Say Something *NEW* about the Beatles...

in 1966 paul mccartney told roger mcguinn to ditch the rickenbacker and granny glasses as he didn't much like them.

(I dunno, these schmucks off the Internet and their Exclusive! Undiscovered! Rarities!)

Here's another:

They never did a song as good as Little Animal by the Raveonettes which is quite possibly the second best song of the past ten years.

I think he already sold those rights, as he couldn't afford to keep them. You have to pay quite an amount for a good lawyer, you know...

Coincidentally (or not!), today is little Emmanuel's birthday.

-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), March 9th, 2005.

I love Geir! So true...

actually, def leppard's on through the night and judas priest's british steel were both recorded at ringo starr's house. actual true fact!

This has been said before, by lots of people who were not yet 5 years old when The Beatles broke up in 1970, plus Thousands of fans of metal, R&B, funk, soul, hip-hop, jazz, rock'n'roll, classical, avant garde, electronica, dance or other musical styles that The Beatles rarely touched.

Oh, wait. You said about, not by...

but that's not true. they had a lousy reissue campaign, with questionable remastering, no bonus tracks and perfunctory packaging.

I don't know which Beatles thread to post this in, so this'll have to do. I've been listening to "Sgt. Pepper" lately (40th anniversary and all) and there is a line in "She's Leaving Home" that has bugged me for many years. The line in question?

"Fun is the one thing that money can't buy."

My reasons for hating this line are thus:

1. Not three years before, the Beatles themselves informed us that money cannot buy love.
2. Of all the things that money can't buy, Macca lists FUN as the ONE THING that MONEY CAN'T BUY? Fun would seem to be one of the easier things to procure through the use of currency. Go see a movie or something, for Christ's sake.

God, I'm a nerd but I had to get this off of my chest.

that line bothered me too

oh wells

i enjoyed reading johan kugelberg's beatles are so awesome piece in the old issue of ugly things with kim fowley on the cover the other day.

As if Paul actually believed every line of lyric that he wrote. I always thought he was more into the idea of putting words together that sound good with the song, rather than emphasizing his words.

To be fair, the speaker in the other song mostly emphasizes that money can't buy HIM love, weakly suggesting that it can't buy YOU love as a sort of trailing afterthought.

Also the original 45 pressing had "YMMV" etched along the run-off groove.

xx-post

Agreed, fully! However, the rest of the song is so evocative (especially for Paul) and carefully put together that I'm surprised he chose such a cop-out line to conclude the whole story (and then stuck poor John with the task of delivering it).

how do you know john didn't write that line?

urgh Goldman. i'm glad that book's pretty much been forgotten about in the UK. his lack of any decent footnotes AT ALL tells the real tale there imo.

the recently-edited-together live footage from Shea on the '1+' dvd (as a video for Eight Days A Week) looks killer, and seems to suggest the Shea footage has been remastered/cleaned-up for an upcoming release. possibly tied with the Ron Howard film?

that book is poorly sourced rubbish

It only had the one edition, I believe.

oh yeah, a lot of it is bullshit, but it's a great, grim read. like the opening scene of Lennon in the late-70s "smoking thai stick" in his Howard Hughes period. dark as all hell. and Goldman is just an insane writer, he's so nasty and obviously repressed - it comes out in the prose. a lot of very flowery penis descriptions and allusions

yeah the goldman book isn't necessarily "good" as a reliable biography of an actual person but it's kind of a sick masterpiece. def remember being somewhat traumatized by a lot of it when i first read it as a teenage beatles fan. goldman's style is undeniably ridiculous and over-the-top but writing a 600+ page book without a single dull sentence in it is some kind of accomplishment.

Did you read the Elvis book too, J.D.?

yeah, the elvis book is amazing and deplorable for similar reasons. for pure unadulterated goldman nastiness, though, you need his other elvis book:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41n1UB9KkML._SL500_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

That Goldman book opening: it's a young guy (named Kit?) couriering heroin up to John's Dakota apartment and the ensuing wasted ennui he sees, iirc. V memorable, given I read it 20+ years ago.

It's been a while since I read it but I remember the Goldman book being massively entertaining, and actually pretty good when talking about the actual music.

feel like the mark lewisohn book was so good and actually made the early days beatles story feel fresh i never want to read anyone else write anything about the beates except his next 2 upcoming books

^^^

ha i should give it another try, got a little exhausted around page 150 ... though I"m excited for that level of detail on the actual Beatles years

Lewisohn was very enthusiastic about the prospects for this film.

"Something new about the Beatles"

Cool band

As far as I can gather, the people of the Philippines are still more than a bit embarrassed about the way the Beatles were handled here.

Yeah, "We're sorry about Imelda Marcos", they've said that a few times.

#9 Dream sounds an awful lot like an Ariel Pink song, doesn't it? (or the other way round if you're offended by this comparison)

^ yes, it does

https://i.redd.it/bea2nydimowz.jpg

A better thread would be "Say something about a band that aren't The Beatles"

(and I'll bet 'Carnival of Light' is terrible)

haha, that's great

I always thought "From Me to You" was the weakest of their early singles, but I like it more now - pretty classic Beatles.