The Beatles

I doubt George would have been anything than a decent guitarist in any other band whose two leaders inspired his best playing and writing.

man, you need to re-listen the early stuff to realize how massive of a player george was in terms of his contributions to the band sound. he was uniquely creative right from the beginning, in fact i would say his licks were pretty much unparalleled at the time (say, 62-64). the guy virtually invented a whole guitar vocabulary all by himself and i'm only taking into account the pre-psych beatles shit.

Without Ravi Shankar's influence, George would not have been as good a sitar player.

My youtube meandering ultimately led me to some Beatle bloopers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nPtbbO0c98&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2R4_jL1-Ts&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Never mind the haters

aargh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TeqyovfJzE&feature=related

George without the Beatles just doesn't compute for me (meaning George without the Beatles having ever existed), any more than it does for John or Paul.

man, you need to re-listen the early stuff to realize how massive of a player george was in terms of his contributions to the band sound. he was uniquely creative right from the beginning, in fact i would say his licks were pretty much unparalleled at the time (say, 62-64). the guy virtually invented a whole guitar vocabulary all by himself and i'm only taking into account the pre-psych beatles shit.

totally agree and never suggested otherwise

what is pete best doing in these alternate universes?

drumming for gay dad obv.

Beatles museum to close

Beatles invent punk rock and other related things: http://nobilliards.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-beatles-beatles-at-hollywood-bowl.html

Psychedelicized Radio is playing the complete Rooftop Concert tonight. It's in progress now, but they're going to rerun it later -- 7 p.m. Pacific time.

psychedelicized.com

"Thanks Mo"

In case anyone missed it and would like another chance...from the site admin:

"Dear All,
I was out all day yesterday and unable to address an issue with the server. It appears that the Beatles special went out but 5 hours later than each planned slot, so mega apologies, I have fixed the issue, restarted the server and ran the concert this morning to test the timings were working.
I'll run the concerts again this evening at the same times 7pm UK, 7pm NY, 7pm LA. I will be around to make sure that it goes out. If people can't tune in to any of those times, I can probably sort out a link...
Apologies again, stupid server!"

funny I'd never noticed the harmonies on the "aaah" after the "wake up" part.
always thought it was John who sang the "aaah" but apparently it was Paul ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D74rcZuOnWQ&feature=related

xp So Paul didn't write the bridge on "A Hard Days Night." I assumed that was a very collaborative song but I guess not.

Lennon always said the only reason he didn't sing the whole damn thing is because there was no way he was going to hit those high notes like Paul could.

pragmatic

Paul has always claimed the bridge on 'A Hard Day's Night' was his, and I believe him!

I always thought it was a rule : the one who sang the song or the part was the author of said song/part (except for some ringo stuff, of course).
of course, it's much too simple to be totally true but I think it works mostly !
Is there a song by John mainly sung by Paul or vice-versa ?

i think that's the rule of thumb. seems like there should be an exception but i've never heard of one.

i was thinking about this the other day but didn't know which beatles thread to revive, so it may as well be this one. what's with Get Back being so popular on U.S. radio? apparently it was the 5th most played beatles song on the radio last year, and it's been like that for a long time. yet it's probably one of their very worst singles (imo), and definitely not too many people's favorite (imo). is there some sort of deal with radio where certain songs are less expensive to play than others, and maybe Get Back is one of the cheap beatles options or something?

yeah, I have always hated get back and still do.

about songwriting : I think there's a controversy regarding "in my life", Paul claiming it's mainly his although John sings it.
and John said that he wanted to sing "Oh darling" but that didn't happen so apparently it wasn't impossible to consider the other's song...

It choogles, it's not weird or avant-garde or too English, and US oldies radio has moved on from the 64-66 hits. "Revolution" fits that bill too, something that resembles American rock and roll and still allows the station to say "your home for the Beatles' hits!!!"
xpost

it's just the nature of radio now -- there aren't many oldies stations left that play the hits from the first few years, and classic rock stations have increasingly been phasing out the mid/late '60s as they get more centered on the '70s and early '80s (and even up to the late '80s). so the moptop era is totally off limits to those stations, just a handful of songs from The White Album onward -- the biggest in the last couple years being "Come Together," "Revolution," "Get Back" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps." compare that to the Who and the Stones, who each have twice as many (mostly '70s) tracks in classic rock rotation.

xpost

re : get back
but I could understand that it works more in the US since it has a bluesy-roots-deep-south vibe, talks about the US...

i think the earliest Beatles i ever hear on classic rock radio now is "Lucy" and "A Day In The Life"

i'm not a paul hater by any means, but i hate the sound of every goddamn syllable he sings on Get Back.

haha same here

about songwriting : I think there's a controversy regarding "in my life", Paul claiming it's mainly his although John sings it.
and John said that he wanted to sing "Oh darling" but that didn't happen so apparently it wasn't impossible to consider the other's song...

― AlXTC from Paris, Monday, November 26, 2012 2:43 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yep, it's true. Paul makes quite a big claim to 'In My Life' in his book 'Many Years From Now', although I think it's more to do with the music, or more specifically, coming up with the original musical idea rather than the lyrical content. The lyrical content of that song to me sounds like it was all John, and if Paul were to make any claims to the lyrics of that track, I wouldn't believe him at all.

Also, it's not that John wanted to sing lead on 'Oh! Darling', it just seems like he felt he would have done a better job. Even as a big fan of McCartney's solo material, I agree with him.

yeah, his voice, tone and pronunciation are very wrong there.

i'm not a paul hater by any means, but i hate the sound of every goddamn syllable he sings on Get Back.

Haha, then have you heard the alternate lyrics? Trust me, that song could have been much worse.

Also, it's not that John wanted to sing lead on 'Oh! Darling', it just seems like he felt he would have done a better job. Even as a big fan of McCartney's solo material, I agree with him.

agreed.
regarding "in my life", I don't know, it seems to me that in general each one came with the main idea for each song (lyrics/music) and the other helped on bits of lyrics and arrangements. I don't remember any song for which one would claim the music and the other the lyrics, like for other songwriting duos.

Haha, then have you heard the alternate lyrics? Trust me, that song could have been much worse.

― pplains, Monday, November 26, 2012 3:04 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah, thankfully for them, that version wasn't officially released, eh? See also: 'Commonwealth (It's Just Too Common For Me)'

I've gotta say, though, I haven't actually dug out a Beatles album to listen to in the comfort of my own home for many years now, even though I've obviously heard tracks being played at other people's houses, and on TV/radio etc. This isn't because I'm trying to make some sort of statement, I've just heard that music so many times that their solo albums are far more interesting for me these days - especially Paul's, which is full of hidden gems.

There's also the historical aspect to the band as well - I think everything that could possibly be told about 'The Beatles Story' has already been told and in a ludicrous amount of detail. I'd be very surprised if there's anything left about that band to discover - whereas their solo output for me has a little bit more mystery to it, because less has been written about it.

John said that he wanted to sing "Oh darling"
he likely would've screamed most if it out "cold turkey" style. fuck, that sounds amazing.

Plenty of stoned-out acid-friend late night jam sessions from 1967 exist that will never see the light of day so long as Paul and Yoko are alive.

Haha, then have you heard the alternate lyrics? Trust me, that song could have been much worse.

oh, it has nothing to with the words he's singing, it's the way that he sings them. it seriously gives me an ill feeling, like that moment when you realize you really do have the flu.

There is one take of "I want you (she's so heavy)" with Paul on lead vocals. Wonder how that sounds.

John said that he wanted to sing "Oh darling"

It's probably my favourite Paul vocal, glad that didn't happen. Actually all his vocals on Abbey Road are amazing, except for Maxwell's.

the Mark Lewisohn books have been delayed *yet again* and supposedly the sample chapters have so much juice/revealing stuff in, that the publishers have told him to take as long as he wants. that's not.. normal is it for the publishing world?

Doesn't look like it's already been quoted, hoo-ha. Tim Leary sorta nailed it when he wrote, “I declare that The Beatles are mutants. Prototypes of evolutionary agents sent by God, endowed with a mysterious power to create a new human species, a young race of laughing freemen.”

I dunno, is that overrating them? The flip-side is John's "we were just a band that made it very, very big." Leary or Lennon, who to trust?

Unless you're on a heavy amount of crack, Lennon of course.

Another vote for Cold Turkey version of Oh Darling.

Hey PiscesX, like what? Do tell!

oh i've no idea of the details but here's more
http://www.examiner.com/article/author-mark-lewisohn-says-beatles-bio-will-be-filled-with-wow-moments

what confuses me is.. how can he possibly know this stuff isn't already 'out there' these 'wows on every page'? has he read EVERY single Fabs book ever, of which there must be many hundreds? i mean maybe he has, he is the world's leading expert. either way consider me psyched.

I'm inclined to believe Lewisohn, thus I am psyched

http://www.duncancumming.co.uk/photos/dick.jpg

as over-documented as the Beatles' lives were, i can definitely believe that some very interesting stuff (wows may vary with level of fandom) still coming to light as long as most eyewitnesses are still living

yeah i believe Ringo went to the toilet once

Heh, further discussion of Lou O’Neill Jr. here, including me telling a version of the same story I just recounted upthread: The end of Circus Magazine

And some further hilarious Beatles-related Lou O’Neill Jr. anecdotes on another borad: https://iorr.org/talk/read.php?1,1495183