George Harrison: Search & Destroy

there have been other musicians before and since the beatles who had the same kind of enormous social impact, but i don't know of any of them who made that impact as part of a collective entity. it doesn't make a lot of sense to ask michael jackson if michael jackson is ever going to get back together, and as tremendously famous as the beatles were individually, they were and always will be dwarfed by "The Beatles". it's not the sort of thing one can "move on" from, any more than someone can "move on" from being the american president.

Imagine if Bob Dylan had broken up.

Yeah he might have had someone going through his trash or something...

There's that great passage in Chronicles where he talks about once seeing a magazine cover that featured some multi-headed monster with, I think, his head and Kennedy's and, I don't know, Castro or something. That's what he had to deal with.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ec/08/af/ec08af640eb373a03c2b7e9459b371e7--malcolm-x-fidel-castro.jpg

Ha wow!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_We_Not_Men%3F_We_Are_Devo!#Artwork

"The manager of the company's art department, Rick Serini, recommended an artist who could airbrush and alter the face of the picture, while lead singer Mark Mothersbaugh offered a picture he'd procured from a local newspaper that morphed the faces of U.S. presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. These ideas were later morphed with the original "Chi Chi" Rodriguez image to create the cover art of the album.[9]"

We weren’t talking about that until you brought up the Jam and the Smiths. The frequency and rabidness with which Weller and Morrissey were asked about reuniting is likely significantly less than that of any member of the Beatles.

The frequency and rabidness doesn't matter - what matters is they still get asked, which was a response to Tim's post about Lennon getting asked 10 years after The Beatles broke up.

The Beatles were thought, by a sizable number of their fans, to have The Answer, if not An Answer to the seismic cultural shifts of the ‘60s.

This is all irrelevant unless The Beatles believed this themselves.

Weller and Morrissey may well have been similarly regarded by fans of theirs in their times, but questions put to them in interviews, and by fans/fanatics, did not have the same weight of “you changed our generation!” behind them.

With Weller and Morrissey it was more "you speak for our generation" rather than "you changed our generation" - this distinction is notable. The Sex Pistols changed their generation. This is all irrelevant though.

Again, this is not a matter of a single interviewer asking a single question in a single interview. The Beatles had (have) to endure a gauntlet of hectoring for decades, on a scale no other performers have had to endure. More likely than not, as artists tend to reflect the lives they’ve led through their work, this will come out in their music, consciously and otherwise.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Sunday, October 15, 2017 9:46 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Again, it's irrelevant - they didn't need to write about it - and again, McCartney didn't for a very long time even though he may have spoken about The Beatles often in interviews - until he finally gave in. Music and interviews are different things, and I don't believe any Beatles reference in their solo careers is anything other than conscious.

I think it's more that they all had colossal egos and believed their own hype and myth, in some ways contributing to their own myth by self-mythologising.

Dark Horse is underrated. It's patchy, but it's also got some real gems

I see no need to make that criticism in general about them. Sometimes, they seem humble to me, actually. Always totally willing to grant some kind of Joseph Campbell-type relevance to the Beatles "myth" rather than just criticize it as hype.

"Also" totally willing, etc.

I think it's more that they all had colossal egos and believed their own hype and myth, in some ways contributing to their own myth by self-mythologising.

― more Allegro-like (Turrican)

look they _made_ their own myth. what, you think they sold records just by writing good songs? if the beatles had been humble we would never have heard of them.

I've got a big ol soft spot for Dark Horse, bad singing and all. Pretty easily my second fave album of his. I will say my vinyl version on my shit speakers sounds way better than the remastered one on Spotify

Shame this didn't make ATMP. Top 5 George track for me:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N2rFr0DyQcg

since "the nurse"i've been convinced she's an artist i ought to get into it but neglected to do so. what a mistake, she's the best

look they _made_ their own myth. what, you think they sold records just by writing good songs? if the beatles had been humble we would never have heard of them.

― bob lefse (rushomancy), Monday, October 16, 2017 3:41 AM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

No they didn't! Others made the myth for them any they bought into it and eventually began fuelling it.

They initially sold records by yes, writing good songs, but also looking the part (they were well packaged), being there at the right time and being helped along by the hype of their management team and others.

yeah, the Beatles contributed to their own mythology, being that they were in the Beatles and didn't just stop making music altogether. i don't really understand Turrican's point here, they should have written good songs but not referenced that thing they did for 1/3rd of their lives, seems like a dumb demand to make

like wow they consciously wrote about their own lives, oh no, what bastards

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done, I'm saying they did it to an embarrassing degree. There is a difference there.

Although The Beatles never played a gig where they decided to knock live goldfish into the audience out of champagne glasses, so I suppose there is that.

of course they did -- what else inspired George's "Fish on the Sand"?!

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done, I'm saying they did it to an embarrassing degree. There is a difference there.

― more Allegro-like (Turrican)

so the standard here is, what, turrican is embarrassed by the degree to which they wrote about their own lives?

If they were merely writing about their own lives, that would be fine... if they had still been in The Beatles. The tone of the solo Beatles when they get all self-referential isn't "this is what I did today", it's the sound of people believing their own hype.

Then again, when they tried to write about being young when they were past the Beatles' stage, it wasn't all convincing.

e.g. "Back seat of my car", I love the song, but .. really?

As far as the audience was concerned, they were still in the Beatles, in the sense that no one would let them forget it, and no one would let them rest without begging them to reunite, with the veiled subtext of "save us!"

To the extent that the Beatles themselves bought into it, they went back and forth. George lamented that the only peace they got on tour was when they went to the can; but when Vox came up with the Super Beatle amps for that tour, his response was, "'Super Beatle'?! What's more super than being a Beatle?"

In the Anthology he said, "They gave their screams, but we gave our nervous systems"; but while viewing footage of screaming throngs, he turned to the director and said, "If U2 thinks they're a big and popular band, then they should sit through this shit and they can see how popular a real band can be."

The fact that they wrote about the Beatles in their solo work as much as they did was, in part, a way of processing what the fuck they'd all been through. Paul's comparatively scant Beatle-referencing output could likely be put down to the fact that he angrily and dickishly initiated the breakup (publicly, at least) -- to put out songs in 1970-75 along the lines of "gee, I miss the fellas, and boy, we were great!" would be a dick move.

As far as the audience was concerned, they were still in the Beatles, in the sense that no one would let them forget it, and no one would let them rest without begging them to reunite, with the veiled subtext of "save us!"

That's the audience's problem rather than the band's problem. Unless you're saying that they were in some way pandering to their audience, in which case I agree.

While of course also giving themselves self-congratulatory pats on the back in song at the same time.

U2 have probably played bigger gigs and given more value for money at their gigs than The Beatles ever did post-Hamburg. Just that audiences have learned to stfu because, let's face it, those screaming crowds look idiotic now.

They looked idiotic then too tbf

Those songs on ATMP don't seem like self-congratulatory pats on the back to me. What are we talking about, "Early 1970?" "I'm the Greatest?" The "How Do You Sleep"/"Some People Never Know" back and forth?

That's because they're not. The self-congratulatory pats on the back came later, particularly when McCartney got in on the act. Before that it was merely just self-referential myth-making.

This brings me nicely to...

Paul's comparatively scant Beatle-referencing output could likely be put down to the fact that he angrily and dickishly initiated the breakup (publicly, at least) -- to put out songs in 1970-75 along the lines of "gee, I miss the fellas, and boy, we were great!" would be a dick move.

Or it could be that he genuinely wanted to move on and make music on his own terms. Which he did, and the fact that he continued to score hit after hit showed he was onto something.

this whole discussion is insane but man....... hating on "back seat of my car" ???? bonkers

He wasn't hating on it - he said he loves the song, but finds the lyric unconvincing.

I think we should all be embarrased about how much we love THE BEATLES

Yeah, whoa!

The idea that Paul has to have his relationship w/ girlfriend, while hiding from her dad. That's mmmm probably not where he was at, at that time.

'Hi Hi Hi' was probably more where he was at!

Pretty sure Morrissey has written songs about the Smiths and the break-up/aftermath of the Smiths (a bigger solo Moz fan will have to help me out here...)

Do 'The Smiths', 'Johnny', 'Andy' or 'Mike' appear in the lyrics?

Yeah if I'd been in the Beatles I doubt I would've even noticed really

Wonder if Pete Best ever thinks about it.

Destroy the 1981 comeback..

Do 'The Smiths', 'Johnny', 'Andy' or 'Mike' appear in the lyrics?

1979’s superior eponymous effort (its single “Blow Away” is a beguiling little gem that’s the equal of any McCartney)

love that entire album

Let's rap and tap at Crackerbox Palace

Sounds so much like Jerry Garcia on "Pisces Fish"

I've never listened to all of Gone Troppo before. What a weird album, not sure if its good. Some ELO-isms creeping in but also a lot of other left-field production choices.

also, this is fucking bizarre
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzKjMpP4-gg

33 1/3 is not a bad album.

def a step up from Extra Texture and Dark Hoarse

there's a lovely tribute to Smokey that vocally he almost pulls off