George, Paul and Ringo jamming in 1995 video footage- Can someone fill me in?

During the Anthology years, Paul, George and Ringo had a photo shoot, and a white peacock stood alongside them during one of the outdoor photo sessions. They joked that it was John.

I have just seen that George had made a similar comment in the past, as described by Michael Aspel, a UK TV interviewer :

''Paul was lovely and I remember he signed a beautiful photograph for my disabled son, Patrick, which he still keeps by his bedside. A few years later, I thought it would be nice to get the full set of Beatles.

By then, John had sadly died, but George and Ringo came on the show.

During our conversation, a pigeon was fluttering around the studio ceiling, so George looked up and said, ‘That’s John’ and everyone gave a great sigh. I like to think I got the full set after all. ''

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style...artney-Tony-Curtis-Elizabeth-Taylor-interview

 

Sue me, sue you blues indeed.

I'm sure you remember that George even sued Ringo, or at least threatened to sue him for cryin' out loud. But, they could both laugh about it when they were on TV together years later. Those wacky Beatle guys !

 

Was that over the song "I'll still love you"?

 

But while SFF came out well.. it's not as if it really changed after a certain point. The unedited version on the Anthology turns out to be rather slow and uninspired sounding.. and I don't know if that slide guitar on those earlier takes was all George's idea but it's absolutely awful. What seemed to work was speeding up SFF and introducing forceful sped up double tracked drums along with George Martin's arrangement... besides that it's still John doing the same thing as that demo only Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds style. It's a great tune and a great moment for the Beatles... but as an experiment it's a rather primitive one as is most of what was accomplished with varispeed in 1967. It's a great story for George Martin to tell but all in all I think that more would have been accomplished had the Beatles spent more time rehearsing and coming up with great parts to play on their instruments rather than fiddling with the speed controls.

As for "You Know What to Do" ... it's a nice little attempt at a Buddy Holly by George... he was sketching out an idea. It always seemed to me, and I'm certainly no musicologist and can't compare charts, notation, or aeolian cadences, but it sounds a LOT to me that the basic idea he had there sounds something like the song "Apple Scruffs". Maybe they have nothing to do with each other.. but that back and forth between two chords is probably something that happened at many George Harrison songwriting sessions and if it resulted in YKWTD in 1964 and Apple Scruffs in 1968 or 1969 then it seems to me that the level of inspiration was matched years later by a bit of perspiration as George comes up with a charming clever melody and a nice progression to a chorus.

 

Also... so we're not TOO reductionist... let's not forget that he grew up an Irish Catholic in LIVERPOOL.. so that stuff never really goes away either. I think the comments that got them in trouble in 1966 were actually VERY cautious. John didn't go too deeply into talking about unbelief but was more oriented towards appearing concerned about the fact that most people and particularly kids don't GET IT .. what Christ was really about and that a more simple concept like TV or The Beatles was grasped by more people than grasped Jesus. Only after the firestorm did Lennon end up being more explicit and critical in his songwriting and commentary about religion. Paul has always been on record saying "I don't believe." . He openly said it in Hunter Davies book and that lack of belief seems to have been a real sticking point in the decline of McCartney and Harrison's relationship during and after the Beatles. George seems to say that "John gets it... or seemed to at some point... whereas Paul NEVER got it and STILL doesn't get what it's about. " George claimed that he never doubted the existence of God after the LSD experience. Also John & Paul were Irish Catholics too and John doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would calmly discuss atheism while the world was ending around him. Like a lot of us in such a situation one might hedge one's bet while the threat is present!!!

 

For George it was about stress which he felt had permanently damaged him. But he was also upset about excessive EGO in any situation. Even when the Electronic Sound guy was at his house explaining to him that the music for side 1 was HIS composition he was playing, George was more upset that the guy wasn't being humble about the situation. That's what upset him about McCartney so the Wilbury's must have been sheer heaven. Here you have an extremist in humility like Roy Orbison... his good friend Jeff Lynne who must have learned some diplomacy after his experience in The Move and ELO... Tom Petty and Bob Dylan who are two guys very set in their ways and no-BS types to the extreme. The fact that at least Petty, Dylan, and Harrison had just spent most of the 80s becoming experts at writing these rather humorous finger wagging songs must have made them feel they were running riot during the whole Wilbury crusade! They got to poke a lot of fun at the whole thing. George didn't even try to follow up Cloud Nine he was so caught up in the Wilbury fun and madness.

 

Well they SHOULD have. It wouldn't have hurt the Beatles to revise some of their work which had great potential. If You've Got Trouble reminds me of a song like Magical Mystery Tour... all chorus and no verse! And That Means a Lot sounds like a Hallmark ad written by Paul McCartney.. it didn't have to be such a simple minded melody... a little work on it could have made it the highlight of that album!

 

Ringo wasn't an Irish Catholic, nor Irish, nor a Catholic. He did, however grow up in Liverpool.

 

Very odd to me that Paul (of all four Beatles) would be the one to steadfastly not believe. I don't know why, he just strikes me as one who would. But his recent song (2007) "The End Of The End" sure sounds like it comes from one who believes in heaven, an afterlife.

 

But The Beatles DID always do a lot of work on their songs which had great potential (those of course being the ones they deemed release-able in their official catalogue). They probably felt that "If You've Got Trouble" and "That Means A Lot" were not that good, and not worthy of such fine tuning.

 

It turned out perfect that The Beatles ended when they did, at that moment. I wouldn't have wanted them to continue a day longer and risk mediocrity.

It made no sense at all for the other three to go with Eastman, when it was possible that he would be partial to Paul. I'm sure Paul would have felt the exact same way if it had been John, George, or Ringo's father-in-law.

As for "apologizing" to Paul? At least John later conceded that Paul had been right about Klein. That's good enough for me.

 

If you were George or Ringo, would you have gone to the ceremony with Paul, knowing that he was trying to get more money than you? It seemed George and Ringo were willing, and still wanted Paul there.

How did that settlement ever turn out? Does anyone know? Did the three of them get an equal amount?

 

One out of four is a pretty good ratio...

 

He wasn't trying to get more money than them. All four of them always split the Beatles royalty four ways that never changed at any time but Paul got an extra percentage signing on bonus on all revenue he received from EMI in exchange for signing to them as a solo artist. However, this money never came out of the Beatles royalties that was a separate calculation split four ways as set out in their contract.

The extra revenue Paul received came from EMI's operating funds

As I mentioned he told them about his deal and yes they all got a better deal too. In the end EMI settled about a gazillion lawsuits out of court, ok maybe it was about 17 or so for an eight figure sum in 1989 but the Beatles were back in court with EMI again by 1991 and then again in 1995 and then one last little fling in 2005/2006 just for old times sake.

They made a lot of lawyers very rich, they put a lot of people's kids through college and paid for a lot of swimming pools

 

nikh33 has already responded that Ringo was not Catholic.
John was also not Catholic, he was raised Anglican.
Paul was baptized Catholic, but by his own admission was pretty much raised without religion.
You never "assigned" a religion to the actual Beatle that was born and raised Catholic: George.

If you are trying to not overly simplify a complex idea, you could at least try getting a few things right.
Arnie pretty much called it...one out of four

 

I remember reading quotes where Paul said he believes there is a greater force out there, but that he doesn't subscribe to any one religion.

Still, there's Follow Me, there's the trip to the Church of the Nativity, there's the picture sleeve to the live Long and Winding Road featuring the Christ the Redeemer statue. Plus End of the End.

I wonder what Linda's Memorial was like. Was it held in a Church? Was it a completely secular service? I don't know the answer, just asking.

Slim pickings, granted, but suggesting to me that there is a spiritual side to Paul, which he keeps to himself.
If that's true, I totally respect that.
And if he's a true non believer, I respect that too. Either way, he doesn't push his belief/non belief on others.
As it should be, I think.
Unless he wants to cut a great gospel record.

 

Yes, George didn't like the mix or the arrangement, or.... something.

 

That is one reason why I don't have much time for Yoko.

 

After reading both Peter Doggett's book You Never Give Me Your Money and McCabe's Apple to the Core, I fail to see where Allen Klein was a "complete fraud." Sure, he was paid more than handsomely for his work (who twisted the Beatles' arm to agree to that percentage?), but in 1969, one could list the major mistakes that Lee and John Eastman made (Clive Epstein/NEMs essentially would not do business with them -- not Klein), but for some reason, those get forgotten.

 

I don't have any problem with Yoko, but according to the book "Fab," when a friend played a tape of Yoko's comments over the phone the next day to Paul and Linda, Paul's response was "F&&&ing c&&t. Makes me want to puke."

 

She was attending, and accepting the honor, on behalf of her husband. Of course she is going to say something about how her husband ...and the award.

Do/did you really expect her to openly wonder whether Lennon would have come and accepted the award? At the award ceremony? While attending herself?

If Love hadn't spewed all his completely out of line nonsense, I doubt anyone would be reading anything barbed or veiled in Ono's remarks.

 

Well i never knew about Loves remarks before now. But the very first time i saw Yokos speach i took it as a slab on Paul.

 

Wow. Well, I still think it goes back to Mike Love's remarks, causing folks to be super sensitive.

 

Simple melody? There are quite a few twists and turns (the structure is very similar to Ticket To Ride - you can almost sing one over the other - but more harmonically complex).

The chords (just for the verse!):

E Am E
E Am F#m B
G Am G F#m B
E A B E

 

If the quote is accurate, it makes me glad that Paul carefully presents a nice public face in interviews, though many criticize that