I’ve re listened to all early Beatles love songs mostly written by and sung by John and a very few by George and decided they are the same as well as solo John and George songs …super nova saccharine for teen girls in early Beatles and adult contemporary wife songs or disguised God songs written like love songs in solo …all supernova corny though most with good melodies. I bought almost all solo Beatle music…I quit worrying about cornball and just appreciated Beatles genius for melodies….
Sure did. I think George let some Bad vibes cloud his judgment on this. Too bad. Now that I think of it, Paul elevated most of George’s songs as George did for Paul too. And I Love Her being a prime example. There are many others too.
I focus on the bass for "Here Comes the Sun" every once in a while, too. All of Abbey Road has killer bass. Oh, and I forgot to mention "Lovely Rita." That was another highlight of this series. It's doing all the heavy lifting in that song. Sublime beyond belief.
In an interview to promote the Japan album, he was praising the bass in Something. That you have to hear it!
It's one thing to defend Paul, it's another to trash John and George. Paul has class everytime he talks about John and George.
It's been that way for a little while now. I hope he can continue to find ways to write pretty melodies his voice can carry, discover old demos he can add new instrumentation to and keep the vintage vocal, and also write new songs for other singers. I hope he does some of all three in his 80s
I thought it was a fine series. Of course most of us have heard and read these stories a thousand times because we're nerds, but my 15 year old daughter found it interesting, probably because she's a young Beatles fan who hasn't heard the stories before. As for taking credit for a lot, yes Paul loves him some Paul but I would too if I were him. I feel proud when my yard looks good, I'd be impossible if I played the bass line and wrote part of "A Day in the Life". When it comes to his memory, we should cut him slack- after all he is ALMOST old enough to run for president.
I wonder if those who are disappointed at hearing some of the same stories also feel the same after reading several of the biographers written about the Beatles (or maybe they've read only one and that's enough) . The same old stories are included in those books along with some new tidbits and from a different perspective depending on the author. I feel this series had a different take when presented with some of the actual tapes and another producer's questions and perspective.
I liked that it felt more like a conversation, rather than a Q&A. I'm so glad it was a producer talking to Paul, listening and not stepping over his answers trying to get a particular soundbyte. I did like the idea someone had way up thread about them filming Rick and Paul as Rick works to remix a song in real time, and get Paul's reaction and input on the mix on camera. Maybe they did some of this and it's in the cut footage, or maybe they didn't think of it. But it would have been cool to actually see Rick remix "Maybe I'm Amazed" in the show for real (not just a quick swipe through the faders), and then drop the remix as a single.
No joke about cutting him slack about memory…though he’s fifteen years older than I am his memory is better than mine as I’m having to get home health care extended services for memory therapy. No one knows what it’s like to lose memory and if or when you realize you’ve lost it. My neurologist memory test recently showed I was beginning to lose mine and found out due to hydrocephalus but also have incurable seizures …so I say …give him a break…he’s nearly 80. We’re lucky he and ringo have lived so long.without serious illness.
Guess he wasn’t still mad at Paul then..about the busy bass on something anyway…time wounds all heals…
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the bass elevated The Beatles' performance of the song? The song itself has become a standard in its own right, covered many many times by other artists.
Yes..the absolute best way to say it is as you said it. The song has been much covered as is a beautiful tune in itself. I’ve seen several folks on this forum down the song as schmaltz because they apparently don’t like anything not rawk….but one of Beatles finest tunes and the Beatles version was superior with the added bass.
How do you divorce one aspect from the other?? Seriously asking... yes it's a lovely song but "the finished Beatles performance" is how everyone who subsequently covered it became familiar with the song in the first place, and became inspired enough by it to cover it. Presentation is a *key* factor in how people connect with any song. So while an acoustic George version of "Something" would no doubt have resonated as it is such a strong song, I don't think it's remotely debatable that it would've done so to anywhere near the same degree as the version with Paul's melodically-loping bassline, thunderously resonant drum toms, and sweeping string arrangement does.
I liked it when Paul said he had figured out you could "control" a band with his bass playing. Got a big kick out of that.
I’m no musician but have read the combined rhythm section of bass and drums do control the songs and are the backbone of a band so Paul wasn’t wrong and he played melodic and counter point bass at times I’ve read.
No. The composition, melodically and lyrically stands on its own...however the arrangement, the setting as devised by The Beatles and George Martin undeniably made it shine as a 'Beatles' recording and certainly would have been the version first brought to the world's attention. When the song has been covered by other artists however it's the composition itself that has been used as the basis for the many different versions, not the decoration no matter how integral that is to the superlative version recorded by The Beatles (and it is).
Sorry, but no. Even if it is not covered with the same arrangement/instrumentation, the original *still influences* what happens with the cover. The song is the song, but as the musician coming in behind an existing song, you make choices based upon that - whether you stay somewhat faithful to the original interpretation and just infuse it with "your own thing" to the extent you can or whether you take it off in a totally different direction because you intentionally don't want it to sound like the original ... making music has always operated this way. One way is not more valid than the other (and most great interpretations of others' music usually falls somewhere in the middle) but someone not replicating the original at some point meant making a conscious choice not to sound like it.