|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 13:15:41 GMT -5
LIB footage documented both extremes: the bitchiness of a band at the end of the line but also some great music-making by veterans who knew each other pretty well musically. Yes, indeed. That's another thing -- it's not ALL a negative experience, LET IT BE. There are plenty of moments where the band comes together and you get that feeling that, even though boredom and lethargy creeps in, it always gets back to the great music. Scenes like Paul and John singing together on their Elvis-joking version of TWO OF US, the Billy Preston jam session, George helping Ringo with Octopus' Garden on the piano, and the ultimate last rooftop concert where all 4 Beatles are operating together on all cylinders! This is not as depressing a flick through and through as people think.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 30, 2008 13:29:49 GMT -5
RTP wrote:
That's why I speculate when I say "I hope this is not accurate". It's hard to believe -- and even the Anthology has all the quarreling bits in it. Paul and Ringo haven't dodged it.
Oh, bull. You always have to go anti-John on us, RTP .. then you wonder why sometimes people try to even the score with picking on poor Paulie. John liked LET IT BE because it showed how the Beatles were coming apart, and it broke their happy moptop myth. He didn't give a damn before or after, regarding the fact that Paul was the only one who was gung-ho.
Let me put it to you this way -- John was lethargic and bored DURING the film sessions while they were being recorded as it happened. He didn't give a sh&t about Paul and the others at the time, didn't care much about anything, including The Beatles. Didn't care that Paulie was acting like an altar boy for the cameras as usual. Jeez, Paul could be so un-cool.
Where was that quote from again? I honestly don't remember.
Like that has ever ceased? Yoko has been hounded with the breakup thing for the past 40 years and it will never change. You think she cares and is not used to that? She's always handled it well. And I don't think Yoko looks like anything other than Yoko in the film. There are moments of her smiling, albeit brief - and she dances with John. She was not much of a smiler in those days.
I thought the anti-Yoko crowd always accused her of trying to force herself INTO everything? Now to bash her you claim she wants OUT?
Nonsense. You do not desecrate a movie like that. A film is what it is; no editing, no censoring. As a movie buff I am appalled at such a notion.
And when did Paul seem anxious about LIB coming out?
|
|
wogew
Very Clean
Posts: 5
|
Post by wogew on Jul 30, 2008 18:43:40 GMT -5
I don't believe that the Daily Express article you're discussing since I posted it is anything to go by. I think it's just speculation by uninformed personnel. What goes on in Apple's board meetings is something only Yoko, Paul, Olivia, Ringo and their lawyers knows. And the lawyers aren't discussing client matters in the public room. I think that the Yoko quote (from an exclusive interview in February with Bill DeYoung for Abbeyrd's Beatles Site) betrays her own attitude about the release of Let It Be.
Q: What about the ‘Let it Be’ DVD? Years ago, Neil was saying it was being readied. A: (laughing) You know, life is a long time. And I hope you have a very long one, Bill.
And Olivia may also be opposed to the release, on behalf of George, but that's again, speculation. I don't think either of them are speaking on behalf of themselves, they may just be echoing whatever John and George's sentiments for the film was at the time of their deaths. And even though John and George might have changed their minds, their widows cannot speculate about that, they need to maintain their late husbands positions. After all, wouldn't you?
Still, one could argue with them about their position by pointing out that the original laser disc edition of Let It Be is now out on DVD, courtesy of bootleggers and it's also readily available on the internet for everyone who wants to watch it.
|
|
wogew
Very Clean
Posts: 5
|
Post by wogew on Jul 30, 2008 18:48:39 GMT -5
And when did Paul seem anxious about LIB coming out? I wouldn't say anxious, but he gave several interviews in 2002 about releasing the film in conjunction with the release of Let It Be...Naked. But more work was needed on the film before it could be released and it was delayed, first to 2004 (according to Michael Lindsay-Hogg), then to 2005 (according to Bob Smeaton) and then to 2006 (Smeaton again) before it was scrapped (according to Aspinall in 2007) or put on a very long hold (Yoko, 2008). Restoration may have been finished in 2006, and screened for the Apple board. As I said earlier, read the timeline in my blog, and you'll see the events chronologically.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 30, 2008 19:10:26 GMT -5
I don't believe that the Daily Express article you're discussing since I posted it is anything to go by. I think it's just speculation by uninformed personnel. What goes on in Apple's board meetings is something only Yoko, Paul, Olivia, Ringo and their lawyers knows. And the lawyers aren't discussing client matters in the public room. I think that the Yoko quote (from an exclusive interview in February with Bill DeYoung for Abbeyrd's Beatles Site) betrays her own attitude about the release of Let It Be. Q: What about the ‘Let it Be’ DVD? Years ago, Neil was saying it was being readied. A: (laughing) You know, life is a long time. And I hope you have a very long one, Bill. And Olivia may also be opposed to the release, on behalf of George, but that's again, speculation. I don't think either of them are speaking on behalf of themselves, they may just be echoing whatever John and George's sentiments for the film was at the time of their deaths. And even though John and George might have changed their minds, their widows cannot speculate about that, they need to maintain their late husbands positions. After all, wouldn't you? Still, one could argue with them about their position by pointing out that the original laser disc edition of Let It Be is now out on DVD, courtesy of bootleggers and it's also readily available on the internet for everyone who wants to watch it. I don't believe the Express article either. For one, it's all anonymous sources. For another, it shows no knowledge of the history of the project. They all have problems with it. I think Yoko's quote in the Bill DeYoung interview was more a general comment than her specific feelings, but I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't want it out either. But I also think that the film could be released without harming any reputations eventually. If you really want it, there are places to get it.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Jul 31, 2008 4:43:28 GMT -5
It's a pity. I think there would be a lot of media interest in the re-issue of the 'Let it Be' film -- far more than 'Help' etc... The angle of "the film that documents the break-up of the world's greatest band" would be too hard to resist for both the written and the broadcast media. It would get a ton of exposure and generate huge interest. This is just idle speculation, but I can't imagine Paul or Ringo are against its release. I don't think Ringo would be bothered one way or the other -- in fact I 'm sure his attitude would be 'put it out'. From Paul's point of view, the film contains two of his finest moments - 'Let it Be' and 'TLAWR', both delivered memorably and flawlessly to camera - along with the rooftop session, which I'm sure he strongly approves of. On top of that, he instigated the LIB...N release, so he obviously has no great aversion to 'Let it Be' per se. The road-block obviously lies elsewhere and is a real shame.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Jul 31, 2008 7:13:39 GMT -5
There is a lot of attention being paid to the subject both here and publically. Since both Beatles are touring (sort of for Paul) hopefully a reporter will put the question to one of them.
Certainly not Larry King though... "we're here with Paul McCartney and George Hamilton. Uh George...are you guys going to rerelease Gimme Shelter?"
It's the bloody Let it Be movie...shut up!!
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jul 31, 2008 8:05:16 GMT -5
I assumed it was Yoko not wanting it out (don't get mad at me and defending Yoko Joe K - it is just my opinion). Yoko did NOT look good in that movie - whether it was drugs or difficult preganacy or the combo I do not know. Does ANYONE look especially good in LET IT BE? Everyone's bored, everyone's dragging through it. You can't have it both ways when it comes to Yoko Bashing. You can't on the one hand fall back on the old familiar "Yoko just inserts herself everywhere and into everything and wants all the exposure" in one post, and then say "Yoko probably doesn't want LIB released because she doesn't look good in it" in another. Personally, I doubt that the hesitance on this release has anything to do with the surviving two Beatles, nor Yoko nor Olivia. Probably just an Apple thing. I agree with you that no ones looks too good in LIB. It is somewhat like watching your friends fight and not know how to help them - for me at least. I think it is ok to say that Yoko inserts herself into things as I do not think I ever said she inserts herself into everything. I think it has been proven that she has added her name to at least one song and taken Paul's off another (with his permission I believe) and she removed all refereneces to May Pang and inserted hereself in her place in a video. She has, in my opinion, made John less John (if that makes sense). She even got mad at the author of the new John biography that is soon to be released and stopped participating in the book. The author said she got angry at him because he was being mean to John. The reviewer said he did not find that to be the case and this makes me want to read this book . John is just too complicated a person and Yoko (no matter her reason) should not be able to make him a one note "Give Peace a Chance" character. I am not sure I agree with your thought on Apple stopping the release and not P, R, Y, O. Aren't these four people Apple. I can not see someone else making that decision unless these four ok'd it. I think it is one or more of the four main characters who put the brakes on it. ..or maybe the brakes are not on and it is just that Apple moves so slowly........ I would rather have cleaned up versions of all their music than the DVD of LIB. I am only asking for that as I do not want to hope for too much at one time from Apple. It seems like the new guy isn't able to move things along any faster than Neil could.
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Jul 31, 2008 8:10:03 GMT -5
There is a lot of attention being paid to the subject both here and publically. Since both Beatles are touring (sort of for Paul) hopefully a reporter will put the question to one of them. Certainly not Larry King though... "we're here with Paul McCartney and George Hamilton. Uh George...are you guys going to rerelease Gimme Shelter?" It's the bloody Let it Be movie...shut up!! Thank you for my morning laugh. Larry was always proud of the fact that he did not prepare for interviews, but he should at least remember WHO he is interviewing.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 31, 2008 8:35:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 31, 2008 9:17:12 GMT -5
So, Apple says they DO intend to release it sometime in the future. Thanks, Steve.
So, if anything, maybe another lesson has been learned here about fans being swayed by silly, unsubstantiated "Goss-ip", "Goss-Ip"! ;D
And this time, out of character, even *I* got fooled!
|
|
|
Post by rockwizard on Jul 31, 2008 13:25:44 GMT -5
Unless I missed it, a point about Let It Be hasn't been mentioned. The "project" started in Twickenham Studios VERY early in the morning. Not exactly the right environment for musicians who loved to start work at 10PM and finish in the wee hours of the morning. Kinda hard to work under those conditions and have a camera under your nose every waking moment.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Jul 31, 2008 15:32:16 GMT -5
Unless I missed it, a point about Let It Be hasn't been mentioned. The "project" started in Twickenham Studios VERY early in the morning. Not exactly the right environment for musicians who loved to start work at 10PM and finish in the wee hours of the morning. Kinda hard to work under those conditions and have a camera under your nose every waking moment. I think by that time the Beatles had become night people almost out of necessity, since they would be less vulnerable to being mobbed and disturbed at night. You're right about the cameras, though. That couldn't have been fun.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Jul 31, 2008 16:33:36 GMT -5
Hey, look, folks -- it isn't any fun when I have to get up very early in the morning and go to my job, which is more physical than anything the four Beatles EVER had to do... TheBeatles were making music and playing, and getting paid a lot more for that than I'll ever get paid in my lifetime for working 20X as hard.. so please pardon me if I don't get all misty! Plus, they could have walked away and still had a lotta dough. Most of us don't have such an option.
|
|
ImBigK
Very Clean
Take a sad song and make it better
Posts: 66
|
Post by ImBigK on Jul 31, 2008 18:05:48 GMT -5
Hey, look, folks -- it isn't any fun when I have to get up very early in the morning and go to my job, which is more physical than anything the four Beatles EVER had to do... TheBeatles were making music and playing, and getting paid a lot more for that than I'll ever get paid in my lifetime for working 20X as hard.. so please pardon me if I don't get all misty! Plus, they could have walked away and still had a lotta dough. Most of us don't have such an option. That's not the point. The most basic tenet of making a documentary is that you should capture the actual experience, and by artificially removing the Beatles from their normal working hours and environment the filmmakers did exactly the opposite. I think it's fair to conclude that this had a negative effect on the film, and the group itself for that matter. -Big K
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 31, 2008 19:46:09 GMT -5
Quote from RTP:If this is the case, she could just edit her parts out. I think Paul wants the film out. He sure seemed anxious about it coming out. Yoko could be filmed in an interview explaining what was going on between her and John and the others to make it easier to understand her point of veiw. I think it would be a good compromise between her and Paul.
Quote from Joe K.: Nonsense. You do not desecrate a movie like that. A film is what it is; no editing, no censoring. As a movie buff I am appalled at such a notion.
RTP: You're right editing her out was a bad idea. But if she could be allowed to be part of the extras in an interview stating how much in love they were and how they were thinking about what was going on, perhaps she would not have the objections she has.
As John has said, Let It Be was Paul's show, designed to showcase him. He said the cameras were set up for Paul. Paul certainly had the most popular if not best songs in the film (Three No. 1 songs). I think Paul did come off pretty well except for the scene with George and there is a case that can be made that George was being overly sensitive. Was it so horrible that Paul was asking him what to play on Paul's own song?
I wasn't trying to be negative about John. This was at a time when Paul was taking more and more of a leadeship role and it bothered him. John doesn't come off particularly well in the film and I think that is behind why its not out yet.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Jul 31, 2008 19:50:07 GMT -5
It's a pity. I think there would be a lot of media interest in the re-issue of the 'Let it Be' film -- far more than 'Help' etc... The angle of "the film that documents the break-up of the world's greatest band" would be too hard to resist for both the written and the broadcast media. It would get a ton of exposure and generate huge interest. This is just idle speculation, but I can't imagine Paul or Ringo are against its release. I don't think Ringo would be bothered one way or the other -- in fact I 'm sure his attitude would be 'put it out'. From Paul's point of view, the film contains two of his finest moments - 'Let it Be' and 'TLAWR', both delivered memorably and flawlessly to camera - along with the rooftop session, which I'm sure he strongly approves of. On top of that, he instigated the LIB...N release, so he obviously has no great aversion to 'Let it Be' per se. The road-block obviously lies elsewhere and is a real shame. Its early reality TV (movies).
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Jul 31, 2008 20:41:36 GMT -5
It's a pity. I think there would be a lot of media interest in the re-issue of the 'Let it Be' film -- far more than 'Help' etc... The angle of "the film that documents the break-up of the world's greatest band" would be too hard to resist for both the written and the broadcast media. It would get a ton of exposure and generate huge interest. This is just idle speculation, but I can't imagine Paul or Ringo are against its release. I don't think Ringo would be bothered one way or the other -- in fact I 'm sure his attitude would be 'put it out'. From Paul's point of view, the film contains two of his finest moments - 'Let it Be' and 'TLAWR', both delivered memorably and flawlessly to camera - along with the rooftop session, which I'm sure he strongly approves of. On top of that, he instigated the LIB...N release, so he obviously has no great aversion to 'Let it Be' per se. The road-block obviously lies elsewhere and is a real shame. Its early reality TV (movies). I wouldn't say it's early reality TV. Documentaries document events as they actually happened. Reality TV purports to document events, but actually a lot of what happens on them is pre-staged. 'Let It Be' is a true documentary as it shows the break-up of The Beatles as it's happening, none of what happened in the movie was pre-planned. The idea of documenting a rehearsal for a live concert show went down in flames and the footage shows it in all it's brutal honesty. Compare that to the train wreck of the Osbournes, Anna Nicol Smith, Gene Simmons Family Jewels or Big Brother and Survivor. To call the latter two 'reality' is laughable. Everything about those shows are so staged it's astounding anyone takes them seriously. I was able to figure out the winner of the very first Survivor show without watching one episode by reading the newpaper reports about it the next day. When I realized what direction the show was going and figured out accurately who was going to win, I emailed my sister who watched the show religiously and let the cat out of the bag before the show aired. She accused me of knowing somebody who gave me the answer. I told her I figured it out on my own and didn't have to waste any of my time watching the damn show. It took a long time before my sister would speak to me again.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 1, 2008 6:23:11 GMT -5
You're right editing her out was a bad idea. But if she could be allowed to be part of the extras in an interview stating how much in love they were and how they were thinking about what was going on, perhaps she would not have the objections she has. But where's the concrete proof that Yoko has objections to how she and/or John appears in LIB, or that she's the one putting it on hold? The comment that she made could mean anything, including Apple's dragging of their own feet on releasing it ("How long do you want to live", or whatever her quote was). All you're doing is making a definitive conclusion based on that. Hell, I wasn't even in LIB and I can tell you the same thing if you asked me when LIB was coming out! --- "When your grandchildren are 80"! I think John makes Paul look like a fool when Paul is rambling on later, and John just stares at him and practically falls asleeep out of boredom and won't even respond! John didn't give a rat's ass about Paul or the other Beatles during the making of LET IT BE. Why would it bother him that Paul was becoming the leader when John just didn't care, and pretty much said "hey, do what you want, Paul, I'm no longer interested"? It would only bug John if John himself wanted to be leader and Paul wouldn't let him. And no, I don't think John comes off badly at all -- he just comes off as John. I think it's just a matter of Apple dragging its feet. Are they also delaying the release of newly mastered Beatles CDs because Yoko doesn't want them or because John looks bad? And where is MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR? Yoko holding that one up too? The highlight of the movie is John's I AM THE WALRUS. Maybe Yoko doesn't want John to be seen with an egg cap?
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Aug 1, 2008 10:17:23 GMT -5
I think John makes Paul look like a fool when Paul is rambling on later, and John just stares at him and practically falls asleeep out of boredom and won't even respond! Maybe, depending on how one views the entire sad situation. I just find it depressing and irritating, probably because I see myself in Paul's shoes trying to carry on with the greatest rock and roll band of the twentieth century. "You took your lucky break and broke it in two." I don't find John "cool" at all in that situation. He had little to offer in the way of songs; he was more interested in heroin and Yoko. I wish, and I think he stated this later, that he would have had the guts to put a stop to all of it if he wasn't interested. Sometimes Lennon's behavior could be childlike (endearing) -- other times, childish. He was human, however perceptive and talented. It was inevitable that everyone had to grow up and move on, I suppose. But I identify with Paul: as long we're here, let's do our best. We're the Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Aug 1, 2008 10:28:17 GMT -5
Can some of you step back and see how downright silly a discussion can become...I'm just curious. When you start blindly defending "your" Beatle it's time to step away from the computer. That said:
I agree with JSD that the very least they could do is issue a cleaned-up version of the original VHS release. It would be disappointing to a point - but better than nothing. If anything is altered or edited out just to somehow attempt to preserve someones image, then I don't want the friggin thing. I really find myself shaking my head over all this talk about how the people in the film come across. The whole idea of the film (and album) origianally was to show the honest workings of the band with no glossy coat put over it. That's what it is! For crying out loud the Beatles aren't shown clubbing baby seals or anything. One thing they could do if they are so hell-bent on not leaving people with a feeling of doom on the band crumbling apart is add a little historical footnote to the movie explaining how they went on to record one of the greatest albums in rock music history after the period of time in the LIB movie was captured. I don't think that's necessary, but it could be done.
It's a great movie for the die-hard Beatles fan. And the last part is the wonderful rooftop concert which for me tends to put in check scenes like George offering not to play guitar.
Message to Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia - Put the damn film out already - please. I love the band and will continue to no matter how much they prove to be mere humans in the movie. Just get the audio/video in sync. That drives me crazy.
I'd also love to see a camera shot of George doing the lead on "One After 909" from the rooftop scene, instead of a shot of people in the street. But now I'm nit-picking :-)
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 1, 2008 11:46:42 GMT -5
They didn't show George playing the lead, because Paul later overdubbed the guitar part.
I'm kidding-hold your messages...
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 1, 2008 12:05:10 GMT -5
They didn't show George playing the lead, because Paul later overdubbed the guitar part. I'm kidding-hold your messages... LOL! I misread Snook's post and I at first thought he meant that there is a version where George is singing lead on "One After 909." That would be cool. George's guitar work on "One After 909" from LIB is light years better than on the version back in 1963(although I love that version too). But then again George was a little bit older and a little bit wiser in '69!
|
|
|
Post by revolver66 on Aug 1, 2008 12:21:38 GMT -5
You're right editing her out was a bad idea. But if she could be allowed to be part of the extras in an interview stating how much in love they were and how they were thinking about what was going on, perhaps she would not have the objections she has. But where's the concrete proof that Yoko has objections to how she and/or John appears in LIB, or that she's the one putting it on hold? The comment that she made could mean anything, including Apple's dragging of their own feet on releasing it ("How long do you want to live", or whatever her quote was). All you're doing is making a definitive conclusion based on that. Hell, I wasn't even in LIB and I can tell you the same thing if you asked me when LIB was coming out! --- "When your grandchildren are 80"! I think John makes Paul look like a fool when Paul is rambling on later, and John just stares at him and practically falls asleeep out of boredom and won't even respond! John didn't give a rat's ass about Paul or the other Beatles during the making of LET IT BE. Why would it bother him that Paul was becoming the leader when John just didn't care, and pretty much said "hey, do what you want, Paul, I'm no longer interested"? It would only bug John if John himself wanted to be leader and Paul wouldn't let him. And no, I don't think John comes off badly at all -- he just comes off as John. I think it's just a matter of Apple dragging its feet. Are they also delaying the release of newly mastered Beatles CDs because Yoko doesn't want them or because John looks bad? And where is MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR? Yoko holding that one up too? The highlight of the movie is John's I AM THE WALRUS. Maybe Yoko doesn't want John to be seen with an egg cap? We all get on RTP for his defense of all things Paul. However Joe that's what it sounds like with you regarding John. I mean If John didn't want to be filmed then so be it. I think he acted a bit immature in some situations and certainly didn't make Paul look like a fool. Paul was trying his best to make good with a bad situation. You say John didn't care about the Beatles at this point so why would he care if Paul led? Well why did he care when Paul announced the end of the Beatles? Why was he so bitter to Paul right after the split? In the end it was Paul who was right about Klein but John wouldn't listen. As history shows Lennon had good intentions but many especially the Political ones were quite Naive. I mean Let It Be had his name on it just like the rest. I would think he should be concerned with the final product. That being said i don't think the Let It Be Movie shows any of the Fabs in a bad light. It's does show friend going through a hard time.
|
|
|
Post by melody on Aug 1, 2008 13:27:36 GMT -5
I'm in 100% agreement with the points Jim made and want to address your assertion, Joe, that John didn't care about the leadership issue or how he appeared vis-a-vis Paul in the film. I couldn't disagree more. First, there is a 1970 quote from John stating that he felt awful watching the film and perceived Paul coming across as a God and the others just sitting around. Secondly, 1968-1970 was perhaps one gigantic power struggle between J & P when John reasserted his leadership and Paul wouldn't capitulate, not wanting anything to do with Klein or Apple controlling and mucking up his songs or his solo album release date(s).
One could argue that after a couple a years of Paul running the show and the other's going along with it, John began the White Album sessions forcefully saying HE was the boss:
-Yoko would be at all sessions and speak for him if he wanted her to; -HE would be the one to decide on a manger and the terms of the contract and it would be a manager that HE felt a kinship with; -For the first time in the bands history, one dissenting vote on such an important matter as a manager was overruled at John's discretion. -HE would decide how the LIB album would sound and when it would be released. Paul would win that last point when LIB was pushed back for McCartney, but with George and Ringo on his side, John won the war. Or did he? My personal theory is that John had second thoughts about disbanding the group after his 'divorce' announcement, and then Paul went and shut the half open door in his face.
You are quite right, Joe, that there is no concrete proof that Yoko is behind the delay of the LIB dvd, but there are plenty of reasons to think that it *could be* her. I think you must be kidding yourself to say John's appearance, behavior, creativity, and playing during these sessions, was just John being John (although he did rise to the occassion on that rooftop).
Whatever....if Apple says it will come out eventually, then that's good enough for me. No blame.
|
|
|
Post by rockwizard on Aug 1, 2008 13:58:24 GMT -5
John's disinterest....a few things come to mind:
1) he couldn't give a rat's a$$ about the Beatles...he wanted a "divorce".
2)By this time, John and Yoko were virtually one/joined at the hip. Not to be flip, but I wonder if they seperated long enough to have a bathroom break.
3)Wasn't John still in the grips of heroin? That alone would make him not very interested in the proceedings during filming.
Lets face it, after Epstein died, the wheels started coming off. They stopped touring, and were basically a studio band(and a damn good one too!). I believe George stated after the Candlestick show...I'm not touring anymore, thus, I'm no longer a Beatle.
Put out the movie, cleaned up, padded, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Aug 1, 2008 14:03:16 GMT -5
They didn't show George playing the lead, because Paul later overdubbed the guitar part. I'm kidding-hold your messages... My claws and fangs sprang right out when I read your first line. Then I read the second line and began to laugh out loud.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 2, 2008 6:18:51 GMT -5
Can some of you step back and see how downright silly a discussion can become...I'm just curious. When you start blindly defending "your" Beatle it's time to step away from the computer. But I defend ALL FOUR Beatles, at various times. Why, there was just a discussion (in the PEPPER thread, I think?) where I put John down in favor of Paul! I said Paul was the one needed for The Beatles to take off, and John needed Paul in the early days more than Paul needed John! I said that John's Quarrymen band was a "nowhere band" until Paul arrived! I have always said that Paul was the most talented. Absolutely correct!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 2, 2008 6:30:34 GMT -5
We all get on RTP for his defense of all things Paul. However Joe that's what it sounds like with you regarding John. Errrr...No. OK, maybe HERE, in THIS topic .... but as I just wrote above, there was just a discussion (in the PEPPER thread, I think?) where I put John down in favor of Paul! I said Paul was the one needed for The Beatles to take off, and John needed Paul in the early days more than Paul needed John! I said that John's Quarrymen band was a "nowhere band" until Paul arrived! I have always said that Paul was the most talented. So what are you talking about? I am fair across the board... and I don't think I have EVER heard RTP slam Paul and compliment John... on ANY issue! So this is a load of rubbish. And I commend him for that. I think that is consistent. John didn't want The Beatles anymore, and he wanted out -- but he kept his mouth shut out of courtesy to the band. Then Paul sneaks ahead and announced 'the End', and John was pissed because all along it was John himself who wanted "out" and kicked himself that he hadn't come right out and made the announcement. What's not consistent? For sneaking around and announcing the end of the Beatles when he (Paul) was the only one who actually wanted the group together, and id this just to promote McCARTNEY? It was a sneaky move, especially when Paul was the one who said "no, let's keep together and work it all out". For all the venom and coldness spewed against JohnandYoko? Yes, Paul was right about Klein and John was wrong. So what's this silly theory of yours about me always taking John's side and never defending or agreeing with/giving credit to Paul again... ?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 2, 2008 6:44:59 GMT -5
want to address your assertion, Joe, that John didn't care about the leadership issue or how he appeared vis-a-vis Paul in the film. I couldn't disagree more. First, there is a 1970 quote from John stating that he felt awful watching the film and perceived Paul coming across as a God and the others just sitting around. Okay, fair enough. He didn't like the impression the finished product gave (even though he should have realized this simply was what it was). But this still doesn't change the fact that - at the time the stuff was filmed - John was no longer interested in The Beatles, he preferred to do everything else with Yoko instead, and just was lethargic due to heroin and just general disinterest in the band, period. He would have been happy to leave and make the announcement and go on with Yoko and their projects, I think. I disagree. I think this was the chief period where John was lovestruck with Yoko, strung out on H, and just did not care one way or the other about the Beatles and very much wanted and needed to get out and branch out . But this does not compute with all the usual Yoko bashing, saying that she was breaking the band up and that John was swayed more to her and "under her control". I'm not saying *I* feel that way, but this is what so many others say. So was John (along with his twin Yoko) actively trying to take over The Beatles and make it thrive, or were they happier to get away? I think it's obviously the latter. Maybe John was concerend with the money and business dealings, but that's something else other than artistic reasons. He rose to it a lot more than just on the rooftop, but I'm not going to analyze every frame. But there's the moment ehen he's at the mike with Paul joking while doing TWO OF US, and he's doing a lot of joking throughout. There's DIG IT. I'm not saying John's at his best; the guy was miserable there and that's where his head was (or wasn't) at, and it showed. But it was what it was.
|
|