If Paul played bass on I'm The Greatest, would it be a Beatles track?*

I remember reading that it was around this time that Ringo said that Paul had "lost it" when it came to his first solo albums and there wasn't a good song between them. Bit harsh.

 

As much as FAB and RL... translation: no! All parties have to enter the studio agreeing they are working under the communal name "Beatles"... otherwise, it's a just a song that happens to have your ex-band mates backing you up.

 

Paul would have sent the tape back with a track of him chiding Ringo for his playing...slagging john for the clunky beat "c'mon john you can do better" ...and saying "ey...harry...more guitar in the chorusss!" then theyd have overdubbed themselves saying 'sod off, boogaloo!' and the album would have been delayed 6 months. They just called Klaus instead. similar to FAAB and Real Love... without the 4 starting off together theres no way they can get to the end together. Even the Threatles had Lennon's sign off but the Shambling Beatleburys are grafted on.

 

I would say if the Beatles want to call it the Beatles its the Beatles. If half of the Beatles want to call it the Beatles and a relative of the Beatles says its ok...then legally it can be called the Beatles but its not the Beatles.

 

I have a fingernail clipping of St Boniface if that helps to clarify the situation.

 

I don't think "I'm the Greatest" is even that good of a song. Most of the reason why people discuss it seems to be because it was only song between the Beatles' breakup and John's death where three Beatles are playing on it. Would it have been as popular without those contributions by the other Beatles and two of the Beatles' friends? I'm not sure.

I'm sorry but the Beatles wouldn't have chosen this to be their big comeback single. Firstly, it's a Ringo song - surely a big comeback song would be sung by Paul and/or John, and secondly, imagine calling a comeback single "I'm the Greatest"! And thirdly, at a time when there were songs like Band on the Run lying around, I think they would have quickly said "screw this" and recorded that instead.

 

Yeah, by God it says Beatles right there! So they're Beatles songs after all, part of the cannon. Loved how the fabs reunited, good to see John and Paul bury the hatchet and commit, as a band, to do two more songs. Wasn't it a pity (wasn't it a shame) that George couldn't get a track. Not even Paul. But the Beatles were back baby!

It was inspirational, kind of like when Nat King Cole and his daughter formed a duo. And what a duo they were, one of the vocal duos in memory. Such chemistry in the studio.

You got me.

 

There was no getting John and Paul on the same track in those days, even if their parts were "phoned in."

 

I don't recall the exact quote or the source but Lennon said in the early '70s that even if all 4 recorded together in a studio, the Beatles would still not exist again.

 

What's stopping him now?

Just record a new bass track, remix the thing, and voila! Instant Beatles song.

 

None of that matters - officially they are Beatles songs with input from all four Beatles.

 

I sense a small bit of sarcasm coming from you there.

I get where you're coming from, but if George, Paul, Ringo and Yoko put something out and it's got all four guys on it, and they tell me it's The Beatles, then I am inclined to accept that it is.

Honestly, those songs are more collaboratively Beatles than "The Ballad of John and Yoko", "Blackbird", "Julia", "Why Don't We Do It In The Road", or even "Yesterday", for that matter -- and I'm sure you have no problem accepting those as Beatles tracks. Those have always been so protective of the name, and were careful to avoid any unwanted "Beatles reunion" hype for so many years, that when they finally got around to doing something -- to the best of their abilities, under very difficult circumstances, mind you -- they gave us two new tracks and marketed them as "The Beatles". So whether you like it or not, they're Beatles tracks. They stand alone as anomalies in the catalog, of course, they're not exactly "cannon" but rather they're a pleasant surprise a quarter century on. They are what they are, but I accept them as The Beatles, because only they can tell me what is The Beatles and what isn't.

 

It might be, but it wouldn't be the greatest.

 

That would have been a trick: Paul comes into the studio one night without anyone knowing and replaces all the bass parts on Ringo's album with his own. Then, listening to the vocals, realizes most of these songs would be better sung by Paul as well, so he erases Ringo's vocals and adds his own.

And, yeah, then I think maybe Ringo might have been pissed. But Capitol might have been thrilled.

 

It has to say "Beatles" on the label. And it has to be "signed off" on, or agreed to, as being that. The Christmas records, were 100% Beatles records, even though many of the later ones were recorded separately in bits, and then edited together. It's still the Beatles, because they wanted it to be the Beatles, and put that on the label....

By the same token, I am not like a super huge fan of Jason Bonham or anything, but I gotta admit -- that O2 show in 2007 WAS Led Zeppelin. No doubt about it really. In a way that all the other close calls or various combinations of those same guys over the post-1980 years were not. If it goes out the door and says "Beatles" on the label -- then it is what it is. The White Album tracks, it doesn't matter how many of the four were present, or not present. It was the bloody Beatles, sharrup.

 

Officially. And if the NFL, Justin Timberlake and Prince's estate came together to sell the Super Bowl halftime show they could say that Justin Timberlake and Prince collaborated and performed together. And then, I guess, that would make it true. Officially.

 

What if Klaus had become a Beatle after Paul left but they still broke up anyways and George Martin licked the tape, then would this be a Beatles song?

 

What does @RAJ717 have to do with this??

 

"I'm The Greatest" is a fair indication of what a Ringo-sung Beatles track would've sounded like circa 1973. Written by one of the others and buried somewhere on side two.

 

The Beatles is the legal entity that represents all Beatles product.

 

Mail the tape to him? Did you not learn anything from Give My Regards to Broadstreet? Too risky!

 

Would the the four had to have created a product to be The Beatles? If they stood in the same room would that count? Where do we draw the line

 

If all 4 of them were on a record and was produced by someone like Jeff Lynne would it be the Beatles?

 

Here we go with the Blackbird argument again.

Isn't there something a bit different about songs that were recorded during the Beatles lifetime and songs that were recorded post 1970?

 

Sure. And if my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle.