|
Post by OldFred on Oct 9, 2008 8:29:45 GMT -5
I'd rather have it than not have it: both the songs and the faux videos. Someone did this will home equipment I still think the Faux Beatles You Tube Now and Then is also fantastic. Now there are dozens-some very good, some downright awful-most fake except Come Together and Two of Us from the official Beatles.com Here are two video/audio versions of 'Now and Then' I found on YouTube which I think are quite creative. Thanks for referencing them. Now and Then - One Version Now and Then - Two Version And here's the original John Lennon Verson And, an Extra Bonus Track: Grow Old With Me
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 9, 2008 9:12:29 GMT -5
"The Beatles were about youth, energy, vigour, colour -- pushing the musical envelope, not a crumbly semi-geriatric nostalgia trip." Superhans The Beatles were about youth, energy, vigour, colour because they broke up before anybody was even 30 years old. A reunion would have been "A crumbly, semi-geriatric nostalgia trip"?? I don't think a reunion in the 90's (had John not been killed) would have been that at all. They would have only been in their early to mid-fifties, and they would not have just played their old hits. Is Springsteen (now pushing 60) a crumbly, semi-geriatric? The Stones are certainly as relevant today as they ever were. Just watch Martin Scorcese's recent film of their New York performances, and tell me they look crumbly, or semi-geriatric. John and Paul & George would have written some pretty impressive material for a Beatles re-union album had they chosen to do so in the mid-nineties around the Anthology project. But as I wrote, once George began his battle w/cancer, the Beatle magic would have again ended once more, this time for good. But I'll lay odds John & Paul would have written something unique to honor their mate at the Concert For George in 2002. Then they would have put the legacy to rest along with George. ...but the Stones haven't released a decent album since the 1970s. I'm no expert on Springsteen, but his most acclaimed material dates from the late 70s and early 80s. The Beatles golden period was the 1960s. They were the greatest band of all time -- far more special than the Stones or Bruce Springsteen -- and I'm glad they never sullied or tarnished their legacy by attempting a desultory, mega-buck$, world stadium tour as a bunch of slightly disgruntled fifty-somethings.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 9, 2008 11:49:16 GMT -5
"The Beatles were about youth, energy, vigour, colour -- pushing the musical envelope, not a crumbly semi-geriatric nostalgia trip." Superhans The Beatles were about youth, energy, vigour, colour because they broke up before anybody was even 30 years old. A reunion would have been "A crumbly, semi-geriatric nostalgia trip"?? I don't think a reunion in the 90's (had John not been killed) would have been that at all. They would have only been in their early to mid-fifties, and they would not have just played their old hits. Is Springsteen (now pushing 60) a crumbly, semi-geriatric? The Stones are certainly as relevant today as they ever were. Just watch Martin Scorcese's recent film of their New York performances, and tell me they look crumbly, or semi-geriatric. John and Paul & George would have written some pretty impressive material for a Beatles re-union album had they chosen to do so in the mid-nineties around the Anthology project. But as I wrote, once George began his battle w/cancer, the Beatle magic would have again ended once more, this time for good. But I'll lay odds John & Paul would have written something unique to honor their mate at the Concert For George in 2002. Then they would have put the legacy to rest along with George. ...but the Stones haven't released a decent album since the 1970s. I'm no expert on Springsteen, but his most acclaimed material dates from the late 70s and early 80s. The Beatles golden period was the 1960s. They were the greatest band of all time -- far more special than the Stones or Bruce Springsteen -- and I'm glad they never sullied or tarnished their legacy by attempting a desultory, mega-buck$, world stadium tour as a bunch of slightly disgruntled fifty-somethings. The Stones may not have released an decent album in your opinion since the 70's, but the recent Scorcese film certainly shows they are not crumbly or semi-geriatric when they play live! And Springsteen's recent "Magic" album is as good, in my opinion, as any of his early stuff. I agree The Beatles are/were legions above Springsteen or The Stones, and Bruce and Mick (maybe not Keith!) would be the first to admit that, but had they reunited in the 90's, George and John would never have agreed to a world stadium tour, but I could have imagined a world-televised one-time gig, say back in Liverpool, maybe at The Cavern? Or at a stadium in Liverpool, or knowing John and George, someplace really off the wall, like their rooftop concert was in 1969. We hold The Beatles legacy so "sacro-sanct" now, we tend to think nothing they would have done in a reunion, whether it be an album or live concert would have lived up to their work in the 60's. But they were human and fallible just like the rest of us. Does the "Let It Be" album in 1969 really stand up to the rest of their catalogue in the 60's as iconic? We all know they were the best band ever, and the gold standard to which everyone else is measured, but as John once said, (paraphrased) "We were just a band that made it very, very big. It's nothing special, if you want to reminisce, you have all the old records there." Well, It sure would have been nice to have one or two more albums, or a DVD of a special live reunion event done in the 90's, to reminisce to, along with the other old records. I don't think it would have tarnished their image, just given us some more good memories of the greatest band ever.
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Oct 9, 2008 19:58:18 GMT -5
a bunch of slightly disgruntled fifty-somethings. You've just described most of my friends!
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 9, 2008 20:21:49 GMT -5
a bunch of slightly disgruntled fifty-somethings. You've just described most of my friends! ;D
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 10, 2008 2:17:57 GMT -5
You've just described most of my friends! ;D Me too! We could get a load of t-shirts run off - "Fifty, grumpy and proud."
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Oct 10, 2008 21:58:00 GMT -5
Me too! We could get a load of t-shirts run off - "Fifty, grumpy and proud." The T-shirt thing is a great idea, superhans! But...no man-boobs. Guys, especially us older guys, if you've noticed you're growing man-boobs, get in the damn gym and hit those weights! It's bad enough we've got hair growing out of our ears, we don't need to suffer the humiliation of 'man-boobs'. Ours is a proud generation, one that should go out with a BANG...not a whimper! I'm proud to say I'm living a 'man-boob' free life and I think you should too! This has been a public service announcement.
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Oct 11, 2008 10:08:42 GMT -5
I think at the end of the day on all of this, it would have come down to what they put out. In the 80s- no lessons learned- we just got a manufactured faux Threetle single (back-up vocals could have been anybody and Ringo already mailed his part in), a missed opportunity at Live Aid, a lost invitation from Carl Perkins to McCartney for a TV special, a one year off appearance at Prince’s Trust (Paul ‘86, George/Ringo ‘87), and a R & R HOF sham which got the wrath of Mike Love (picture replacement Stooge Joe Besser going “oooh I’m scarred!!!!”). [/quote What's the story on the "lost invitation" from Carl Perkins? I have never heard that. I'd just always assumed that, although Carl and Paul were "old friends," that this was George's deal and no one wanted to complicate it, Paul included, by bringing the Beatle soap opera into it. THey did rehearse at Friar Park, and this was mid-1980s, some time before Paul and George started to become comfortable with each other, at least publicly.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 11, 2008 11:02:55 GMT -5
I never thought a Beatles Reunion was a good idea, not for new music and not for longterm touring. As a one-show event for a LIVE AID or something, fine.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 11, 2008 18:48:34 GMT -5
None that I know of-I was being sarcastic-I think Paul should have been there too-nothing to do with Beatles-just old friends and influences.
George really was a big part of the special. I never saw it until recently. Too bad the sound is so crummy-the performances are excellent.
It was really Eric and Patti's invitation to John in '79 that was never sent. Clapton supposedly didn't think John would fly out. Now anyone who saw that "reunion" has said it was nothing more than a very loose (and very bad)jam.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 11, 2008 19:05:15 GMT -5
Me too! We could get a load of t-shirts run off - "Fifty, grumpy and proud." The T-shirt thing is a great idea, superhans! But...no man-boobs. Guys, especially us older guys, if you've noticed you're growing man-boobs, get in the damn gym and hit those weights! It's bad enough we've got hair growing out of our ears, we don't need to suffer the humiliation of 'man-boobs'. Ours is a proud generation, one that should go out with a BANG...not a whimper! I'm proud to say I'm living a 'man-boob' free life and I think you should too! This has been a public service announcement. My niece and nephew sang a song for us once (to the tune of "Bad Boys", the theme of the Fox TV show "Cops"... ) Man boobs, man boobs Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when ya got man boobs? Repeat ad nauseum...
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 13, 2008 12:43:05 GMT -5
The T-shirt thing is a great idea, superhans! But...no man-boobs. Guys, especially us older guys, if you've noticed you're growing man-boobs, get in the damn gym and hit those weights! It's bad enough we've got hair growing out of our ears, we don't need to suffer the humiliation of 'man-boobs'. Ours is a proud generation, one that should go out with a BANG...not a whimper! I'm proud to say I'm living a 'man-boob' free life and I think you should too! This has been a public service announcement. My niece and nephew sang a song for us once (to the tune of "Bad Boys", the theme of the Fox TV show "Cops"... ) Man boobs, man boobs Whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when ya got man boobs? Repeat ad nauseum... Man boobs, along with a pronouced pot-belly, give a man an air of panache....of mystery and sophistication and dentoes love of fine living. A recent scientific study in the respected medical journal Das Monatlich medizinischer Klatsch revealed that when 100 German women were shown a random image of a man taken at a beer convention with a large stomach and dressed in lederhosen, as many as three percent said they found the image attractive! <.... raises large flagon of Pilsner....>
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 13, 2008 20:58:44 GMT -5
Man boobs, along with a pronouced pot-belly, give a man an air of panache....of mystery and sophistication and dentoes love of fine living. Woo hoo, I'm back in the game!
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 14, 2008 2:26:29 GMT -5
Man boobs, along with a pronouced pot-belly, give a man an air of panache....of mystery and sophistication and dentoes love of fine living. A recent scientific study in the respected medical journal Das Monatlich medizinischer Klatsch revealed that when 100 German women were shown a random image of a man taken at a beer convention with a large stomach and dressed in lederhosen, as many as three percent said they found the image attractive! <.... raises large flagon of Pilsner....> Sorry...I've just re-read the article. The figure was actually 0.3%. Still, that's nearly half, isnt it?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 14, 2008 3:11:52 GMT -5
A recent scientific study in the respected medical journal Das Monatlich medizinischer Klatsch revealed that when 100 German women were shown a random image of a man taken at a beer convention with a large stomach and dressed in lederhosen, as many as three percent said they found the image attractive! <.... raises large flagon of Pilsner....> Three percent! Raises my odds considerably....
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 14, 2008 21:15:33 GMT -5
>:(Dear Webmaster, How did this topic of a Beatles reunion morph into a discussion about male boobs? If we are not going to stick to the topic at hand, what is the point of this Message board? It is starting to look like that Canadian blogger, Terry, you used to have on the site, who turned his blog into an obsession with Paul's ex-wife. If you want to talk about The Beatles, great. If you want to talk about male boobs, then maybe this Message Board needs more supervision before it turns into a silly, useless Board for people who need to get a life.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 14, 2008 21:33:33 GMT -5
>:(Dear Webmaster, How did this topic of a Beatles reunion morph into a discussion about male boobs? If we are not going to stick to the topic at hand, what is the point of this Message board? It is starting to look like that Canadian blogger, Terry, you used to have on the site, who turned his blog into an obsession with Paul's ex-wife. If you want to talk about The Beatles, great. If you want to talk about male boobs, then maybe this Message Board needs more supervision before it turns into a silly, useless Board for people who need to get a life. It got a little silly for a couple of posts, but it should get back to topic soon enough. Thanks for the concern.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 14, 2008 21:47:56 GMT -5
How did this topic of a Beatles reunion morph into a discussion about male boobs? I totally agree. I volunteer to bring this back to the Beatles. Did you know "Please Please Me" is about oral sex? And, what's with this "tit tit tit tit tit" in "Girl"?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 15, 2008 3:49:36 GMT -5
A degree of lightening up may be in order. I'm as serious as anyone in my enthusiasm for all things Fab, but I'm also happy to take any opportunity for a laff. Not enough laffs in the world.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Oct 15, 2008 4:10:31 GMT -5
A degree of lightening up may be in order. I'm as serious as anyone in my enthusiasm for all things Fab, but I'm also happy to take any opportunity for a laff. Not enough laffs in the world. <.... looks around innocently....>
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 15, 2008 4:57:55 GMT -5
How did this topic of a Beatles reunion morph into a discussion about male boobs? I totally agree. I volunteer to bring this back to the Beatles. Did you know "Please Please Me" is about oral sex? And, what's with this "tit tit tit tit tit" in "Girl"? I think that PLEASE PLEASE ME "oral sex" stuff is a load of wishful thinking nonsense. I'm not even 100% convinced that the sounds of "tit tit tit" in GIRL actually mean what they sound like.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 15, 2008 8:50:48 GMT -5
I totally agree. I volunteer to bring this back to the Beatles. Did you know "Please Please Me" is about oral sex? And, what's with this "tit tit tit tit tit" in "Girl"? I think that PLEASE PLEASE ME "oral sex" stuff is a load of wishful thinking nonsense. I'm not even 100% convinced that the sounds of "tit tit tit" in GIRL actually mean what they sound like. The "tit tit tit" in "Girl" is true. I don't recall how it's been documented.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 15, 2008 11:39:48 GMT -5
I totally agree. I volunteer to bring this back to the Beatles. Did you know "Please Please Me" is about oral sex? And, what's with this "tit tit tit tit tit" in "Girl"? [/quote] So much for trying to have a mature discussion about The Beatles. I'm all for a few laughs as well. I am not interested in reading stupid useless comments. Too bad it has come to this. The topic in the Subject line was a good one and worthy of intelligent comments. Where it has gone to says no one else has anything interesting to contribute, so I'll take the cue as well, and move on.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Oct 15, 2008 17:14:20 GMT -5
I think that PLEASE PLEASE ME "oral sex" stuff is a load of wishful thinking nonsense. I'm not even 100% convinced that the sounds of "tit tit tit" in GIRL actually mean what they sound like. The "tit tit tit" in "Girl" is true. I don't recall how it's been documented. Didn't John Lennon point it out in one of his interviews?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 16, 2008 4:49:42 GMT -5
I'm not sure but I think it was in THE BEATLES FOREVER where I read something about the "tit tit tit" thing (the author's point of view). But I don't remember offhand any real verification. The bit in GIRL may be a clever naughty little gag, okay ... but it's the PLEASE PLEASE ME reference to oral sex that I'm really disagreeing with.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 16, 2008 7:17:44 GMT -5
I'm not sure but I think it was in THE BEATLES FOREVER where I read something about the "tit tit tit" thing (the author's point of view). But I don't remember offhand any real verification. The bit in GIRL may be a clever naughty little gag, okay ... but it's the PLEASE PLEASE ME reference to oral sex that I'm really disagreeing with. Cum on.. cum on Cum on..cum on etc.. Please please me oh yeah like I please you :-)
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 16, 2008 7:59:50 GMT -5
Cum on.. cum on Cum on..cum on etc.. Please please me oh yeah like I please you :-) Thanks for reference. For those who think it is NOT about oral sex, then what do you think it's about - holding hands? Being "pleased" in a platonic sense? When two people are attracted to each other and have an affection for each other, they usually don't say "He pleases me" and not mean anything other than sexual. When the person in the song says, "Please please me like I please you", just what is she NOT doing that he is doing to "please" him. He doesn't need to show her the way, because he's already shown her by doing it to her. Our lads were very randy young fellows AND very clever. I wouldn't put it past them to write the tamest sounding song about oral sex. By the way, what do you think "Drive My Car" is about? NASCAR?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2008 8:26:26 GMT -5
Is Drive my Car really about sex,maybe you can read that into it if that's where your at... Asked a girl what she wanted to be, She said, baby can't you see? I wanna be famous, a star of the screen, But you can do something in between. Baby, you can drive my car, yes I'm gonna be a star, Baby, you can drive my car, and maybe I'll love you. I told that girl that my prospects were good, She said, baby it's understood, Working for peanuts is all very fine, But I can show you a better time. Baby, you can drive my car, yes I'm gonna be a star, Baby, you can drive my car, and maybe I'll love you. Beep beep mm, beep beep yeh! Baby, you can drive my car, yes I'm gonna be a star, Baby, you can drive my car, and maybe I'll love you. I told that girl I could start right away, And she said, listen, babe, I've got something to say, Got no car, and it's breaking my heart, But I've found a driver, that's a start. Baby, you can drive my car, yes I'm gonna be a star, Baby, you can drive my car, and maybe I'll love you. Beep beep mm, beep beep yeh!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 16, 2008 8:35:07 GMT -5
Cum on.. cum on Cum on..cum on etc.. Please please me oh yeah like I please you :-) Thanks for reference. For those who think it is NOT about oral sex, then what do you think it's about - holding hands? Being "pleased" in a platonic sense? When two people are attracted to each other and have an affection for each other, they usually don't say "He pleases me" and not mean anything other than sexual. When the person in the song says, "Please please me like I please you", just what is she NOT doing that he is doing to "please" him. He doesn't need to show her the way, because he's already shown her by doing it to her. Our lads were very randy young fellows AND very clever. I wouldn't put it past them to write the tamest sounding song about oral sex. Neither would I, if I believed that was the case here. Still doesn't mean this was the intent at all with regard to this particular song. You know, pleasing someone is not only "in the sexual pleasure sense". My God, is this yet another example of how low we're sinking? All through life I (and I suspect most other people) have heard PLEASE PLEASE ME and have basically thought: "Oh, Come on ... please do right by me as I do by you ... do you really need me to point the way and why do I always have so coax you into giving me the same consideration...?" -- but now everything's immediately so sex-charged that this is the immediate connoation? I also think that John Lennon, especially during all those later peiods where he was desperately trying to "beunk the myth of the innocently lovable lads", would be the first to let us know they weren't so innocent in this song. He talked about his intrigue simply by using the "double entendre" of the word "please" (like that old line "please lend your ear to my pleas", or whatever it was). It's just a way to use "please" two times, IMO. I'd be the first to pat Lennon on the back and say "right on, you clever, naughty fella!" if I really believed the intent was oral sex. I guess George Martin was fooled too? But this business about taking lyrics so literally, you don't really want to go there, do you? If so, there are many Beatles songs and other artists' music where the words mean basically nothing. Where listeners put more "meaning and intenet" into a song than any artists (even the prolific Bob Dylan) ever planned. To sum it up here, I don't mean to say people can't have their own interpretations. I just don't believe that PLEASE PLEASE ME was intended to be a disguised song about oral sex. If Lennon admitted it somewhere, I will be 'eating a lot of crow' -- but then again I'm getting older and don't recall things as easily as I once did!
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Oct 16, 2008 8:55:01 GMT -5
Now anyone who saw that "reunion" has said it was nothing more than a very loose (and very bad)jam. But..... I'm sure there'd be some wedding footage of that. Ditto Ringo's marriage to Barbs....
|
|