Beatles’ Carnival of Light: Exaggerated myth of greatness?

Definitely Paul, his farting is much more melodic and composed. John was a highly idiosyncratic farter: more instinktive and bluesy

 

John and Paul's vocals on the track would be a hint.

 

Well according to the Beatles Recording Sessions Book they were just "screaming dementedly and bawling aloud random phrases" (as opposed to properly speaking or singing)

Are you really sure you'd recognize them when THAT'S what they were doing?

 

I see a money-making opportunity for Apple. Put out a limited edition and highlight the LIMITED part in the publicity campaign. Make it a CD with Carnival of Life and that 30 minute version of Helter Skelter. Charge a small fortune because it's limited, unreleased Beatles music.
Call it "There - Happy Now?" and hope it sells out before anyone actually listens to it.

 

Either:
The Gene Vincent cover tunes must be pretty weak and sloppy, in which case Giles and his team probably never even considered those songs for inclusion.
Or:
Yoko vetoed it. I presume that she would be the only 1 of the 4 to be given the opportunity to give it the thumbs-down. If Yoko would have wanted the songs to be included, I believe that the others would accede to her wishes. The 4 Fabs and their estates seem to be playing nicely, and I don't believe one of the other 3 would risk upsetting Yoko.

My instinct is to favor the first reason that I listed.

 

Paul said George vetoed it because "he didn't like it." What makes you think George vetoed it because it wasn't intended as a Beatles track?

 

It will be released eventually, followed by millions of unimpressed listens, and then consigned to history as semi-or-not-really-artistic failure like 12-Bar Original.

 

Yes, I am sure. I'm equally confident I would be able to pick out Ringo and Robert Wyatt's drumming

 

Man, this statement is such a straw-man premise...

It's very tough to find anyone who wants to hear this piece of tape as "treating it like some holy relic." Most folks want to hear it because it is, like most aspects of the Beatles' art, historical timepiece at this point and reveals a strange experiment down a path the Beatles never really traveled.

I view "Carnival of Light" just how I did "12-Bar Original" in the early '90s...

There was a lot of talk about "12-Bar Original" before it appeared on many bootlegs and then "Anthology" about how the Beatles experimented with a "blues jam." Did most Beatles fan think this was going to be something of "greatness" and hold the stature of a "holy relic"? Hell no! But hearing "the Beatles" and "blues jam"or such in the same sentence did spark a lot of interest. We just wanted to hear it and were more than happy to buy it -- we weren't expecting to love it or listen to it every week.

 

There are always money-making opportunities for Apple when it comes to the Beatles.

I'd put out a Record Store Day color vinyl LP with the original "Carnival of Light" on side 1. And on side 2, a tracklist of shorter and various remixes and Love-Style mashups. Give Giles and some modern artists/producers access to the full track + a few other Pepper sessions tracks/stems/sounds (Let's say for example Lucy, Mr. Kite, Getting Better and Within You) and see what they come up with for a psychedelic/ambient trip.

The only rule should be that the remixers can't add music or sounds. They can only use these archival Beatles sounds. Other than that, they can go as far out as they want sampling/looping/manipulating the edits.

Available on deluxe color vinyl or iTunes/digital download etc.

 

...because I had read it - in at least two or three different places - here's one:

'The Beatles Diary Vol 2 1970-2001' by Keith Badman (pg 554):
"Paul originally wanted 'Carnival Of Light' on Anthology 2, but George, Ringo and Yoko opposed this because they felt that the track was never originally "intended for The Beatles".

Plus it IS true that it was never intended as a Beatles track. It was a Paul commission that was heard (and only recorded with the intention of being heard) twice in public.

Interestingly - like I said - I have seen the veto attributed to George alone by other sources.

 

Exactly. And no one needs that.

 

Having said all that though... who here isn't just a little bit curious to hear what Carnival of Light actually sounds like?

 

Beatles’ Carnival of Light: Exaggerated myth of exaggerated myth of greatness?

 

Is it a Beatles track? Wait, let me get my dictionary...

 

Perhaps a minor point but it was played several times each evening.

 

The overrating of the overrating of "Carnival of Lights" is overrated, if you want to put it into Steve Hoffman Forum-speak.

 

Actually in the Complete Recording Sessions book they were described as:

"though busked and impromptu" they were also "good and precise"

It also says they would have been worthy of release on the 'Get Back' album had they been recorded in January, rather than July.

BTW he was also describing the 'Ain't She Sweet' that was recorded at the same time and was later released on Anthology 3. So if 'Ain't She Sweet' was worthy of release, why not the other two, as he described all three similarly? Heck of the three 'Ain't She Sweet is the least interesting as we already had a Beatles version of it (on Anthology 1), and Be-Bop-A-Lula we already have a version of John singing it in his solo career, which makes 'Who Slapped John?' the most intriguing of the three to hear.

 

Then I guess my second reason may be true.
But why? I have no idea.

 

If it was even the same universe as Hey Jude, it would have been released right after being recorded.

It has a mystique because it is the last unheard Beatles fragment. I would guess the myth is more appealing than reality and it should stay entombed.

 

> Beatles’ Carnival of Light: Exaggerated myth of greatness?

This thread should have been a POLL! -- "Yes" or "No" -- simple as that.

I mean, how else are we going to get down a final opinion on this matter?

This thread could easily go on for 50 or even 100 pages, perhaps in just a few short weeks, but without ever any sort of resolution.

And then what will have been the point in even considering the question? I mean, apart from no one actually being able to hear the bloody thing, and all.

 

Everything about The Beatles on this forum is exaggerated.

 

Nobody's heard it yet.
So no one can make a judgment.
So this topic is a complete waste of time, your post designed to spark negative discussion. As usual.

 

I read somewhere that it was played continuously throughout the event (almost as a loop - as soon as it ends rewind and play it again - though I have no idea how true that is). But it was a lot easier for me to just say "twice" as in "two nights" or was it "two days"? It was two whatevers anyway.....like saying something was created for use in a play that closed after two nights - that thing was created for use in the play for all two of its performances - same deal here.

Didn't think it was necessary to point all of that out, which is why I didn't - but now I have, so...