|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 24, 2012 21:46:32 GMT -5
Last night on Don't Trust the B is Apartment 23, Van Der Beek was talking about a Dawson's Creek reunion. He says "You don't put the Beatles back together without John Lennon. I'm John Lennon and Paul McCartney, bitch". I have no idea what show that is but the quote is kind of cool, in a cocky, in your face kind of way.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 25, 2012 12:54:25 GMT -5
Of course, no one has done more in recent years to make the Beatles look redundant, boring and passe than McCartney himself with his lamentable, high-profile croak-along performances. You're dismissing all of his great performances and members of this board can attest to that.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 25, 2012 12:56:47 GMT -5
She knew the Beatles but not John Lennon. Does that say that 100 years from now, solo contributions of the Fab Four will fade while The Beatles music will forever remain popular? A volley to post this yet again ;D That's funny but I think they would get their names right. Maybe not. Its also funny that most of the commentators have Beatle haircuts. The dark skinned Beatle must have come from some confusion about Chuck Berry/Little Richard/Fats Dominate.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 18, 2012 22:52:45 GMT -5
A Beatles' reference on tonights The Simpsons:
The school nurse gives Lisa beetle mush because she has an iron deficiancy. Lisa says "But I promised Paul McCartney that I wouldn't eat meat. The school nurse says "Yeah, and I promised Paul McCartney that I wouldn't sleep with John Lennon". She nods kind of like "yep, I did".
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 19, 2012 4:23:14 GMT -5
I went to a brass band concert yesterday to review it for the local paper. The musical director, who knows me well, challenged me to say what was wrong with a piece entitled Lennon-McCartney Medley (it contained Something). I facetiously offered that it failed to give credit to Pete Shotton's wife for her lyrical contribution to Michelle.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Nov 25, 2012 15:07:25 GMT -5
From a Nov 12 Castle, a rock star gets killed and they are questioning the guy who did it.
Bass player "We're finally about to hit it big and he wants to Pete Best me?!"
Castle whispering to Kate "You know, Pete Best was a drummer. I think Stu Sutcliffe would have been a more apt comparrison".
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 27, 2012 17:55:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Dec 8, 2012 14:20:41 GMT -5
I just now watching the grammy nominations show from 12/5. Little Big Town (?) were announcing the nominations for best new artist, and they said that "...this has gone to everyone for Bobby Darin to the Beatles to Bon Iver. And speaking of the Beatles..." and they sang an occapello verse of Yesterday.
I guess that could have been for the old folks but I think they were trying to up their cool factor.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 10, 2013 21:46:10 GMT -5
The Family Guy did a spot tonight on every girl having their own version of Prince Charming. It switches to teen girls swooning over the Beatles, with Beatle posters all over the wall. The joke was on Ringo.
|
|
|
Post by bobrobert on Feb 12, 2013 11:43:32 GMT -5
It's like asking someone to let go of their heart.
They don't get it.
The writer ignores the "X" factor, which has nothing to do with popularity, leaps in studio technology pioneered by the band, guitar solos, lyrics, melodies, post-Beatle activities, any of that.
They don't get how "I'll Follow The Sun" stopped me from committing suicide in 1995 because I realized I would never get to hear it again if I went through with it.
The Beatles' world is, simply, better than this one from time to time, and I prefer to dwell in Strawberry Fields. Doesn't hurt you, or me, or anyone.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 12, 2013 15:23:12 GMT -5
bobrobert, very nice post.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 12, 2013 16:33:42 GMT -5
Indeed. Very well said, bobrobert.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Feb 15, 2013 16:33:19 GMT -5
I agree. When I'm near schools (no, I'm not lurking), I notice the t-shirts kids are wearing and I see lots of Beatles shirts. More than any other single performer. I also see a fair share of "classic rock" bands: Doors, Pink Floyd, Stones, Led Zep, etc. After the Beatles, I see lots of Ramones shirts. I think metal (old and new) is the second most represented genre. I hardly see any current bands or too many post-90s bands. I was at the store today and overheard two kids behind me and one of them had a birthday today. I told her, you know you share a birthday with a famous person. She said "who?" I said, "Do you know who John Lennon was?" She said no, so I said do you know the Beatles?" She said "yes." I said, "He was one of the Beatles." She said, "Oh, I like them." Cool 12 year old, if you ask me. She knew the Beatles but not John Lennon. Does that say that 100 years from now, solo contributions of the Fab Four will fade while The Beatles music will forever remain popular? No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 15, 2013 18:10:37 GMT -5
She knew the Beatles but not John Lennon. Does that say that 100 years from now, solo contributions of the Fab Four will fade while The Beatles music will forever remain popular? No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group. And is that because you think Paul will dominate and it will prove beyond a doubt that the other three were his sidemen? We already have that belief now with the uninitiated! You have expressed that before and it does seem to run against the "whole is greater than the individual parts" feeling most fans have. Watching the Melbourne concert, I realized that "All My Loving" is 100 times better live with George Harrison singing harmony vocals rather than just Paul doubletracked as on the studio version. The more Beatles involved in a song the better most of the time. True, solo Paul on Yesterday is a billion times better than the live 1966 version with electric guitars and drums as that song wasn't meant for that but "Oh! Darling" wouldn't be a throwaway if John was doing harmony vocals with Paul. That would have given the song some real soul and not just screaming. "Come Together" would be better if Paul was head-to-head with John on the mic instead of Paul overdubbing his vocal parts later so I also like more Paul when that is the case. "Two Of Us" is great because it is great to hear the interplay of Paul and John's harmony vocals and the song would be twee if John wasn't singing anything. Each Beatle made the other better whether that Beatle actually contributed a note, a line or just a look!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 15, 2013 19:51:27 GMT -5
She knew the Beatles but not John Lennon. Does that say that 100 years from now, solo contributions of the Fab Four will fade while The Beatles music will forever remain popular? No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group. I agree solo contributions of the Fab Four will morph into the Beatles music much more than it is today. But I do not agree with your last statement. Or hope. I don't think solo contributions will ever come into more focus than they are today. And the individuals work as The Beatles will be less and less attributed to the individuals (as it is now) and much more attributed to the group going forward. Why? Because that is the accurate history of the group. Even now, most fans attribute the music of the White Album, Let It Be, and Abbey Road to the group, even though in the case of especially the White Album, and LIB, John once said; (paraphrased) "We were more or less sidemen to the individual who created the song" on those albums. You could argue that on any Beatle song, whoever didn't write the lyrics or create the melody was technically a "sideman". But they all contributed to the songs in some way if they played on them. So not sure of the definition of "sideman" that John was referring to in his comment. I assume he meant they did nothing but simply play on the song. Ok. But that is still contributing to it in some way. I don't see the White Album, or LIB, or AR for that matter in the same way as John once described them. They were often created by one individual, who then directed exactly what he wanted the others to do, rather than letting them just play whatever they felt, and accepting it, which was more often the case on earlier albums. But even on the early albums, the creator, or creators, often did the same thing, telling the others what he would like them to play, or sing on the tracks. So, I just don't see that much of a major difference.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 15, 2013 20:15:34 GMT -5
No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group. I agree solo contributions of the Fab Four will morph into the Beatles music much more than it is today. But I do not agree with your last statement. Or hope. I don't think solo contributions will ever come into more focus than they are today. And the individuals work as The Beatles will be less and less attributed to the individuals (as it is now) and much more attributed to the group going forward. Why? Because that is the accurate history of the group. Even now, most fans attribute the music of the White Album, Let It Be, and Abbey Road to the group, even though in the case of especially the White Album, and LIB, John once said; (paraphrased) "We were more or less sidemen to the individual who created the song" on those albums. You could argue that on any Beatle song, whoever didn't write the lyrics or create the melody was technically a "sideman". But they all contributed to the songs in some way if they played on them. So not sure of the definition of "sideman" that John was referring to in his comment. I assume he meant they did nothing but simply play on the song. Ok. But that is still contributing to it in some way. I don't see the White Album, or LIB, or AR for that matter in the same way as John once described them. They were often created by one individual, who then directed exactly what he wanted the others to do, rather than letting them just play whatever they felt, and accepting it, which was more often the case on earlier albums. But even on the early albums, the creator, or creators, often did the same thing, telling the others what he would like them to play, or sing on the tracks. So, I just don't see that much of a major difference. Egos were much smaller in the early days, so when the writer, or writers, told the others what they wanted; it was no problem, they simply complied. By 1967-68, egos were much bigger individually, and perhaps being told what to do on a particular song didn't go over as easily as it had in the early days. I think ego had a lot to do with John's remark that they "felt like sidemen" on each others tracks in the later years.
|
|
|
Post by bobrobert on Feb 16, 2013 14:09:59 GMT -5
"Watching the Melbourne concert, I realized that "All My Loving" is 100 times better live with George Harrison singing harmony vocals rather than just Paul doubletracked as on the studio version. "
Can't say I agree with ya on that, pal. George isn't singing harmony on the third verse - he's singing the lead while Paul jumps to the harmony above the lead vocal is because neither George nor John can cleanly hit the G# note on the syllables "morrow" in "tomorrow I'll miss you." So Paul himself has to do the harmony. Lame, but nobody really cares, including me.
Live, too, Paul didn't sing that song with the masculinity and purpose he brought to the studio recording. In the studio version, I really believe he is speaking to a specific person and means what he says.
Live, there was the whole screaming thing, and smiling and being charming, etc. It's a very personal song, and live it becomes a football cheer.
Not that that's a bad thing! But the studio version to me is the one that won my heart.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 16, 2013 19:22:04 GMT -5
"Watching the Melbourne concert, I realized that "All My Loving" is 100 times better live with George Harrison singing harmony vocals rather than just Paul doubletracked as on the studio version. " Can't say I agree with ya on that, pal. George isn't singing harmony on the third verse - he's singing the lead while Paul jumps to the harmony above the lead vocal is because neither George nor John can cleanly hit the G# note on the syllables "morrow" in "tomorrow I'll miss you." So Paul himself has to do the harmony. Lame, but nobody really cares, including me. Live, too, Paul didn't sing that song with the masculinity and purpose he brought to the studio recording. In the studio version, I really believe he is speaking to a specific person and means what he says. Live, there was the whole screaming thing, and smiling and being charming, etc. It's a very personal song, and live it becomes a football cheer. Not that that's a bad thing! But the studio version to me is the one that won my heart. I am not a musician but whatever George is singing I like it better than the studio recording. To each their own, right? I don't know you so don't call me pal.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Feb 16, 2013 20:11:37 GMT -5
[quote author=" ReturnToPepperland" "No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group." That may be true in a way. There's a San Francisco radio station that has a two-hour all Beatles radio show every Saturday and they mix in plenty of solo stuff along with the Beatles. But I think ultimately "the Beatles" will be remembered as a distinct historical entity that embodied the '60s decade with a very finite number of albums that defined that period from beginning to end. And their solo albums, as interesting as many of them are, will be viewed as a far secondary enterprise.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 16, 2013 22:22:03 GMT -5
[quote author=" ReturnToPepperland" "No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group." That may be true in a way. There's a San Francisco radio station that has a two-hour all Beatles radio show every Saturday and they mix in plenty of solo stuff along with the Beatles. But I think ultimately "the Beatles" will be remembered as a distinct historical entity that embodied the '60s decade with a very finite number of albums that defined that period from beginning to end. And their solo albums, as interesting as many of them are, will be viewed as a far secondary enterprise. Agree Ace....
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 16, 2013 22:26:27 GMT -5
"Watching the Melbourne concert, I realized that "All My Loving" is 100 times better live with George Harrison singing harmony vocals rather than just Paul doubletracked as on the studio version. " Can't say I agree with ya on that, pal. George isn't singing harmony on the third verse - he's singing the lead while Paul jumps to the harmony above the lead vocal is because neither George nor John can cleanly hit the G# note on the syllables "morrow" in "tomorrow I'll miss you." So Paul himself has to do the harmony. Lame, but nobody really cares, including me. Live, too, Paul didn't sing that song with the masculinity and purpose he brought to the studio recording. In the studio version, I really believe he is speaking to a specific person and means what he says. Live, there was the whole screaming thing, and smiling and being charming, etc. It's a very personal song, and live it becomes a football cheer. Not that that's a bad thing! But the studio version to me is the one that won my heart. The Beatles opened their historic first Ed Sullivan TV Show on Feb. 9, 1964 with "All My Loving", and the rest is as they say, history. I would guess they chose that as their first song as they felt it would make the biggest impression. They were right....
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 16, 2013 23:34:44 GMT -5
"All My Loving" is a great song. And on Ed Sullivan one could hear George Harrison sing along with Paul unlike on the record. George proudly points this out on the long forgotten Capitol album The Beatles Story. Besides, at every Paul McCartney concert I go to I cry like a baby when Paul performs this song because on March 15, 1983 my first college girlfriend was playing AML on her brand new Sony Walkman and unwittingly stepped into the intersection of 10th and Jordan in Bloomington and was decapitated by an I.U. bus. That became right there our post-humous song.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Feb 17, 2013 7:10:50 GMT -5
She knew the Beatles but not John Lennon. Does that say that 100 years from now, solo contributions of the Fab Four will fade while The Beatles music will forever remain popular? No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group. Well, if it all gets morphed together, wouldn't it start with a best of the solo years compilation? Imagine, Maybe I'm Amazed, What Is Life, Photograph, Mull Of Kintyre, Give Me Love, Mind Games, It Don't Come Easy, You etc....
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Feb 17, 2013 12:23:03 GMT -5
[quote author=" ReturnToPepperland" "No, it will be all morphed together as Beatles music. I still hold out hope that the individual Beatles will come into more focus and their work with the Beatles will be attributed to the individuals at least as much as it is now attributed to the group." That may be true in a way. There's a San Francisco radio station that has a two-hour all Beatles radio show every Saturday and they mix in plenty of solo stuff along with the Beatles. But I think ultimately "the Beatles" will be remembered as a distinct historical entity that embodied the '60s decade with a very finite number of albums that defined that period from beginning to end. And their solo albums, as interesting as many of them are, will be viewed as a far secondary enterprise. Agree Ace.... I set up my Beatles Slider Page on the premise that the Beatles went onto their solo careers, but still would pull together "official" LPs corresponding to certain time periods, at least through the 70s. Even if they did that for real (as did the Monkees, Kiss and even the Who), I really think at the end of the day the Beatles only existed from 1960-1970. But I do think the music of Lennon, McCartney and Harrison will cover the entire body of work.
|
|
|
Post by bobrobert on Feb 18, 2013 21:01:38 GMT -5
"Watching the Melbourne concert, I realized that "All My Loving" is 100 times better live with George Harrison singing harmony vocals rather than just Paul doubletracked as on the studio version. " Can't say I agree with ya on that, pal. George isn't singing harmony on the third verse - he's singing the lead while Paul jumps to the harmony above the lead vocal is because neither George nor John can cleanly hit the G# note on the syllables "morrow" in "tomorrow I'll miss you." So Paul himself has to do the harmony. Lame, but nobody really cares, including me. Live, too, Paul didn't sing that song with the masculinity and purpose he brought to the studio recording. In the studio version, I really believe he is speaking to a specific person and means what he says. Live, there was the whole screaming thing, and smiling and being charming, etc. It's a very personal song, and live it becomes a football cheer. Not that that's a bad thing! But the studio version to me is the one that won my heart. I am not a musician but whatever George is singing I like it better than the studio recording. To each their own, right? I don't know you so don't call me pal. I did not mean to imply that I know you. I was using the word "pal" as one might use the term "guy" or "dude," or "friend." I assume everyone on this board is my friend, even if they disagree with my opinion, or vice-versa. Have a sweet day, all you need is love, love is all you need.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 18, 2013 22:47:36 GMT -5
Besides, at every Paul McCartney concert I go to I cry like a baby when Paul performs this song because on March 15, 1983 my first college girlfriend was playing AML on her brand new Sony Walkman and unwittingly stepped into the intersection of 10th and Jordan in Bloomington and was decapitated by an I.U. bus. WTF??
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Feb 18, 2013 22:55:14 GMT -5
I agree solo contributions of the Fab Four will morph into the Beatles music much more than it is today. I agree and have written about this before. I think years from now when there is no one around who remembers when the last Beatle died, the whole Lennon/McCartney thing will have been done away with, except for the real 50/50 collaborations. Also, musicologists will see the Lennon catalog going back to Winston's Walk, the McCartney catalog going back to Cayenne, and the Harrison catalog going back to Don't Bother Me. We saw a hint of it in George's Hall of Fame induction. Didn't they play While My Guitar Gently Weeps? Since he was already inducted as a Beatle, WMGGW was accounted for. They could have played any one of his post-Beatles stuff, but they played a song he did as a Beatle, therefore, part of his catalog. Didn't he do Taxman and Something in his tour of Japan? Those are George songs, not Beatle songs, so Tomorrow Never Knows and Rain are John songs, not Beatle songs, and Here, There, and Everywhere and Hey Jude are Paul songs, not Beatle songs. I think the reason for this career long view will be because, as a study, it is quite interesting to examine the scope of their respective growth and changes as writers from their 20s to their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s (and hopefully 80s and 90s . . . for Paul). I think with the objectivity of time, a lot of their solo songs will be seen as equal to or better than some of the songs they wrote as a Beatle.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 18, 2013 23:13:23 GMT -5
I agree and have written about this before. I think years from now when there is no one around who remembers when the last Beatle died, the whole Lennon/McCartney thing will have been done away with, except for the real 50/50 collaborations. Also, musicologists will see the Lennon catalog going back to Winston's Walk, the McCartney catalog going back to Cayenne, and the Harrison catalog going back to Don't Bother Me. We saw a hint of it in George's Hall of Fame induction. Didn't they play While My Guitar Gently Weeps? Since he was already inducted as a Beatle, WMGGW was accounted for. They could have played any one of his post-Beatles stuff, but they played a song he did as a Beatle, therefore, part of his catalog. Didn't he do Taxman and Something in his tour of Japan? Those are George songs, not Beatle songs, so Tomorrow Never Knows and Rain are John songs, not Beatle songs, and Here, There, and Everywhere and Hey Jude are Paul songs, not Beatle songs. I think the reason for this career long view will be because, as a study, it is quite interesting to examine the scope of their respective growth and changes as writers from their 20s to their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s (and hopefully 80s and 90s . . . for Paul). I think with the objectivity of time, a lot of their solo songs will be seen as equal to or better than some of the songs they wrote as a Beatle. I disagree. Those songs you mentioned are John songs AND Beatle songs, Paul songs AND Beatle songs ...etc. The solo songs are just solo songs and will always be seen as lesser songs, with only a few exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 19, 2013 1:27:32 GMT -5
To be frank, those of you thinking that solo-era songs are going to one day be considered the equal of Beatle songs by the collective public herd are mistaken. Of course, as time passes, aficionados like us will develop finer appreciations of the lesser-known tracks and of the post-Beatle years in general. It's also possible that some solo songs, not yet quite in the mass mainstream, will one day undergo a revival and be latter-day hits.
However, the solo hits are NEVER going to be lumped together with Beatles' songs in the mind of the masses. Just forget about it.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Feb 19, 2013 15:10:31 GMT -5
Each Beatle made the other better whether that Beatle actually contributed a note, a line or just a look! Exactly. Of course you can go through the Beatles catalogue and say "There's a John song, there's a Paul song, there's a George song." But the Beatles were a classic example of "the whole being greater than the sum of the parts." It was a true collaboration in every sense of the word. They all had their fingers in eachother's pies in countless ways. Even John speculated: "Maybe the Beatles would have worked with John and Paul and two other guys. But maybe it wouldn't have."
|
|