The Beatles Anthology DVD---STEVE'S THOUGHTS

Man you said it! Mark has tracked down all the facts that Beatles obsessives (like me and countless others on this forum) want to know. It makes me wonder if there's anything about The Beatles that this guy doesn't know!

 

From his forward to BEATLES GEAR:

"After I wrote The Beatles Recording Sessions I recieved hundreds of letters fom readers, mostly asking some very specific questions. Among these correspondents were scores of fans who hunger for musical equipment data. They asked me intricate questions about the knob on this Beatles guitar or the make of that amp, and I always had to reply that I had no idea about any of it...."

 

As I mentioned earlier, I grudgingly must agree that Aspinall didn't use "we" in situations that didn't involve him. I know that I'm just being a snot about it, but there's still something the whole thing that rubs me the wrong way.

And which George do you mean? I'd guess Martin, but since you earlier felt that Harrison used "they" or "them" a lot to mean the Beatles, I'm not so sure...

Ha - so my suspicious about the man were correct! Score one for Anal Boy! (Ooh - that phrase could be misinterpreted, couldn't it?)

 

(Why do I have the feeling I may regret referring to myself as "Anal Boy"?)

Steve, I'm still curious why you thought George H. too frequently referred to the Beatles as "they" or "them". Like I mentioned, I only heard this maybe three times in the whole 11 hours of material on the DVD. Am I missing something, or did those three times just REALLY get on your nerves?

 

I agree! I even dislike 3rd party references even more! It's seems to be very popular in the Boxing World! Ya have to laugh at that one...I could never figure out why George felt that way...

 

I didn't hear it the same way. George H. only did this a few times, and it made sense - I mean, how bad would it have sounded if we said "we were really funny" when he discussed "A Hard Day's Night"? George used "we" and "us" the VAST majority of the time - gotta be at least 100:1 in favor of those pronouns. Frankly, I'm sure I wouldn't have noticed any of the "theys" or "thems" if I'd not read this thread first - three or so over 11 hours is pretty sparse.

Guess this falls into "agree to disagree" territory! (Unless you don't agree to that )

 

Steve, I see your point, but I feel like part of the point of view of the Anthology program was to show that the Beatle thing became something bigger than those four "boys," to show that these individual people became the four-headed monster known as THE BEATLES.

Note that each episode begins with the four lads playing as a band as the name "The Beatles" becomes so huge that J, P, G & R disappear in relation.

To me, it makes perfect sense to hear them refer to themselves in that manner. I think George felt that it all happened a long time ago. He even said once that the Beatles where "for the history books, like the year 1492."

Speaking of George trying to "disassociate" himself, I can remember a time in the '70's when they all tried very, very hard to disassociate themselves from that Beatle thing. They didn't particularly want the Beatles questions in any interview, they wanted to talk about their new solo release. It was very special indeed to hear one of them tell a Beatles story or anecdote for quite a long while.

Of course, nowadays we have McCartney, who since 1986 has talked about nothing but the fabs. (Or maybe landmines when the wife nudges him in the ribs...)

 

I haven't played any of this set in years. I should bust it out and give it a spin.

 

It has been awhile since I watched this set, but I remember thinking that they said nothing about the Butcher Cover. Y/N? It may be USA centric, but it was kind of a big deal as it created an instant collectors item. Then I am watching Eight Days A Week and they cover it a bit in that film when it has very little to do with touring, but it was during the touring years I guess. Back to Anthology, I have a bootleg DVD set of a first cut up until almost the last part, in other words the bootleg wasn't complete, and I remember the sales pitch at the time was that one difference was it was a bit rougher on Yoko then she liked and would allow.

 

George should piss you off...his crapping on the band that fed him all those millions is down right disgusting...it's even worse in the Directors Cut Bootleg release...he is a whiny character indeed. made me lose some respect for him...just a rat thing to do...without the Beatles he'd be baking cookies...or playing in bars...I still LOVE HIM! ; )

 

Yep, I actually watched the Director's Cut a few weeks ago (hadn't watched it in maybe 10 years) and I was annoyed to find that the last part just doesn't seem to exist. The numbered DVD's are all there (1 to 10 and all in sequence) but the last 2 discs go from early '69 straight to DVD Bonus Features (no mention of Abbey Road at all!)

 

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman
I do agree with you about Neil, but only because he was the one who killed the DCC / Beatles projects.
Click to expand...
Steve, can you disclose why he "killed" the project? What were his reasons?

Can you comment on this now?