they have wanted to do a 2 hour show? Hmmm. Look at the "Let it Be" sessions. If that is how they approached preparation for a reunion tour . . . Yes, the rooftop concert was pretty cool, but a tour is something completely different. The Concert for Bangladesh, also a great one-off, but it's not a tour. We can see glimpses of how great a Beatle tour might have been, but we also see a lot of things that would have made it a bust.
Thus, I think the answer to this question would depend on how much confidence we would have had on the lads themselves. If we believe that it would be a John along with Paul along with George along with Ringo tour, then we would doubt it would be a success. If we believe it would be a BEATLES "all-for-one, one-for-all" - "toppermost of the 'poprockermost' " tour, then it would be a success.
----- As an aside to this question, back before John died, I always thought how the set list would come about. Would they do a retrospective - "Love Me Do" to "The Long and Winding Road"? Would they have any solo material? Would they not do any of their early "cutsey" pop songs a la "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You" and just do their "album rock" songs (remember who else was touring at this time). Would they have done the Red and Blue greatest hits albums live?
I (optimistically and naively) pictured them sitting happily and eagerly around a table after having agreed to do it for the right reasons and agreeing to do a 16-24 song set. Then, they would go around with each member, as in a draft, naming a song they wanted to do. So what if George only picked his songs. Since in this format each one would have 4 to 6 songs to pick, I doubt if anyone would object to doing "Something", "Here Comes the Sun", "For You Blue", "It's All Too Much", or "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", or if John picked "Yer Blues", "Strawberry Fields", "Across the Universe", and "Come Together."
I also pictured this scenario. Each one bringing 24 songs they would do, compare the list, and selecting off-the-bat songs that all 4 happened to have on each others lists, and then going with songs that 3 of them agreed on. If at this point they did not have a full set, they could pick from a John/Paul agreement, John/George, and John/Ringo agreement; Paul/George and Paul/Ringo agreement; and a George/Ringo agreement. Obviously, if there were very few that all 4, or at least 3 of the 4 agreed on, that would be telling about the success of the tour, for it would be a tour of 4 individuals rather than a "group".
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 5, 2008 14:01:08 GMT -5
The Beatles did not re-unite up until Dec. 1980, that is a fact, so leaving the 70's out of the equation, one has to speculate about what might have been from Dec. 1980 (assuming John had never been killed) through Nov. 2001 (when George died of cancer). The 1980's probably would have seen a once again prolific John Lennon in the recording studio since his Double Fantasy album was such a success. The lawsuits amoung the Fabs were not settled until the late 80's, when Neil Aspinall revived The Beatles Anthology project, so my guess is John would have continued to release solo work, and quite possibly formed his own band to record and/or perform with, much like Paul did w/Wings. Julian Lennon's early success recording in the mid-80's (Valotte) would have certainly caught John's attention. Would they have collaborated on record? In Performance? John was a nervous performer after The Beatles broke up. Would he have collaborated more with Elton John? Bruce Springsteen? Mick & Keith? Eric Clapton? Billy Joel? Sting? David Crosby? Brian Wilson? Bono? Bob Dylan? The list goes on..but there were a lot of 80's and 90's acts that would have attracted him as a guest performer, where he would feel safe and less nervous than fronting his own band, since his discipline would have been lacking to really forge a good band without someone like Paul McCartney to hold the group together musically, much as he did The Beatles after Brian died and John lost interest in keeping the band intact. A band must perform live to stay fresh and keep egos in check (aka The Stones). When the lawsuits were settled and Neil got the group to "re-unite" for the Anthology interviews and reunion songs; assuming John was still with us, he probably would have gone along with the project and even the reunion songs, though the songs chosen would have been most likely new projects, and possibly he might have collaborated with George as well as Paul on new material. After the Abbey Road album in 1969, John had a new-found respect for George as a songwriter because of "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun". John also would have seen George mature through the ATMP album up through his work in the 80's, so it is not all that improbable to see him want to write with George for the Anthology project. The reunion songs would probably have morphed into a new album with John alive and participating. Maybe two albums. The the pressure to perform live again, along with the new concert technology of the 90's, would have certainly had the Fabs entertaining the idea, though my guess is that John's nervousness at performing live coupled with his and George's hatred of bringing back the mania of the 60's Beatles concerts, would have limited their performing as The Beatles to very few venues for only limited audiences on special occasions, but aired via satellite and video/DVD releases. These would have started around 1995-96 after the success of the Anthology releases, and would have been short-lived due to George becoming ill with cancer in the late 90's, and certainly after he was attacked in his home in late 1999, that would have ended any Beatles reunion concerts once again. George's passing in 2001 would have ended The Beatles as we knew them for any purpose of recording and performing. Whether the band went on with someone new in George's place as lead guitar, who knows, but The Beatles as we knew them would have ended there. Though the Concert For George in 2002 would have had a totally different look had John been still with us. What a night that would have been with everyone who played PLUS John Lennon! Whew! So, we probably would have had one or two more Beatles albums made in the mid-90's to add to the legacy, and one helluva Concert For George DVD in our collections, not to mention all of John's solo albums he would have made in the 80's, 90's, and beyond. If only things had been different that chilly night in Dec. 1980 in front of The Dakota.......
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 5, 2008 15:40:57 GMT -5
. . . but there were a lot of 80's and 90's acts that would have attracted him as a guest performer . . . I once said in the old board that I thought if John had lived it would have been him and not Neil Young with whom people like Pearl Jam, Kurt Cobain, Green Day, White Stripes, and other harder edge rockers would have wanted to play.
|
|
|
Post by prmcmuffin on Oct 5, 2008 15:51:25 GMT -5
Had the Beatles reunited for 1 concert when the offer was made to them by Bernstein? I think it would have probably gone something like this. Given that George's head was still recovering from Paul's need to be in charge, and John was in the middle of being a househusband-it probably would have come off well. John and Paul might have written 2 or 3 new songs for the event-or like Free as a Bird-or Paul's Cage(a little later), they would have worked to make what would have been solo songs into "Beatle" songs, and given that George was not that into live performances-unless surrounded by Clapton, et.al, he would have done 2 of his songs-that hadn't been performed before-like "Not Guilty"(ugh). Ringo would have just been there to smile, please the audience, and play well. They would have had to practice quite a bit-because by that time, the audiences wouldn't be in the midst of Beatlemania-and not screaming-and they wouldn't want to sound outta tune-like the day and night concerts given in Japan. It would have been slick. They'd probably pick Beatle songs up to "The Beatles"-and the remaining perfomrances would be just as Lennon described The White Album-John with a backing band, Paul with a backing band, and the same with George. It's good they didn't get back together. I wish Get Back/Let it Be had been released before Abbey Road. Let it Be was a crappy way to go out. Some things are better left alone. Repetition was good for Hey Jude-now whenever McCartney shows up-we get the same thing on the way out-Let it Be, Live and Let Die, Hey Jude, and Get Back. Someday soon perhaps he'll realize that the Long Winding Road is/was a much better song than Let it Be. And maybe, he'll look at his solo work and realize that "One of these Days" from McCartney II and Warm and Beautiful from "At the Speed of Sound" are equally as good, although ignored.
|
|
Allan
Very Clean
Posts: 28
|
Post by Allan on Oct 5, 2008 17:45:30 GMT -5
It would have been great hearing John and Paul singing together on "The songs we were singing" (from Flaming pie) , sort of another Two of us.
Maybe instead of reforming for a new album,tour,concert or even single, why not each one guesting on the other's albums?
There are so many great Paul songs, that would have benefitted from John's assistance, and of course hearing John and Paul singing "Now and Then" , would have been very beautiful fitting on a John solo album.
But, when John was living, his wife made it very difficult for him to see the other three, that's why I love his Lost weekend period so much.
|
|
|
Post by rockstar2866 on Oct 5, 2008 22:59:56 GMT -5
I wouldn't have wanted it to be during the eighties, that is for sure. Albums from the 60s and to a lesser extent the 70s sound classic and timeless. Albums from the 80s sound dated. I think Cloud Nine is a great record. But it's production is maddening. Same for John's songs on Double Fantasy. They just reek of 80sness. The fake sounding drums, the stupid sounding synth, the overuse of saxophone...just horrid. The Beatles, had John lived, would have sounded like a joke in the 80s format. On top of that, a reunion at that point would have really lessened their legacy.
However, the 90s were better. They would have been in their 50s-ish, a good age to colloborate again, after so much had happened. During the Anthology period. As much as I find myself wishing for more Beatles music and just that one last show or one last album...if it didn't happen not long after Abbey Road, it shouldn't have happened at all. I'm glad that it didn't.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 6, 2008 0:22:17 GMT -5
It's unfortunate that John and George had a falling out which was never reconciled due to John's tragic murder, but I'm pretty certain they would have patched things up, George being quoted in the mid-70's that he would join John in a group anytime. According to Keith Badman's book, on 26th September 1098 John caught up with George (and Derek Taylor) in Los Angeles where they all attended Python's concert at Hollywood Bowl. Unless Lennon read George's I Me Mine after this it would appear that they were mates again. 9
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 6, 2008 0:32:08 GMT -5
I'm one to wish they had of reformed. I reckon they could have done one of those unplugged kind of shows. Hide Your Love Away etc...
Besides the music it would have been great just to see them interacting with each other.
Nine
|
|
gloi
Very Clean
Posts: 222
|
Post by gloi on Oct 6, 2008 2:13:40 GMT -5
[quote author=nine board=general thread=334 post=3351 time=1223270537[/quote]
on 26th September 1098 John caught up with George (and Derek Taylor) in Los Angeles where they all attended Python's concert at Hollywood Bowl.
9 [/quote]
;D ;D ;D Great news!! Nobody died, they just escaped the rat race in a time machine ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 6, 2008 2:34:44 GMT -5
There have been one or two postings hankering after a 1980s or 1990s reunion -- NO WAY!!! -- I can't think of anything more cringe-worthy than four fifty-something Beatles attempting a reunion. The Beatles were about youth, energy, vigour, colour -- pushing the musical envelope, not a crumbly semi-geriatric nostalgia trip. Honestly... SuperHans:
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 6, 2008 3:21:11 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D Great news!! Nobody died, they just escaped the rat race in a time machine ;D ;D ;D L.O.L!!!! ;D Ooops!!!!!!!! That was a typo! I meant 1980!
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 6, 2008 4:32:45 GMT -5
OldFred's post convinced me...I'm glad, down-on-my-knees thankful, that a Beatle reunion never happened. See the Paperback Writer book. Yes! I was thinking of the exact same thing, especially when he menitioned the "guests/backup" musicians. Yeah, what a bummer it would have been if the reunited Beatles had received a little help from some friends like Eric Clapton, Dave Gilmour, Elton John, Jim Keltner, Tom Petty, Bob Dylan and Billy Preston, with Sir George Martin leading the London Symphony Orchestra to recreate the entire 'Sgt. Pepper' album live. What a rotten concert that would have been.
|
|