Oh yeah I have my Illustrated Record on the floor behind me in my messy man-cave lol. I have the later edition with the blue cover and the picture of them in their suits with Paul smoking a cigarette. The earlier edition had them in their Pepper suits against a white background. Don't know if I had that one or not.
When I now listen to their early work, first heard by a 13-15 year-old mostly on AM transistor radio speakers or early version HiFi, on devices providing so much better sound quality, I find myself , as you say, enthralled. Particularly Ringo’s drumming and John Lennon’s vocals. Powerful.
Its so fitting that a person who has a Marcel Proust avatar would of course be into "reliving the past" In a sense that’s the promise of all the Beatle Re-mixes, take me back to when I was young, take me back to when it was all new, and I didn't know every molecule of it, let it affect me like it did in the beginning. I shouldn't be posting while tipsy (the wife likes this scotch, and keeps pouring it, blame her), but I'm just amazed that here we all are, more than half a century after these guys recorded their last note, swimming once again in the one thing they exuded the most....joy. People like fmfxray373 who were there at the time, joy stinson, who was there in the early 70's, (and has an actual mullet fetish to prove it), me, who was born during their time and didn't come into them until the late 70's , and batdude9, who I don't even think was born before the year 2000, but seems wise beyond his years. Its been such a pleasure to chat with all the people on this thread, and share what I thought was just my "goofy" obsession with.
I think I’ve already mentioned that I The beauty of sharing things here is we don’t have to feel apologetic about that obsession. I’m an original era fan, and in the “real world” there are only two or three people I know that I could still say much about the Beatles deluxe sets, etc., before their eyes would glaze over until they could change the subject.
I was there about 12 years after it started...but from the vantage point of the 2020s I was fairly close to the sun...although around 1974 or 75 I was watching A Hard Day's Night on the local UHF channel. Speaking of Proust...perhaps that is why the Beatles are so great...there is always that one moment when you listen to them that time doesn't exist...it doesn't matter if it's 1966 or 2021 you get the same feeling from the song you always get. I guess that is music rather than the Beatles...perhaps they do "non-linear" better than most musicians, just like Marcel Proust does in literature.
Agreed. And…. I’m not someone who usually enjoys studio dialogue on a music release, but I’m fascinated by this conversation with George Martin on the Let It Be SDE. Listen to George’s gentlemanly yet firm questions and comments. He knows the outcome that he wants from the conversation, but he guides the discussion very diplomatically, efficiently, and effectively.
Well here in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, the mullet is back. Teenagers and young footy players. Some players even sport a moustache with it!
Have only seen the first part, but there is an interesting exchange between George and Paul early on. George talks about how he enjoyed some of the freedom of the "white album" and felt more engaged with that album than others and Paul just shoots him a look and a curt "yeah". Maybe i'm wrong but it felt like Paul didn't really believe George had pulled his weight.
Yes. I love this about the sixties: how the music all fits together. They were having dialogues with each other through music and you can hear that. If you listen to the albums by the great artists of the day there is generally this really clear progression which peaks in 1967 (when a new cycle simultaneously begins with the Baby Boomers' psychedelic and rootsy blues rock). Everyone was sort of drawing from each other.
That was great. Especially how poorley the camera was actually "hidden". They just set up a fake wall with a glass window und put a camera man behind it. Of course you notice it right away if there's a new wall in the room from one day to the next.
Watching the rooftop performance right now. So great with all the split screens. Paul really gets in the mood when he sees the cops on the roof Best moment...
I know I've already responded once to this comment, but I didn't realize that only REM have true equality. U2 not so much. The first three U2 albums are credited equally to all four members. Their 3rd album makes them world stars selling 11 million worldwide and then things change Their 4th album is now credited lyrics to Bono, music to U2. Bono is now in theory earning 62.5% of the songwriting royalties while his bandmates all earn 12.5%. This would be the status quo for four albums, their most successful period Zooropa onwards the music is still split between the band but now the Edge would get lyric credits on some songs So as a percentage of U2's songwriting royalties Bono's actually out earning Lennon and McCartney. There are many albums were George was outearning Clayton and Mullen jnr and even a couple were George was outearning the Edge in terms of songwriting percentage. Poor Ringo, percentage wise, was getting beat by everyone though. He will just have to make do with being the richest drummer who ever lived.
Maybe it's not about George not pulling his weight, maybe it's the fact that they are still arguing about Paul not allowing George to add the guitar solo to Hey Jude, something that George still resents Paul for these few months later. So George bringing up freedom is a point of contention between the two. I'd be surprised if it was about pulling his weight, but if it is then here are the songs George is missing from the White album; Goodnight, Mother Nature's Son, Julia, I Will, Why Don't We Do It In The Road, Don't Pass Me By, Blackbird, Martha My Dear and Wild Honey Pie. Most of those songs did not need George's contribution.
But that's not how it works necessarily. It does not matter who is credited with what in the liner notes when we're talking about royalties. All that matters is who is registered as a composer/lyricist with their performance rights organization. And even then, the percentage distribution is totally up to the authors. There is no law that says it must be split evenly (or unevenly). You can check the repertoire of a performance rights organization online. Looking at (for example) "Where The Streets Have No Name", all 4 members are listed as composers and lyricists. If they all get 12.5% for each, you can't tell. Some people even split between lyrics, music and melody. It's up to them.
We called those BCR hair styles Feather Cuts over here. To stay on topic I found a second view of part 0ne of Get back much more enjoyable than the first look, maybe I viewed with a less critical eye.
Didn't Queen from the start split the songwriting four ways? Of course they had four songwriters, although maybe not from the start. The Beatles should've done that.
The Beatles were pretty unique in that respect. There was virtually nobody else who had the ability to combine experimentation and accessibility in equal measures. That's why The Beatles were what they were compared to everybody else.
Does anybody reckon there's Beatles songs where they're trying to sound like The Who? 'Taxman' if it was a bit heavier?
