|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 21, 2016 21:51:02 GMT -5
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. I had an excellent copy of the finished Shea concert, I'm supposing the patched one. It seems like I remember hearing the raw concert at some point and thinking that it sounded great. There was no need for the patchwork. I can understand though if they were aiming at perfection, they may have thought of "cheating" or "hedging their bet" as Martin called it. I have very little interest in hearing studio versions over the live feed. From the just released promo, it does look like it is all talk anyway. Old 70 year old guys talking about a 50 year old band. Not much chance of just seeing the band in their prime playing live, screams or not.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 22, 2016 0:40:28 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not getting the point of this movie either. A Ron Howard movie is inevitably going to be very mainstream, targeting the non-aficionado... that's fine, I guess, but what is the subject here?: The mop-top Beatles being screamed at by non-listening fans while the band burns through 10 songs as fast as they can and then runs away.
Clearly, The Beatles' peak as live performers was 1961 through, maybe, mid-1963 -- and there is a scarcity of live material here, and almost nothing on video. Once The Beatles become an established, successful group, live performance becomes a burden to them and a boring routine of the same hit songs, night after night, to the point where, by 1965-66, they've stopped rehearsing.
I dunno, maybe the film will unearth some interesting live footage we've never seen, but it doesn't look like it or we would have heard about it by now.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 22, 2016 0:52:33 GMT -5
. . . 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!. . . Just one disagreement. Those VOX AC30s were KILLER amps. They launched the British Invasion. Everyone had them. Even Led Zep in their early recordings used them. Tons of bands use them today - even the new AC30s have not improved much on the sound and power they had back then. I always giddily notice when I see a band perform today with a Vox. www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/article/3887-vox-ac-30-the-true-sound-of-british-rock-n-roll.html
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 22, 2016 7:30:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not getting the point of this movie either. A Ron Howard movie is inevitably going to be very mainstream, targeting the non-aficionado... that's fine, I guess, but what is the subject here?: The mop-top Beatles being screamed at by non-listening fans while the band burns through 10 songs as fast as they can and then runs away. Clearly, The Beatles' peak as live performers was 1961 through, maybe, mid-1963 -- and there is a scarcity of live material here, and almost nothing on video. Once The Beatles become an established, successful group, live performance becomes a burden to them and a boring routine of the same hit songs, night after night, to the point where, by 1965-66, they've stopped rehearsing. I dunno, maybe the film will unearth some interesting live footage we've never seen, but it doesn't look like it or we would have heard about it by now. In the brief clip I was most disappointed that the Japan stuff looked grainy...I mean this one was professionally shot and somewhere out there is first generation film/tape though I believe it was not professionally recorded (multi-track).
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 22, 2016 7:53:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not getting the point of this movie either. A Ron Howard movie is inevitably going to be very mainstream, targeting the non-aficionado... that's fine, I guess, but what is the subject here?: The mop-top Beatles being screamed at by non-listening fans while the band burns through 10 songs as fast as they can and then runs away. Clearly, The Beatles' peak as live performers was 1961 through, maybe, mid-1963 -- and there is a scarcity of live material here, and almost nothing on video. Once The Beatles become an established, successful group, live performance becomes a burden to them and a boring routine of the same hit songs, night after night, to the point where, by 1965-66, they've stopped rehearsing. I dunno, maybe the film will unearth some interesting live footage we've never seen, but it doesn't look like it or we would have heard about it by now. Hard Day's Night movie was basically a film of The Beatles doing video performances of their songs. It was considered one of the best rock movies ever made. Very mainstream but in 1964 The Beatles were at the top of heap worldwide. Seeing live footage cleaned up, colorized, and a soundtrack possibly sounding like the Vegas Love Soundtrack may be similar to a 2016 version of AHDN style film. It will definitely be worth the price of a cinema ticket and watching it on a big screen IMO. I don't think seeing in on a DVD at home will have as much impact though.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 22, 2016 8:48:29 GMT -5
The repaired soundtrack The Beatles did to the Shea '65 concert tells me the band wanted the sound on their live performances that were filmed to be as good as possible for posterity. The repair work George Martin attempted on the Vinyl release of The Hollywood Bowl concert also confirms this. So I can see where Paul & Ringo backed Ron Howard's decision to clean up the live aural sound with studio recordings. It's no different than all the lip-synched videos the band did in the 60's of their songs. If you want the actual live sound, it is available on many bootlegged tapes of concerts. But why not attempt to improve on the sound if the technology is there? How many shitty artists today use auto-tune to make themselves sound good? I don't think the point of the film is to show the band in less than the best possible light. We all still got off on the recent Beatles 1 DVD Release where most of the videos we saw were lip-synched to studio recordings. The movie coming out is a film. Not a broadcast of a live performance somewhere a la Live Aid or something. I 'll take it for what it is. A chance to see the band on a big screen at various points in their concert years performing. With 2016 techniques used to put them in the best possible light.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 22, 2016 9:11:44 GMT -5
The only people who can pass fair judgement on how good the band sounded live are those who were present at the Cavern and Hamburg Clubs and the early touring years before Beatlemania set in. You were either there or you weren't. No audio tapes of the shows can really stand as examples of what it was like live. In my line of work we talk about how great the classical tenor Enrico Caruso sounded like live. He is considered the greatest operatic tenor ever. He died in the early 1920's. There is no one alive now that heard him live. All we have are crappy recordings made at the beginning of the 20th Century. Was he the greatest tenor ever? Just no way to know now. Were The Beatles really at their best in the clubs? John Lennon thought so. Pete Best thinks so. Tony Sheridan thought so. Klaus & Astrid think so. A bunch of interviewed fans that were there seem to think so. Were The Beatles at their best in the Beatlemania era concerts? Pretty much everyone including the band says no. The incessant screaming made playing well next to impossible. So it makes sense to dub in studio tracks. But seeing the hysteria at these concerts visually is a part of their history that should remain. Cleaning it visually if possible? Absolutely yes. Spending $10-$15 to see this? A No-brainer. People spend way more than that to buy re-packaged albums of music they already have.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 22, 2016 17:25:55 GMT -5
I've got video of the Beatles singing live. I have the studio albums. I could put the video on and listen to the albums. I'm not sure why I care if it looks synced or not if it's not the actual audio.
If the footage, video and audio, isn't good enough, why put it out? You know it's going to be talked all over it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 23, 2016 9:18:23 GMT -5
Hey, to show that there are no hard feelings with me, should I start The JSD THE BEATLES: EIGHT DAYS A WEEK - THE TOURING YEARS Countdown in anticipation of the September release? That would add to the excitement!
Let's do a Roll Call like we did for Pure McCartney, the McCartney Solo career compilation with songs curated by Paul himself!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 23, 2016 9:45:38 GMT -5
When the Beatles HAD to deliver or WANTED to deliver, they could. Jeez, being in your early 20s, in a foreign country, on live television, in front of 75 million people, your careers on the line? They delivered on Ed Sullivan. I saw at a movie theater a few years ago their first US concert at Washington DC. They were tight and energetic. Even their harmonies were spot on - despite the substandard sound systems and screaming girls. Ringo shined. The rooftop concert? Less energetic, but still signs of a band that could play well together.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 23, 2016 11:19:56 GMT -5
When the Beatles HAD to deliver or WANTED to deliver, they could. Jeez, being in your early 20s, in a foreign country, on live television, in front of 75 million people, your careers on the line? They delivered on Ed Sullivan. I saw at a movie theater a few years ago their first US concert at Washington DC. They were tight and energetic. Even their harmonies were spot on - despite the substandard sound systems and screaming girls. Ringo shined. The rooftop concert? Less energetic, but still signs of a band that could play well together. Agreed that The Beatles delivered live at times in huge settings and I hope we get the live soundtrack of Sullivan for instance and not studio recording overdubs. Unfortunately they toured for just part of their career so the variety of songs we ever get to see live is very limited and repetitive. A documentary on the Rolling Stones Touring History would include elements from every stage of their recording catalog. I think the biggest mistake ever by The Beatles was not to do maybe a half a dozen well-rehearsed concerts in nice London theaters or halls with the release of The White Album and the Hey Jude/Revolution single so we are talking late 1968. Instead they start all over with new material January 2, 1969 in a strange location and all hell breaks loose and ensures the demise of the band. But a 1968 series of concerts in acoustically sound Halls or Theatres would be such a feather on the cap of this film. Instead the end is Candlestick and an incomplete recording of a muddled performance. Oh well, that is part of their story.....they petered out as a live act.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 23, 2016 11:25:10 GMT -5
When the Beatles HAD to deliver or WANTED to deliver, they could. Jeez, being in your early 20s, in a foreign country, on live television, in front of 75 million people, your careers on the line? They delivered on Ed Sullivan. I saw at a movie theater a few years ago their first US concert at Washington DC. They were tight and energetic. Even their harmonies were spot on - despite the substandard sound systems and screaming girls. Ringo shined. The rooftop concert? Less energetic, but still signs of a band that could play well together. Agreed that The Beatles delivered live at times in huge settings and I hope we get the live soundtrack of Sullivan for instance and not studio recording overdubs. Unfortunately they toured for just part of their career so the variety of songs we ever get to see live is very limited and repetitive. A documentary on the Rolling Stones Touring History would include elements from every stage of their recording catalog. I think the biggest mistake ever by The Beatles was not to do maybe a half a dozen well-rehearsed concerts in nice London theaters or halls with the release of The White Album and the Hey Jude/Revolution single so we are talking late 1968. Instead they start all over with new material January 2, 1969 in a strange location and all hell breaks loose and ensures the demise of the band. But a 1968 series of concerts in acoustically sound Halls or Theatres would be such a feather on the cap of this film. Instead the end is Candlestick and an incomplete recording of a muddled performance. Oh well, that is part of their story.....they petered out as a live act. Unless you include the Rooftop concert in 1969, the live satellite broadcast of "All You Need Is Love" in 1967 and the David Frost TV Show that premiered "Hey Jude". They may not be in the Ron Howard film, but can you say The Rooftop Concert shows a band that "petered out" as a live act?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 23, 2016 11:29:59 GMT -5
Hey, to show that there are no hard feelings with me, should I start The JSD THE BEATLES: EIGHT DAYS A WEEK - THE TOURING YEARS Countdown in anticipation of the September release? That would add to the excitement! Let's do a Roll Call like we did for Pure McCartney, the McCartney Solo career compilation with songs curated by Paul himself! I will watch it multiple times in the theatre; as many as I can get away with daily on one paid ticket in the same cinema complex by avoiding the ushers cleaning after every screening, and have time to see while it plays on the big screen. And I will buy the DVD as well.
|
|
kc
Beatle Freak
Posts: 1,085
|
Post by kc on Jun 23, 2016 18:28:05 GMT -5
Hey, to show that there are no hard feelings with me, should I start The JSD THE BEATLES: EIGHT DAYS A WEEK - THE TOURING YEARS Countdown in anticipation of the September release? That would add to the excitement! Let's do a Roll Call like we did for Pure McCartney, the McCartney Solo career compilation with songs curated by Paul himself! I will watch it multiple times in the theatre; as many as I can get away with daily on one paid ticket in the same cinema complex by avoiding the ushers cleaning after every screening, and have time to see while it plays on the big screen. And I will buy the DVD as well. I'll definitely buy a DVD release of the film. I probably won't bother seeing it in a theatre. I will be extremely disappointed if there is no associated live album released.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 23, 2016 18:38:27 GMT -5
I think the official title is a tad long and complicated. I like mine better here... shorter and to the point:
EIGHT DAYS A WEEK: THE BEATLES ON TOUR
|
|
markc
Very Clean
Posts: 447
|
Post by markc on Jun 24, 2016 12:58:01 GMT -5
The live stuff on Anthologies 1 and 2 tends to be very good, whether at the Royal Command performance, in Sweden, or at Shea. It's high energy with good vocals and performance. I guess the whole challenge is finding both quality audio and film of good performances. My concern is that we will be familiar with most of the footage.
The cool thing about the trailer for the Scorcese Harrison doc was that a lot what was shown hadn't been seen before.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 24, 2016 21:44:38 GMT -5
It's a Ron Howard film, not a Scorcese film. Opie Cunningham makes movies for the non-aficionado, Tom-Hanks-loving, mainstream movie-goer.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 25, 2016 8:17:20 GMT -5
It's a Ron Howard film, not a Scorcese film. Opie Cunningham makes movies for the non-aficionado, Tom-Hanks-loving, mainstream movie-goer. Would you call "Philadelphia" where Tom Hanks played a gay man dying of AIDS a Tom Hanks-loving mainstream movie when it was made? I would put it right up there with Taxi Driver. Ron Howard has made some fine films equally as good as Scorcese. And it appears both directors recognize how great The Beatles were. If Scorcese had made The Beatles concert film it would be a much better film? Worthy of aficionados?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 25, 2016 8:26:17 GMT -5
The live stuff on Anthologies 1 and 2 tends to be very good, whether at the Royal Command performance, in Sweden, or at Shea. It's high energy with good vocals and performance. I guess the whole challenge is finding both quality audio and film of good performances. My concern is that we will be familiar with most of the footage. The cool thing about the trailer for the Scorcese Harrison doc was that a lot what was shown hadn't been seen before. Most of The Beatles footage in the Scorcese film had been seen before. There really isn't much left out there on The Beatles that has not been seen after all these years of bootlegs and especially the Anthology project. I think the restoration of the film of their concerts and the cleaning up of the audio is what this doc will be about. Not undiscoverd never seen footage. Though they have found something out there never seen before, it won't take up much of the film.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Jun 25, 2016 9:37:44 GMT -5
It's a Ron Howard film, not a Scorcese film. Opie Cunningham makes movies for the non-aficionado, Tom-Hanks-loving, mainstream movie-goer. Wow! It's not like Scorcese doesn't make mainstream movies made for multiplexes. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen one of his movies in an indie movie house. Obviously, he is a great film maker, but to suggest Ron Howard is somehow less serious than Martin Scorcese because he's "mainstream" might be like saying Paul McCartney is not in Phillip Glass' class because Paul is pop mainstream. In this ever denigration of mainstream art vs fine art, I'll take ABBA over Yo Yo Ma (who I like and admire) and Monty Python over Lenny Bruce (who I think is very important) any day of the week. I don't think the Beatles various estates would have put this project in Ron Howard's hands if he wasn't going to do a respectful, thorough, and artful job.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Jun 25, 2016 10:06:40 GMT -5
Would you call "Philadelphia" where Tom Hanks played a gay man dying of AIDS a Tom Hanks-loving mainstream movie when it was made? Yes, I would. If a film won a bunch of Oscars, it's by definition extremely mainstream. ( Philadelphia was a good movie, but very mainstream.) Perhaps Scorcese was a poor choice to mention by way of comparison (I don't even particularly like Scorcese). Let me re-phrase my comment, above: It's a Ron Howard film, not a Fassbinder film.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 25, 2016 13:43:53 GMT -5
Would you call "Philadelphia" where Tom Hanks played a gay man dying of AIDS a Tom Hanks-loving mainstream movie when it was made? Yes, I would. If a film won a bunch of Oscars, it's by definition extremely mainstream. ( Philadelphia was a good movie, but very mainstream.) Perhaps Scorcese was a poor choice to mention by way of comparison (I don't even particularly like Scorcese). Let me re-phrase my comment, above: It's a Ron Howard film, not a Fassbinder film.
The Hurt Locker won Best Picture and Best Director (first female to win) in 2009. I would say that film is about as far from mainstream as you can get.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Jun 25, 2016 21:33:32 GMT -5
I expect a certain amount of time has to pass after the release of Pure McCartney before we can expect the next archive release. Paul doesn't usually let the Beatle releases affect his own releases, does he?
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jun 26, 2016 9:26:19 GMT -5
The live stuff on Anthologies 1 and 2 tends to be very good, whether at the Royal Command performance, in Sweden, or at Shea. It's high energy with good vocals and performance. I guess the whole challenge is finding both quality audio and film of good performances. My concern is that we will be familiar with most of the footage. The cool thing about the trailer for the Scorcese Harrison doc was that a lot what was shown hadn't been seen before. Most of The Beatles footage in the Scorcese film had been seen before. There really isn't much left out there on The Beatles that has not been seen after all these years of bootlegs and especially the Anthology project. I think the restoration of the film of their concerts and the cleaning up of the audio is what this doc will be about. Not undiscoverd never seen footage. Though they have found something out there never seen before, it won't take up much of the film. I've mentioned that there is first generation film and video tape of Japan somewhere though it doesn't seem to have been "tracked", but the footage I saw in the clip looked grainy. Even though it (Japan tour) is not among the greatest live performances, it is in color, among the last of the shows and the most modern tunes until Get Back. I don't count the quasi live AYNIL, Hey Jude, and Revolution as true live performances. Point is seeing that cleaned up and sonically improved would get my excitement up big time, as will Shea footage.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 26, 2016 10:14:18 GMT -5
Most of The Beatles footage in the Scorcese film had been seen before. There really isn't much left out there on The Beatles that has not been seen after all these years of bootlegs and especially the Anthology project. I think the restoration of the film of their concerts and the cleaning up of the audio is what this doc will be about. Not undiscoverd never seen footage. Though they have found something out there never seen before, it won't take up much of the film. I've mentioned that there is first generation film and video tape of Japan somewhere though it doesn't seem to have been "tracked", but the footage I saw in the clip looked grainy. Even though it (Japan tour) is not among the greatest live performances, it is in color, among the last of the shows and the most modern tunes until Get Back. I don't count the quasi live AYNIL, Hey Jude, and Revolution as true live performances. Point is seeing that cleaned up and sonically improved would get my excitement up big time, as will Shea footage. I have a bootleg copy of the entire Japan concert(s) which is very grainy. Is it NHK Network footage? And they did not sing very well in many of the selections; George and John sound tired and sing flat in a number of places. (Jet-lag? They were stranded for hours in Alaska waiting for a typhoon to clear out of Japan before they could proceed on to Tokyo, so the trip there from England was very long with the delays). That sound would definitely be improved with studio recordings dubbed in. Would you consider the Rooftop concert a true live concert (performance)?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jun 26, 2016 12:01:01 GMT -5
I have a bootleg copy of the entire Japan concert(s) which is very grainy. Is it NHK Network footage? And they did not sing very well in many of the selections; George and John sound tired and sing flat in a number of places. (Jet-lag? They were stranded for hours in Alaska waiting for a typhoon to clear out of Japan before they could proceed on to Tokyo, so the trip there from England was very long with the delays). That sound would definitely be improved with studio recordings dubbed in. There are nice video quality bootlegs of both Tokyo concerts, if you know where to look. Yes, the Beatles' performance was pretty mediocre in Japan... but still, no way would I want to hear the studio tracks dubbed in over the live performance. That would defeat the entire purpose of them being "live". I think it's absurd. Every time it's been suggested.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jun 26, 2016 21:11:26 GMT -5
The Tokyo Concerts will surely be a part of the new movie. There is so much video available. But the singing is so mediocre. And not because of screaming fans in this case. If the music is cleaned up in the film you gotta think this will be one of the moments.
I remember flying to Japan in 2008 to do an opera. The flight from NY was 13 hours nonstop and a 14 hour time change. I felt like shit for almost a week and my singing was a mess until the jet lag wore off. They did those concerts only about 18 hours after arriving from London via Alaska which were very long flights. No wonder they sang like zombies. Then they had to fly on to Manila and face that fiasco. No wonder they hated touring by the time they got to Candlestick later that summer... No one could manage their schedule and sound fresh every night. I don't blame them for quitting touring.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Jun 26, 2016 22:18:00 GMT -5
Aren't there two Tokyo concerts filmed or videotaped maybe the same day with the afternoon then evening show and the guys wearing light then dark suits(or the other way around).
And I thought the evening show was much better? I could have sworn MikeV once posted a link to the better of the filmed Japanese shows and many of us, including myself, were in awe, it was much better than the matinee concert.
Mike do you remember that? It was from YouTube and it was pretty damn good! Nothing wrong with using that audio soundtrack as is!
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Jul 4, 2016 15:54:19 GMT -5
Yes, I would. If a film won a bunch of Oscars, it's by definition extremely mainstream. ( Philadelphia was a good movie, but very mainstream.) Perhaps Scorcese was a poor choice to mention by way of comparison (I don't even particularly like Scorcese). Let me re-phrase my comment, above: It's a Ron Howard film, not a Fassbinder film.
The Hurt Locker won Best Picture and Best Director (first female to win) in 2009. I would say that film is about as far from mainstream as you can get. Not to nitpick, but "Philadelphia" was directed by Jonathan Demme, not Ron Howard. Did you mean "A Beautiful Mind"? Also "The Hurt Locker" was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, not Scorcese or Fassbinder. Did you mean "The Departed"?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Jul 4, 2016 17:37:15 GMT -5
The Hurt Locker won Best Picture and Best Director (first female to win) in 2009. I would say that film is about as far from mainstream as you can get. Not to nitpick, but "Philadelphia" was directed by Jonathan Demme, not Ron Howard. Did you mean "A Beautiful Mind"? Also "The Hurt Locker" was directed by Kathryn Bigelow, not Scorcese or Fassbinder. Did you mean "The Departed"? Panther made a comment that all movies that win Oscars are mainstream movies. I pointed out "Philadelphia" and "The Hurt Locker" as two films that won Oscars that I didn't think were mainstream. It stemmed from his claim that that Ron Howard only makes mainstream movies.
|
|