Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
All Things Must Beat. Share Anything Beatles!!
- Thread starter Rumble Thunder
- Start date
Alkali Ike
Gold Supporting Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 2,854
- 15,663
- Disclosures
- I never actually learned to play very well
Sorry if this has been posted previously but it’s kind of timely now.
I hope this means he changed his mind about The Beatles, or at least went off script.
RIP, Sir Sean. Best Bond ever, IMO.
.
I was just listening to Ram. I know it's common knowledge among Beatles fans, but Sgt. Peppers really was Paul's baby, wasn't it? There are obviously things that might have spilled over from Let It Be, but Another Day really stuck me as having a lot in common with middle section of A Day In The Life, and just the general overall themes and turn of phrase really helps a listener recognize Paul's style vs. John. They were opposites in many ways, but together they combined to create things that were greater than the sum of their parts.
Oh, yeah, conny! The alter egos of Sgt. Pepper's was Paul's initial idea but, obviously, the others got into at some point. But then the others deflected any criticism of it back to Paul, who graciously accepted responsibility for the concept.
And I believe Ram and Red Rose Speedway are highly underrated albums. Both sides of Ram, especially the second side, seem almost like extensions of the vibe of the Abbey Road side two medley, to me. The flow from song to song is just wonderful, considering all the different melodies and instrumentation.
I confess to liking Paul's songs (and voice) the most before the breakup. And their solo work didn't change my mind at all. IMO he's the one that most carried on The Beatles tradition of making every song sound unique, which I like, a lot.
Sorry, didn't mean to get off on a rant.
.
Paul has a big heart. He seemed to be inspired by the stories of everyday people going about their lives. Penny Lane was to originally be for Sgt. Peppers. Just out of curiosity I googled John Lennon's favorite Beatles songs. He liked the songs he wrote that meant something to him personally. Help, Strawberry Fields, Across The Universe among them. He said he would never have written a song about a parking meter maid because, unlike Paul, he wasn't interested in "boring stories about boring people". IMO, Paul took the sharp edges off of John (who was also brilliant).
In some interviews, John could be harshly critical of the Beatles music. I don't really buy his stance though. I think it masked a lot of pride, and there were times he let that slip out. He just didn't want that legacy to eclipse his solo career.
In some interviews, John could be harshly critical of the Beatles music. I don't really buy his stance though. I think it masked a lot of pride, and there were times he let that slip out. He just didn't want that legacy to eclipse his solo career.
Oh, yeah, conny! The alter egos of Sgt. Pepper's was Paul's initial idea but, obviously, the others got into at some point. But then the others deflected any criticism of it back to Paul, who graciously accepted responsibility for the concept.
And I believe Ram and Red Rose Speedway are highly underrated albums. Both sides of Ram, especially the second side, seem almost like extensions of the vibe of the Abbey Road side two medley, to me. The flow from song to song is just wonderful, considering all the different melodies and instrumentation.
I confess to liking Paul's songs (and voice) the most before the breakup. And their solo work didn't change my mind at all. IMO he's the one that most carried on The Beatles tradition of making every song sound unique, which I like, a lot.
Sorry, didn't mean to get off on a rant.
.
Good rant. (I agree.
)
I don't think John was consciously abrasive or offputting on purpose (unless seeking attention) so much as just a driven, restless individual trying to mix in some humor and yet constantly frustrated by misunderstanding. By the axiom of "All progress depends on the unreasonable man", I thoroughly believe that The Beatles we know and love would not exist if John had been less aggressive. No wonder the other Beatles pointed to John, without hesitation, when asked who the leader was.
Whether you believe in "tortured souls" and such, or just people who are hard to please, so much of John's life seemed like such a struggle, especially compared to Paul's breezy acceptance of so many things (with mild protests here and there). Yet, they did share much of each other's musical tastes with Paul's rockers and John's tender intimacies. Of course, no one is as one (or two?) dimensional as sometimes portrayed to be. And it's that attitudinal ying & yang, and the blending thereof, that produced such widely acclaimed music.
Or so it seems to me ...
.
This is just my honest opinion, of course. 
I think John's problem was John. He seemed to have a perpetual chip on his shoulder about most things, including other people. It seemed that he was driven to be excepted by others, and when he was, he would put them down with excuses that they were pandering to him and the Beatles in some way. Being raised the way he was, he expected the poor and downtrodden to like him and the Beatles, but he couldn't fathom that the rich and elite liked the Beatles and their music, also. Sure, he got guff from the old conservative music fans, but so did every new music group, and it still happens to this day. Instead of letting them bother him, he should have just laughed it off on his way to the bank.
I don't think John used his history and upbringing to become a better person. He turned out just like his dad. He abandoned his wife and son and went off to have some fun.
I won't get into all of the Yoko Ono stuff. Only to say she didn't do anything to make him a better person, either. What was good for Yoko was bad for John. She fed into his insecurities.
Of the four Beatles, John was the only one that didn't grow up. And when it appeared that he had, some nut did him in. Such a loss.
I think John's problem was John. He seemed to have a perpetual chip on his shoulder about most things, including other people. It seemed that he was driven to be excepted by others, and when he was, he would put them down with excuses that they were pandering to him and the Beatles in some way. Being raised the way he was, he expected the poor and downtrodden to like him and the Beatles, but he couldn't fathom that the rich and elite liked the Beatles and their music, also. Sure, he got guff from the old conservative music fans, but so did every new music group, and it still happens to this day. Instead of letting them bother him, he should have just laughed it off on his way to the bank.
I don't think John used his history and upbringing to become a better person. He turned out just like his dad. He abandoned his wife and son and went off to have some fun.
I won't get into all of the Yoko Ono stuff. Only to say she didn't do anything to make him a better person, either. What was good for Yoko was bad for John. She fed into his insecurities.
Of the four Beatles, John was the only one that didn't grow up. And when it appeared that he had, some nut did him in. Such a loss.
I feel strongly both ways!
Meaning that (A) I appreciate and enjoyed the excellent musicianship and vocals and very creative arrangements, but (2) I'm still a bit like Splashy and see in this sonic homogenization the very antithesis of The Beatles striving to make every song sound unique! The Moon Loungers impress me very much as the new Bee Gees, but with less vocal vibrato. And I mean that in the most complimentary way. Thanks for posting it, Mvf.In my younger, more brash, days I almost hated almost all Beatles covers, especially if they had different instrumentation, vocals or "vibe" than the originals, except Joe Cockers "Help From My Friends", of course. My favorite cover was "Stars On 45", after getting accustomed to the mashup of disco & pop rock. And, while I now love that my granddaughter's favorite movie is "Across The Universe", I don't really care for it myself (except for Joe Cocker's "Come Together"). Now I've often played various Beatles songs myself, alone and with others, with various instrumentations and occasionally even different beats(!) and enjoyed all that tremendously. But, of course, that's different. But, I like to think I'm mellowing out in my old age, becoming more tolerant, despite my membership in the GOFs here on TB.
.
The first Yes song i ever heard (in 1969) was a Beatles song.
LOVE the Yes version still to this day.
LOVE the Yes version still to this day.
I've just discovered that this ^^^ is the "closing number" on Sir George Martin's "one last album" entitled 'In My Life'.
Which, taken as just a bunch of celebrities covering Beatles songs, doesn't particularly interest me. But, once I stumbled onto 'The Making of George Martin's In My Life', I was fascinated. What can I say? Context is everything!
.
These guys are kind of clever & all that...
They do the whole album, as an album & here a show.
They do the whole album, as an album & here a show.
. . . and they just recorded the whole band's performance, instead of individual tracks. Back When We Was Fab.
.
