|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 24, 2016 18:00:43 GMT -5
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 24, 2016 22:51:50 GMT -5
Yay! This will be a real treat in the theatre on a big screen with remixed audio.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 25, 2016 4:24:08 GMT -5
I'm looking forward to it, too, but I'm not sure how much remixing there will be, given that the Hollywood Bowls were the only ones not recorded in mono. I'm sure they can refine the audio, though.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 25, 2016 9:34:28 GMT -5
Exciting news although, as Steve cautions, it is still early.
I was hoping this movie would include the Rooftop Session but that would steal the thunder from a re-issued, gloriously restored LIB.
This would be a must to see in a theater with a modern audio/visual system.
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Feb 26, 2016 0:47:28 GMT -5
I too am looking forward to seeing this on the big screen. Should be awesome.
John Lennon has been quoted as saying: “A lot of our best stuff was never recorded” and that “The best music we played was in and around the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg.”
What John said got me thinking, can Pete Best have been that bad, if the band in John's mind at least, was at the height of its live powers before Ringo even came along?
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 26, 2016 11:53:40 GMT -5
John Lennon has been quoted as saying: “A lot of our best stuff was never recorded” and that “The best music we played was in and around the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg.” What John said got me thinking, can Pete Best have been that bad, if the band in John's mind at least, was at the height of its live powers before Ringo even came along? John hated touring with The Beatles once it became a matter of playing the same 10 songs every night. He loved the Cavern shows in 1961/62 when they'd take requests from the audience and play a long time, always changing the sets. That's all he meant. Of all The Beatles, I think John was the last to really care about the drums, as long as it was simple and in time. There's also the fact that Ringo's term from August 1962 through early 1963 is still "in and around the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg." I don't think anyone (except maybe Tony Sheridan) has stated that Pete Best was terrible.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 26, 2016 14:16:30 GMT -5
John Lennon has been quoted as saying: “A lot of our best stuff was never recorded” and that “The best music we played was in and around the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg.” What John said got me thinking, can Pete Best have been that bad, if the band in John's mind at least, was at the height of its live powers before Ringo even came along? John hated touring with The Beatles once it became a matter of playing the same 10 songs every night. He loved the Cavern shows in 1961/62 when they'd take requests from the audience and play a long time, always changing the sets. That's all he meant. Of all The Beatles, I think John was the last to really care about the drums, as long as it was simple and in time. There's also the fact that Ringo's term from August 1962 through early 1963 is still "in and around the clubs of Liverpool and Hamburg." I don't think anyone (except maybe Tony Sheridan) has stated that Pete Best was terrible. George Martin to Brian Epstein after the June '62 "session." Martin may not have used the word "terrible", but that was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The Beatles wanted that recording contract, and they thought the June '62 "session" was just an audition, (they didn't know they were going to make a record at that point; only Martin did according to Lewisohn), so upon hearing Brian's news on Martin's opinion of Pete Best, dumping Pete was a no-brainer at that point. He was not going to cost them a recording contract. And George Harrison suggested they get Ringo. Skip ahead to the Ringo interview in Scorcese's movie about George; the one where he speaks about the last time he saw George before he passed. You can see in his eyes and expression how close he was to George. He never forgot it was George who had gotten him into Beatles right on the cusp of their fame. Those two were probably closer than any other relationships among the four Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 26, 2016 21:43:58 GMT -5
I don't think anyone (except maybe Tony Sheridan) has stated that Pete Best was terrible. John Lennon said "he was a lousy drummer, he never improved" in a '70s audio interview. He also added: "the only way he got in the group in the first place was because the only way we could get to Hamburg was, we had to have a drummer", and "we were always gonna dump him when we could find a decent drummer".
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 27, 2016 2:16:18 GMT -5
I'm not saying they thought he was great. Obviously not, since they fired him. Yeah, I'm aware of the Lennon "lousy" comment 12 years after the fact, but he never said anything like that before or after. As you obviously know, John just said anything he felt at the moment, off the cuff. I'm just saying they didn't think he was "terrible". (Don't worry -- I'm not exactly in the Pete Best fan club!)
|
|
nine
Very Clean
Posts: 840
|
Post by nine on Feb 27, 2016 7:40:57 GMT -5
Did anyone read this non-Pete link? daytrippin.com/2011/06/22/stuart-sutcliffes-bass-playing-id-like-to-set-that-one-straight/ Very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Feb 27, 2016 23:01:03 GMT -5
I've never believed the 'Stuart-couldn't-play-bass' angle. I think George Harrison and Paul's comments about his lack of ability was mainly referencing when he joined in mid-1960. At that point, he knew nothing much. (Nothing Allan Williams says/writes should be believed easily, but that goes without saying.)
Obviously, after 700 hours or whatever onstage in Hamburg, Stu would have been much better. But still not a natural musician -- he probably was just fine for a regular Liverpool beat combo, but might have struggled to keep up with the others in later years when they continued developing as musicians. But then again, maybe Stu would have improved right along with them.
We shouldn't go too far in the other extreme of believing he was a great bass player, either. Klaus Voorman was his best friend, so his opinions might not be objective (Klaus's high praise of The Beatles circa 1960-61 is also before Klaus had any knowledge or familiarity with rock/R&B music). And I wouldn't put too much emphasis on Stuart's playing bass for that German group in 1962 either. Hamburg had nearly no rock'n'roll bands then, so any Englishman who could play the basic chords and look cool would have passed muster.
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jun 20, 2016 13:38:06 GMT -5
As Steve reports, this trailer is out. Nothing earth shattering in the trailer.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 20, 2016 17:01:49 GMT -5
Sitting in a movie theatre watching them live on cleaned up video and remixed sound will be heaven. I hope the volume levels are turned up like they are for all those dopey Star Wars movies! Trailers schmailers! Let's just get to September and see the damn thing. Over and over and over again in the movie theatre! At home on a TV screen won't be half as good! This, for die hard Beatlefans, will be like seeing AHDN 19 times in a row in 1964 in the movie theatre! Only now, the sound is infinitely better. This beats counting down some Greatest Hits album! So start a count down on this release my friends!! This is THE BEATLES!! Not one Beatle, but FOUR BEATLES!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 20, 2016 17:14:39 GMT -5
This beats counting down some Greatest Hits album! The JSD Pure McCartney Countdown was fun and informative! I am still reeling over the abuse I am taking for trying to promote a solo Paul compilation album consisting of songs curated by Macca himself! Back in 1978, no one criticized a fan supporting Wings Greatest! I think The Beatles Eight Days A Week: The Touring Years has the potential to be pretty good for a band not particularly known for stellar live performances and who abandoned touring, a vital element of any Rock Band, half-way through their career!
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 20, 2016 17:14:57 GMT -5
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jun 20, 2016 17:19:28 GMT -5
I wish those Hey Jude and Revolution promos had live instruments as well as the vocals. They could have had Nicky Hopkins play the piano part.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 20, 2016 17:40:01 GMT -5
I wish those Hey Jude and Revolution promos had live instruments as well as the vocals. They could have had Nicky Hopkins play the piano part. I thought you were going somewhere else with the Hey Jude/ Revolution video mention. I like to see all of the videos on the big screen. I did in the early '70s. There was a show call The Beatles: Away with Words. It just played all the videos with no talk-over what-so-ever. Oddly enough,it started off with The End. The crowd kept screaming "Turn it Up! Turn it Up!!" The theater finally obliged. I think kids today think we grew up watching all those videos all the time. After the first four Sullivan shows, we barely saw the Beatles on TV at all.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 20, 2016 23:05:21 GMT -5
This beats counting down some Greatest Hits album! The JSD Pure McCartney Countdown was fun and informative! I am still reeling over the abuse I am taking for trying to promote a solo Paul compilation album consisting of songs curated by Macca himself! Back in 1978, no one criticized a fan supporting Wings Greatest! I think The Beatles Eight Days A Week: The Touring Years has the potential to be pretty good for a band not particularly known for stellar live performances and who abandoned touring, a vital element of any Rock Band, half-way through their career! JSD; You are second generation through & through! You had to be first generation to understand what it was like to live through the band's concert and recording years. Given the level of electronic amplification during the band's touring years (1960-66), they could not give their live perfomances the level of electricity found in the 70's and beyond on the concert stage. But to aurally enhance the existing video footage with 21st Century techniques as well as upgrading visual footage as this film supposedly does might give us a taste of what The Beatles could have sounded like if they existed 10 or 20 years after they did. Maybe that is what Paul, Ringo, and the extended family members are hoping this movie can achieve. But remember, even with the crappy amps and muddy picture on tv in Feb. 1964, and the awful little turntables we played the records on then, the band sounded to those of us listening with 9 year old ears (in my case) like the greatest music ever created! And the excitement of each new album; well, that just doesn't happen too often anymore. I am sorry subsequent generations never were able to hear the band like we did. Each album coming out twice a year and the new sounds we got with each succeeding one. You all just got it all at once. Or in a very short span of time. This movie could bring the band back the excitement level they had when they were in The Hamburg Clubs, or The Cavern, or Ed Sullivan, or Shea Stadium and Candlestick. I hope it does. I feel sure it will be so for me sitting in that darkened theatre being transported back to the 60's once more.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 20, 2016 23:53:39 GMT -5
Meh. Judging by this first trailer, it looks unimportant. Just more of the same shite.
I think this was probably more interesting than actual Beatle-reminiscences:
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 21, 2016 5:55:37 GMT -5
Back in 1978, no one criticized a fan supporting Wings Greatest! Exactly . But of course, the world was a better and Non-PC place at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 21, 2016 6:01:53 GMT -5
You had to be first generation to understand what it was like to live through the band's concert and recording years. Given the level of electronic amplification during the band's touring years (1960-66), they could not give their live perfomances the level of electricity found in the 70's and beyond on the concert stage. But yet, OTHER 1960's bands managed fine, and gave good live on-stage performances during 1963 - 1966 .. (And by all accounts, The Beatles were absolutely fantastic AND electric in the early pre-fame years of Hamburg and in The Cavern). I am sorry that Firsties who were older in the 60s (I was a Firstie, just that I was 3 - 6 when I was in love with The Beatles during 1965 - 1968) were often rendered tainted and unable to enjoy the Solo Years.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 21, 2016 8:12:23 GMT -5
You had to be first generation to understand what it was like to live through the band's concert and recording years. Given the level of electronic amplification during the band's touring years (1960-66), they could not give their live perfomances the level of electricity found in the 70's and beyond on the concert stage. But yet, OTHER 1960's bands managed fine, and gave good live on-stage performances during 1963 - 1966 .. (And by all accounts, The Beatles were absolutely fantastic AND electric in the early pre-fame years of Hamburg and in The Cavern). I am sorry that Firsties who were older in the 60s (I was a Firstie, just that I was 3 - 6 when I was in love with The Beatles during 1965 - 1968) were often rendered tainted and unable to enjoy the Solo Years. I agree with you that they reportedly sounded great in the early days in the clubs. But their stadium concerts fell short because of inadequate sound systems and hysterical screaming. Not because of them. As to the solo years; there are some songs I like but once you had grown up with the band, anything less just could not match them as a whole. Hard to comprehend fans like Panther and JSD tossing off the coming film with a "Meh." And calling it shite......
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 21, 2016 13:54:16 GMT -5
Hard to comprehend fans like Panther and JSD tossing off the coming film with a "Meh." And calling it shite...... I did not say any such things! I "liked" Panther post because the video he posted made me laugh out loud! This film will be fun but an objective Beatles fan should be able to admit that The Beatles were not even close to being the best live band/artist of the 1960's! The Beatles may have been great in Hamburg and The Cavern but we will never know, the recorded evidence is inconclusive. From 1963 to 1966, The Beatles were a glorified "Boy Band" as to touring, none of the innovations of their records carried over live. Sure technology was a huge part of that but in 1965 and 1966 they couldn't be bothered. As JoeK said, other 1960's bands/artists put on amazing shows with the same crap speakers and screaming kiddies. James Brown anyone? Look at Bob Dylan, his early shows are spellbinding, the audience holding on to every word, and his Rock and Roll shows in 1965 and 1966 are historic, revolutionary! Repeat, this will be a fun movie but if it sells The Beatles as the greatest live Rock and Roll Band then it is hyperbole. Playing live was/is The Beatles Achilles' heel as to claiming to be the greatest Rock and Roll Band ever. Good thing they lead in other elements like songwriting and recordings.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 21, 2016 16:59:06 GMT -5
Hard to comprehend fans like Panther and JSD tossing off the coming film with a "Meh." And calling it shite...... I did not say any such things! I "liked" Panther post because the video he posted made me laugh out loud! This film will be fun but an objective Beatles fan should be able to admit that The Beatles were not even close to being the best live band/artist of the 1960's! The Beatles may have been great in Hamburg and The Cavern but we will never know, the recorded evidence is inconclusive. From 1963 to 1966, The Beatles were a glorified "Boy Band" as to touring, none of the innovations of their records carried over live. Sure technology was a huge part of that but in 1965 and 1966 they couldn't be bothered. As JoeK said, other 1960's bands/artists put on amazing shows with the same crap speakers and screaming kiddies. James Brown anyone? Look at Bob Dylan, his early shows are spellbinding, the audience holding on to every word, and his Rock and Roll shows in 1965 and 1966 are historic, revolutionary! Repeat, this will be a fun movie but if it sells The Beatles as the greatest live Rock and Roll Band then it is hyperbole. Playing live was/is The Beatles Achilles' heel as to claiming to be the greatest Rock and Roll Band ever. Good thing they lead in other elements like songwriting and recordings. But you just admitted the recorded evidence is inconclusive. The fans of the time swear they were phenominal in Hamburg and The Cavern. So how do you know they were not the greatest live R&R band? I would hazard a guess their work in Hamburg would easily top Dylan in concert, or even James Brown.....They played sometimes for 8 hours straight.......
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 21, 2016 18:17:42 GMT -5
The fans of the time swear they were phenominal in Hamburg and The Cavern. So how do you know they were not the greatest live R&R band? I would hazard a guess their work in Hamburg would easily top Dylan in concert, or even James Brown.....They played sometimes for 8 hours straight....... But unfortunately there is no footage of those days, just word of mouth. Fans who saw the pre-fame Beatles in Hamburg and The Cavern almost always comment on how amazing they were to see and hear "live" (and of course Lewisohn's TUNE IN book strongly puts that forth). However, when in comes to the Beatlemania Years (especially 64-66 if not so much 63), nearly everyone who ever saw a concert of theirs merely says "I couldn't hear anything". Plus (or minus?) The Beatles themselves sometimes could not be bothered to play well anyway, feeling they were not being heard, but rather for people "to gawk at and scream with". Though there is no denying that the 1964 Washington Concert, Hollywood Bowl, and the 1965 Shea Stadium show are generally pretty good.. Another thought on Hamburg... the LIVE AT THE STAR CLUB 1962 album didn't feature them at their best, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 21, 2016 18:24:42 GMT -5
As to the solo years; there are some songs I like but once you had grown up with the band, anything less just could not match them as a whole. Well, I honestly feel that is an old tired myth. Of course there are certain solo songs that are just as good as Beatles songs, and some that are even better. There are also some Beatles songs that are a tad mediocre (though not many, happily). I'm not prepared to do that myself until I see it first. Based on the trailer so far and from some things I've heard online (one of the members of the Fab4Free4All wrote that he knows someone close to the project and it is said to be disappointing.. or words to that effect..) , it seems like "diehards" may not be getting much new footage. Also that the audio is using the records rather than "live sound" in some cases (it has already been said that Olivia Harrison was the one most outspoken for wanting this). But I'll still wait until I see it... even if it's the same ol' same ol', a well-done 'same old thing' can be good.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 21, 2016 19:09:13 GMT -5
As to the solo years; there are some songs I like but once you had grown up with the band, anything less just could not match them as a whole. Well, I honestly feel that is an old tired myth. Of course there are certain solo songs that are just as good as Beatles songs, and some that are even better. There are also some Beatles songs that are a tad mediocre (though not many, happily). I'm not prepared to do that myself until I see it first. Based on the trailer so far and from some things I've heard online (one of the members of the Fab4Free4All wrote that he knows someone close to the project and it is said to be disappointing.. or words to that effect..) , it seems like "diehards" may not be getting much new footage. Also that the audio is using the records rather than "live sound" in some cases (it has already been said that Olivia Harrison was the one most outspoken for wanting this). But I'll still wait until I see it... even if it's the same ol' same ol', a well-done 'same old thing' can be good. I also heard the live sound was replaced with studio tracks. That could be the solution they took for the Beatlemania years when you could not hear them very well due to the screaming. They themselves chose that route for Shea Stadium back in 1965, going back into the studio to rerecord some tracks that were inaudible in the Shea Film. If it gives us a facsimile of what they might have sounded like onstage without all the screaming and decent sound equipment, and it looks fairly believable, I am all for it. We have the technology now to create a Beatles "Concert" on the screen that can resemble what they might have sounded like (and looked like) if they were touring in 2016, and they were the same age as in 1965. Would not a "fantasy" film of footage treated in that fashion be embraced by Beatlefans? I'd certainly like the opportunity to pass judgement over the attempt.... I thought Steve reported some people close to the project who have seen it were quite impressed with the result? As to promoting a tired old myth; I will remind you music is a totally subjective art form. One person's masterpiece is another's shite. You have the opinion that there is solo music better than Beatle music. On a one for one basis, of course you can argue that. But throw the entire catalogues up against each other as a whole entity, and I feel The Beatles Catalogue wins hands down. But that is my opinion. So judging the quality of music whether it be one song or a catalogue is purely subjective. Comparing one to another is like comparing a partly sunny day to a partly cloudy day. Which one do you prefer? I'll take the other one... Who is right? We both are.... PS Don't you just love people who call something most likely shite before they have even seen it? Or read it....
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 21, 2016 20:25:10 GMT -5
We have the technology now to create a Beatles "Concert" on the screen that can resemble what they might have sounded like (and looked like) if they were touring in 2016, and they were the same age as in 1965. Would not a "fantasy" film of footage treated in that fashion be embraced by Beatlefans? I'd certainly like the opportunity to pass judgement over the attempt.... Wellll... if they do THAT, then isn't it really something else entirely? I would like to think this new Ron Howard film will be documenting something historically true and "as it happened"; not creating an alternate reality or "What If?" scenario! I missed that, but I hope so. It's encouraging. Of course if I were pressed to choose one or the other as being "better" in the big picture I would go with the overall Beatles catalogue ahead of the solo. But I didn't realize we had to do that when I read your initial comment. I do feel there are some fans who feel The Beatles can do no wrong, and that (in their pre-set minds) there's just no way a solo song could be better than a Beatles song, no matter what! It's the old case where -- if "Somedays" had been on REVOLVER -- they'd call it a "classic", and if "Honey Pie" or "Fixing A Hole" had been on NEW or BACK TO THE EGG, they'd say they were "Meh". Yes. Just as I 'love' when people are prepared to be all unconditionally accepting and positive about something before they even see it, just cuz they're biased in favor of the subject/artists!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 21, 2016 20:36:20 GMT -5
I did not say any such things! I "liked" Panther post because the video he posted made me laugh out loud! This film will be fun but an objective Beatles fan should be able to admit that The Beatles were not even close to being the best live band/artist of the 1960's! The Beatles may have been great in Hamburg and The Cavern but we will never know, the recorded evidence is inconclusive. From 1963 to 1966, The Beatles were a glorified "Boy Band" as to touring, none of the innovations of their records carried over live. Sure technology was a huge part of that but in 1965 and 1966 they couldn't be bothered. As JoeK said, other 1960's bands/artists put on amazing shows with the same crap speakers and screaming kiddies. James Brown anyone? Look at Bob Dylan, his early shows are spellbinding, the audience holding on to every word, and his Rock and Roll shows in 1965 and 1966 are historic, revolutionary! Repeat, this will be a fun movie but if it sells The Beatles as the greatest live Rock and Roll Band then it is hyperbole. Playing live was/is The Beatles Achilles' heel as to claiming to be the greatest Rock and Roll Band ever. Good thing they lead in other elements like songwriting and recordings. But you just admitted the recorded evidence is inconclusive. The fans of the time swear they were phenominal in Hamburg and The Cavern. So how do you know they were not the greatest live R&R band? I would hazard a guess their work in Hamburg would easily top Dylan in concert, or even James Brown.....They played sometimes for 8 hours straight....... The evidence I was referring to are things like the "Star Club" tape which is historically cool but the performances don't make anyone say that that was the greatest live music they have ever heard. As to the Cavern we have the "Some Other Guy" film which is very good but that is it other than old grainy tapes in even worse shape than the "Star Club." I bet they were great in the early days, my point is that we will never know by the recordings and film left to us. And I just learned from you and JoeK that we may not even hear actual live music in this film's soundtrack! To me that is absolute fraud for a film that is meant to capture the excitement of the live Beatles! It is blatant fraud if the studio version of a song is overdubbed over an actual live recording! That's why many Rock pundits say The Beatles sucked live and it doesn't help when a film highlighting the "live" Beatles junks the actual live soundtrack for studio versions. Now I am worried about this film!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 21, 2016 20:57:48 GMT -5
But you just admitted the recorded evidence is inconclusive. The fans of the time swear they were phenominal in Hamburg and The Cavern. So how do you know they were not the greatest live R&R band? I would hazard a guess their work in Hamburg would easily top Dylan in concert, or even James Brown.....They played sometimes for 8 hours straight....... The evidence I was referring to are things like the "Star Club" tape which is historically cool but the performances don't make anyone say that that was the greatest live music they have ever heard. As to the Cavern we have the "Some Other Guy" film which is very good but that is it other than old grainy tapes in even worse shape than the "Star Club." I bet they were great in the early days, my point is that we will never know by the recordings and film left to us. And I just learned from you and JoeK that we may not even hear actual live music in this film's soundtrack! To me that is absolute fraud for a film that is meant to capture the excitement of the live Beatles! It is blatant fraud if the studio version of a song is overdubbed over an actual live recording! That's why many Rock pundits say The Beatles sucked live and it doesn't help when a film highlighting the "live" Beatles junks the actual live soundtrack for studio versions. Now I am worried about this film! As I mentioned; The Beatles laid down tracks in the studio in 1965 to clean up the sound on their Shea Stadium film because the screaming girls covered up their performance. I recall the Hollywood Bowl concert had the same problem. Perhaps that is what Ron Howard chose to do with some of the footage he had of Beatlemania concerts in '64-'66 period? Just sayin it could be a possibility.
|
|