It does look rather hokey; and this is considered to be an official release. Fortunately, the powers that be didn't see fit to include it in the 2009 UK remasters and knock the price up another ~$16 or so.
Why the Beatles?
- Thread starter Billville
- Start date
Skygazer
And in the end...
NIce track list but it doeasn't look like a Beatles cover, even their absolutely worst one - Magical Mystery Tour album cover - was at least truly horrlible and authentic, great songs though (film was a mixture of naff and great too:)).
On a different note, read this a few weeks ago, a Gnat's ass of a title but a good read, even if you don't agree with all of it:
http://thequietus.com/articles/20371-paul-mccartney-live-the-beatles
On a different note, read this a few weeks ago, a Gnat's ass of a title but a good read, even if you don't agree with all of it:
http://thequietus.com/articles/20371-paul-mccartney-live-the-beatles
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
I still contend that Ringo is not all that. He played the parts John and Paul creatively told him or taught him to play. He had the right style for the songs, sure, but many other drummers, it seems, coulda done that. Neither an amazing musician myself nor a drummer I could be wrong. Have yet to be swayed. Anyone? That being said, this clip is a fun piece.
I'm not sure how my opinion could carry any more weight than that of the drummers in that viddy, but Ringo had a loose yet tight, really swinging yet insistent thing going on in the early years that was rare at that time outside of the jazz world. Could others have done it? Sure, probably. But that's not the mark of a great musician nor an average musician. Rather, Ringo was the right guy for the job at hand. He also evolved over time to be more than just an insistent beat-holder, which was a critical part of his live performance due to the not a dry seat in the house syndrome that was so pervasive in '64-'66.
He left his musical mark on so many of the Beatles studio songs. She Loves You, Ticket to Ride, Rain, Tomorrow Never Knows, Strawberry Fields, Something, to name just a few. How many R&R songs are identifiable by the drum parts? Many Beatle songs are. And that bit about just playing the parts John and Paul told/taught him to play? There may be an ounce of truth to that, but I doubt that there's a pound of truth to that.
Lastly, playing technically difficult drum parts is very demanding, but playing perfectly-suitable, yet musical drum parts with an unconventional swing yet stable swagger for a group of egotistical songwriters and instrumentalists who are, literally, at the top of the world, is no easy feat. Not that I've ever tried it, but it's not difficult to imagine.
Hold your opinion until you see Ron Howard's film in September. Then let's see what you think.
mjp
Founding member
Doesn't matter. He did it, they didn't.
I always find it funny when people denigrate iconic or influential musicians by deeming their styles "simple," or saying things like, "I can play everything Jimi Hendrix played." No, actually, you can't. And more importantly, you didn't create it, because you don't have that thing that makes some people great and the rest of us not as great.
To insult or demean Ringo or Johnny Ramone or the guy who went donk-chicka-donk-chicka-donk behind Johnny Cash is ignorant, and to me it shows a lack of understanding what music actually is. Any soul-dead MIT worm can play a three thousand note guitar solo or pound a 25 piece drum set (with gong) like a metronome. But those guys never swing. As Chelsea Clinton would say, "Never, ever." They don't know how.
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
Yeah, I definitely see what your saying mjp, really. Purple too and Star. "He did it, they didn't." Great point. And I think some other drummers' sound wouldn't have worked on Beatles song. But then again, the band, considering how skilled and musical they were, would have made it work somehow if Bonham or Clyde Stubblefield or Stewart Copeland was the drummer.
mjp
Founding member
Well, of course they would have, but it would have been a different band, wouldn't it.
And if it would have been a different band - which I think we can all agree is true - well, that just proves that Ringo was as responsible for the sound of the band as any of the other three.
And this is where I drop the microphone and walk off the TED stage to rapturous applause, and there waiting in the wings are the MacArthur fellows with my Genius Grant check and NPR wants an interview but I have to tell them, "Tomorrow, tomorrow," because I'm sitting down for a 60 Minutes interview at 7:30, then going to Maron's garage to record a special episode of WTF...
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
Yes AGAIN. You're right....(sulking away from the computer with my head down). :)
This video gave me new eyes to see the Beatles with.
mjp also makes a great point. I recall hearing him make a similar point on one of his podcast episodes - this idea that it does not make any sense to say that 'I could do that' or 'anyone could have done that' when referring to the work of an artist. I think about that statement often since hearing mjp make it, and it does make sense to me.
However I don't know if it totally offsets what Philly Dave is getting at, namely that the Beatles were not only a highly productive band - they were also a highly produced band. Not only in the sense that they were certainly feeding off of each other, but also in the sense that they quickly became an extremely lucrative investment opportunity for the record label and management team. It is not hard to imagine huge piles of money and ideas being thrown at their growth as musicians.
In that context, it does make some sense to say that 'anyone could have done that.' If somebody invested a few million dollars in me or any number of us here, we could probably do some pretty awesome things. Partly because we're not total losers, but also partly because money can buy really good teachers, really good equipment, it can get you into conversations with really creative people.
As usual I don't have a particular point of my own to make. More just wondering if it's okay to be like 'yes .. and yes.'
mjp
Founding member
I don't know about that.
I've mentioned somewhere else about Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000-hours-to-become-an-expert bit, and how people use the Beatles as an example of the truth of that idea. "They were great because they spent all that time playing in Hamburg and in the Cavern, they got the 10,000 hours in."
Well then, how do you explain Pete Best?
He was there in Hamburg and in the Cavern, and he played those hours with the other Beatles, and after all that, he still wasn't any good, so they had to get rid of him.
Some people have "it," and most others don't.
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
for the record mjp & others have convinced me that Ringo is right for the job and although I don't think Ringo is the greatest drummer ever (nobody's trying to convince me of that) I do think he's a good drummer and a perfect fit for the Beatles. I don't wanna hear another drummer's style on the Beatles songs.
mjp
Founding member
As for this point, from what I can tell by reading about a thousand books about The Beatles, the only thing thrown at them - creatively speaking - was as much studio time as they wanted. Piles of money don't make you creative. Too much money tends to have the opposite effect. Most things they were influenced by were readily available to anyone, on the radio or at the record store.
It could be argued that an ambitious and creative band could experience a similar kind of growth that The Beatles did with nothing more than a couple of tape decks in the basement of a house or a cheap rehearsal room somewhere.
You can see the same kind of growth and innovation that The Beatles experienced in the musical styles where there was no (or very little) money to be had: jazz, hip hop, reggae, punk rock. The founders, innovators and masters of those styles developed without piles of money or guidance. In fact, they often developed in communities and among people that lived in poverty.
Skygazer
And in the end...
I think Youth Culture is one, perhaps the only place where the wealthy and powerful trail behind, (even though it always ends up making more money for them in the end) but Credibility is the thing talented working class kids have, that's almost impossible for rich kids to succeed at. It's not something that can be manufactured; that has any lasting significance.
The Beatles for Sale album as early as December 1964, already shows the weariness they felt about being used as a commodity, a cash cow for business interests.
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
new fan of Ringo here. This is a cool move.
Great googly moogly, Eight Days a Week, Live at the Hollywood Bowl is absolutely crackling with energy. I give it 11 stars out of 10. Despite some of their live performance deterioration in 1966, this finds the lads at the absolute peak of their live game. It's not a perfect recording; there are some patches and George's guitar is down in the mix at times, but it absolutely rips. The vocals and harmonies are particularly strong. I had my doubts when this was announced, but it's delivering in spades.
Last edited:
mjp
Founding member
I heard the song they pre-released from that, and even though it's been toned-down, the wall to wall shrieking and screaming is a bit much for me. It must have been a nightmare to sit in one of those audiences.
I mean, I would have gladly sat in one anyway, but I was only 5 years old the only time they played in Minnesota (in August of 1965) and the stadium was too far away for me to ride my bike to the gig.
I mean, I would have gladly sat in one anyway, but I was only 5 years old the only time they played in Minnesota (in August of 1965) and the stadium was too far away for me to ride my bike to the gig.
The not a dry seat in the house aspect is certainly present, but the energy in the playing is great. Indeed, my ears are a bit fatigued, and I may not listen to this very often, but I was impressed with the quality of the playing. I'd recommend giving it a try at some point. The upside is worth the downside; you know, methinks and a propos and all that cal. :rolleyes:
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
PhillyDave
“The essential doesn't change.” Beckett
yes they do.
saw most of the new concert tour doc on the weekend on tv.
came in after it started but it was fantastic!
kind of confused cause i thought it was just in theatres on the weekend but i did see it.
edit - just checked the guide and it's on again wednesday night.
came in after it started but it was fantastic!
kind of confused cause i thought it was just in theatres on the weekend but i did see it.
edit - just checked the guide and it's on again wednesday night.
Last edited:
mjp
Founding member
It was fab, yes, okay.
Just fab stuff I've already seen, along with fab stories I've already heard.
I think that fucking Lewisohn book is ruining everything Beatles for me. Everything else falls short and seems inconsequential and incomplete.
Just fab stuff I've already seen, along with fab stories I've already heard.
I think that fucking Lewisohn book is ruining everything Beatles for me. Everything else falls short and seems inconsequential and incomplete.
You're a gear geek; have you checked this out?
http://www.curvebender.com/recordingthebeatlesdeluxeedition.aspx
10 pounds of pure technogeek nirvana.
http://www.curvebender.com/recordingthebeatlesdeluxeedition.aspx
10 pounds of pure technogeek nirvana.
Yes, it seems that every time I buy something, the improved and expanded version comes out shortly thereafter.
Skygazer
And in the end...
I saw Ron Howard's Doc last Thursday at my local cinema, the running time was about 3 hours long! I thought they must have unearthed some amount of new footage etc. but the first hour was spent watching V.I.Ps/or something like it, arrive down at the London venue, not so good. Not anything majorly new to reveal, but watching them move from Birth of a Phenomenon to the Anti Christs for there Jesus comment and back again was enjoyable.The best bit came after the credit roll, with a 30 min remastered (or something) film of the 1965 Shea Stadium concert. I think it should have been part of the programme.