Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Joel1963, Jul 10, 2018.
Sure Paul McCartney can play some rudimentary drums, but he's no Ginger Baker.
None of us were there so none of us know, at least three dimensionally, what actually happened. And my exposure to British comedy/humor basically is "The Vicar of Dibley," "Black Adder," "Are You Being Served," "Keeping Up Appearances," "As Time Goes By," "Doc Martin," "To the Manor Born," "Only Fools and Horses" and "Last of the Summer Wine," so I'm not fluent in Liverpudlian taking the piss.
It just seems like there's an immediate, almost protective reaction that Macca couldn't have been serious.
News flash: I've only been in the room with one Beatle, Sir Richard Starkey, but there's enough documentation over the past 54 years since he became famous around the planet that Paul can be a turd of immense proportions.
News flash 2: So can I. Which reinforces my opinion that all of these guys ... all rock stars, for that matter, male or female, deceased or still upright, famous or unknown, even the Beatles ... are just schmucks who REALLY take a piss and put on their trousers one leg at a time like the rest of us, who just happen to have the talent to make noise that pleases peoples ears. Which means I don't grant them automatic respect, deference or defense.
He sounds annoyed to me. If y'all think differently, more power to you, we can agree to disagree.
I don’t mean to upset you, and I apologize. You said that he’s been used by others? I am actually shocked by that. He plays a 4/4 beat fine. But he can’t play a shuffle. I’ve seen video of him trying (in the Klaus Voormann video, I think), and it wasn’t good. Someone pointed out “Helen Wheels”, but the thing about a recording is that you can overdub, and (I don’t remember) the bass drum may be 4/4 anyway. If you ask your musician friends, I’ll bet a lot of them have sat down at the drum set, and been able to play 4/4, but could not play a shuffle.
But . . . every drummer in every high school rock group in the world can play a shuffle. If you can’t, you really aren’t a drummer - ask any musician friend. Ringo can’t play a roll, apparently, but that’s not a big deal because no one plays a roll in rock. But every rock band plays a shuffle. I don’t have any credentials. I did play drums (both trap set and in the band/orchestra through my University years) but that doesn’t mean anything.
Maybe he could be a professional drummer now. He could use a machine to program the bass and hi-hat parts for “All My Loving” or “Act Naturally”, etc., and play the other songs live. Technology!
Odd choice of words as rudiments are actually a technical drumming skill I doubt Paul or Ringo ever really learned.
True....but he’s still come up with more instantly recognizable drum patterns than Ginger Baker could even dream of.
Except that Paul was talking to John, not George. Watch the video.
Does no one here actually own a copy of the Let It Be video so we can put that silly myth to rest?
2 different scenes. One around 9 minutes in (talking to John about "I've Got a Feeling"), the second, with George, about 15 minutes in.
no need to apologize, I didn't take any offense in what you said.
You can be shocked, but its true.
Foo Fighters - Sunday Rain
He's drummed on multi platinum albums, he has drummed on some classic songs and highly respected artists such as Grohl and Miller have used as their drummer. Now unless you are debating the existence of their being drums on Band on the RUN, McCartney II, the Ballad of John and Yoko, Back in the USSR and Dear Prudence then you are simply going to have to accept that he is a drummer, even if you don't rate him as one.
I won’t belabor the point. If Paul is a drummer then he is the only drummer I know of that can only play songs in 4/4. It’s like a piano player that can only play songs in C, F, B flat and E flat.
I play guitar, a - d - e.
I don't play bass 'cause that's too hard for me.
I play the piano if it's in c.
And when I go to town I wanna see all three,
Early 1970 - Ringo Starr
So tactful that Lennon wanted to know if Eric Clapton was available.
Yeah, I completely disagree. He sounds like he's pretending to be annoyed, and his "this is work, guys" comment seems clearly sarcastic. DJ Fontana laughs afterwards.
Beyond our subjective perceptions, what is the likelihood that McCartney would seriously upbraid Scotty and DJ like they were hired hands? What is the likelihood he would do such a thing on camera? They are musical idols of his, and I imagine he has a lot more respect for them than that.
And in the unlikely event he did seriously yell at them, what is the likelihood he'd allow the footage to be released? This is an edited performance, not raw footage.
I think Paul was probably trying to emulate, in his own way, some of the pre-song chatter that Elvis would utter before tracking. He should have affected an Elvis voice and said "Let's get real gone for a change....." or something like that to avoid any confusion in the minds of members of SH Forums.....!!!!!
Is this the same track that started as a jam with just McCartney thrashing on drums and Miller jamming along?
"The Dog Presides" with Paul McCartney on drums, Paull Samwell-Smith on bass, Jeff Beck on guitar and Paul Jones on vocals and harmonica is another track worth seeking out and having a listen to.
(It's a shame that George Martin never seemed to have gotten McCartney and Beck into a studio to lay down some tracks: I s'pose it's not too late for Giles to produce a remake of "She's A Woman" but with McCartney's current singing voice given the vocoder treatment instead of Beck's!!).
George plays a great "bassline" on "Two Of Us"- the idea of using his Tele as a bass was a stroke of genius. Until I found out it was actually George on the rosewood Tele, I would have sworn it was McCartney on the Hofner.
And yet Ginger Baker, like Keith Moon, was quite complimentary toward Paul's drumming. Paul did record a bit of Band On The Run at Ginger's studio in Lagos; I'm sure if a, shall we say, outspoken guy like Ginger had any issues with Paul's drumming he would have said so and volunteered to show Paul it was supposed to be done. He didn't...
I am beginning to think that "damage control spin" had a lot to do with the Paul and George argument getting all the press, by design! Why? Because the all out fight happened on January 10th, the day George walked out of the sessions for Let It Be. That fight, downplayed by all, was between John and George. Whispers is about all we have today, but around the time of the incident, everyone in the Beatles close nit group were tight lipped. Give the public and media the almost childish argument between Paul and George and sweep the bigger fight under the rug. Why? Because they were the Beatles, supposed saviors of music and mankind alike. It would have burst the four mop top all for one myth into oblivion. Because the fight was physical and threats were hurled. No way? You say? Well the Beatles were good at hiding things. Take for example John announced he was leaving the Beatles around the time of Let It Be. But that was kept quiet, until after Abbey Road was complete and Let It Be was released thereafter. Paul announced he was leaving the Beatles to the whole world. Is it a coincidence that the original "Get Back sessions", an upbeat hopeful title for an album became the deflated Let It Be title we actually got? The guys got back together to make one last great album to bow out on with Abbey Road. With only a few less explosive tiffs during those sessions, they did just that. Even calling the last track "The End" before a technician slapped "Her Majesty" and originally untitled to the end of side 2. Many forums other than this one have tried to sort thru the mystery, that many present that January 10th said happened. The Beatles themselves were silent. Where George was heard to say as he stormed out, "See you round the clubs". While John was heard angerly saying "Let's get Clapton, he won't give us this much trouble." The three remaining Beatles jammed next day with Yoko wailing as some sort of de facto replacement. George was probably happy he missed that session. The music that day was angry in nature and shut down early. Paul was to convince John this wouldn't do, they needed to Get George to come back. He did return, but with concessions. No live show as they had planned ( George really hated the stage for most of his life) . Move the sessions back to Saville , the groups home away from home, and the unannounced entry of Billy Preston that George brought in to lighten the mood and get everyone in the room to be better Beatles. Things did improve from there. I really think the Paul and George argument that day was left in the film to confuse fans into thinking the bigger fight never happened. IMHO!
Not sure if anyone answered this for you yet...
George offered the following songs to the band during the Let It Be/Get Back sessions:
All Things Must Pass, Let It Down, Here Me Lord, For You Blue, I Me Mine, Window Window and Isn't It A Pity. He also had Something and Old Brown Shoe ready to go, but didn't demo them until February.
John offered the following songs:
Don't Let Me Down, Dig a Pony, Everybody Had a Hard Year (later integrated into I've Got a Feeling), A Case of The Blues, Child of Nature (later rewritten into Jealous Guy), Gimme Some Truth (incomplete), Across The Universe, I Want You (She's So Heavy), Mean Mr. Mustard, Polythene Pam, Watching Rainbows (incomplete), Madman (incomplete). He also played the Sun King riff a number of times, but it wasn't an actual song at this point.
To answer your other questions, I don't think John and George were keeping their best songs for solo projects.
In the case of George, he had a large backlog of songs and tried to play seven of them to the band; they only seriously rehearsed three (ATMP, IMM and FYB), and only FYB was actually properly recorded during those sessions. IMM was only revisited a year later for continuity, because the rehearsals made the cut of the film. When he got the hint that John & Paul weren't biting for these, he suggested to just record a solo album, much to John's ambivalence. So I guess he wasn't intentionally holding anything back, the others just didn't care.
In contrast, John very much had a case of writer's block. He only had two new finished compositions (Don't Let Me Down and Dig a Pony), a number of unused/bottom of the barrel songs written in 1968, and then a handful of scraps he was working on but weren't done.
I'm with those who don't see the Paul/George tiff as a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It's even less of a big deal when given the full context. The board meetings and The White Album sessions sounded more dramatic.
That said, too many people are treating it like it happened in a vacuum. This wasn't about Paul telling George how he wanted his song to go, and George not being able to take it. He'd done what Paul wanted plenty of times before. This was years of resentment finally coming to the surface. An important aspect of George's personality was that ever since he was a kid he hated people in positions of power telling him what to do. At first he saw Paul as being a partner in fighting against authority, but in the last years Paul turned into the authority figure. I understand they were Paul's songs, and of course he had a right to have it how he wanted. At the same time, it wouldn't have killed him to give George's ideas a chance every now and then. It would've shown George he had some respect for him as a musician. As much as Paul loved The Beatles, I think he took them for granted sometimes, and by the time he wised up it was too late. George was getting better and better yet the reaction to his songs wasn't improving, and he felt like he'd become a session musician. That's got to be a pretty lousy feeling when you're seeing the careers of your guitarist friends flourish.
Paul sounds serious and annoyed to me too. I fail to see any humor in his reaction.
...but they were lazy ******* who DIDN'T rehearse and were proud that they never got a room somewhere to work everything out..they always just got on with it and played.
What did Norm Smith mean when he said rubber soul was "not my cup of tea." Saw that in Lewisohn's book and never saw it elaborated on!
He wasn't even the best drummer in The Beatles.
I think the song as it is, a dreary two-chord strum for most part, would be hopeless without that bass line; George saved it.
Excellent post. Even Neil Aspinall and George Martin (of all people; Big George wasn't exactly Harrison's #1 supporter a lot of the time) were heard to remark after George quit the band on January 10 that they were amazed George had put up with all that boolsheet for so long, a couple of months would have been enough for either of them...
Separate names with a comma.