Quote
jbwelda
>another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they
>never


I can tell you, no one who was around back then (1967 - 1968) would make a statement like that. They led the revolution at least as far as the media and their relationship to it goes. They were THE measure of the psychedelic times for many many people. Charlie Manson didn't hit on the White Album out of nowhere.

jb

I just watched the full Beatles Anthology over the past week and yeah, I wasn't around then but it definitely looks like (not that this is the first time I'm seeing it or anything) that the Beatles set the trends and people followed. Obviously thats what they'll push, but thats also totally true. The Beatles did a lot of their own things and they became iconic of the time period. I don't even mean to give them the credit, I don't even think they meant at the time to take credit. Its just that they really were THAT big that anything they did just became magnified, even if they weren't the first people on Earth. The one thing thats true about them is all the hype about Beatlemania was right on the money. They truly were just larger than life.

It really is amazing to immerse yourself in the Beatles every now and then. Haven't done a DEEP dive like this in a long time, watching the Anthology then listening to those albums after each corresponding episode. They really did just never stop. Its truly mind blowing how young they were. The whole thing was done by the time they were 30 or younger! George wasn't even 20 when they had their first album out. You watch it and it feels historical. It feels like every innovation is just this stroke of genius. Which obviously isn't true, they were just messing around, same as any band, but they had a great track record and the results really do speak for themselves. While they were like every other band, because of where it lead I watch that thing and it feels different than any other band. While I prefer a ton of Stones albums to any one Beatles record, there is something that seems unlike any other band when you hear how they did Tomorrow Never Knows. Or I'm Only Sleeping.

I also think they are incredibly lucky. Paul McCartney LOVES that their discography is remembered exactly the way he hoped it would be. Cause you can never predict that, but his dream seems like it always was for people to cherish every little move that band made, and boy if that ain't the truth. Its nuts because things like Rocky Raccoon, Martha My Dear... if they were solo efforts no one would even mention them. But any Beatles track is just treated with this different respect. And I'm not knocking it, its just fascinating to me. Cause those guys DID do that kind of stuff solo and it doesn't get talked about the same way. Hell, they did some BETTER stuff than their Beatles work in their solo time and its still never talked about in the same air. The Beatles are very much the sum of its parts. On its own, there's really nothing spectacular about What Goes On, The Word, Wait, etc, the way that every track really does shine on something like Sticky Fingers. But its the Beatles, and somehow they did it perfectly that they are remembered exactly as they'd probably want you to remember them, at least Paul. I really don't think there's any other band remembered the same way, and a lot of times I can't even explain why beyond "that just is how it is." Its not even them that propagate it, they just feed off the lasting impression from 50 years.

The Beatles were greater than the sum of their parts, that's why sort of mediocre songs got such great reception...the White Album in particular works really well all the way through (even Rev #9 which takes some getting used to, and Lennon once said that was the direction the Beatles were heading, away from pop music and toward avant garde composition, which at the time I just shook my head at). So even luke warm songs like Martha My Dear sounded great in the context of the LP if you ask me.

jb

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
jbwelda
>another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they
>never


I can tell you, no one who was around back then (1967 - 1968) would make a statement like that. They led the revolution at least as far as the media and their relationship to it goes. They were THE measure of the psychedelic times for many many people. Charlie Manson didn't hit on the White Album out of nowhere.

jb

I just watched the full Beatles Anthology over the past week and yeah, I wasn't around then but it definitely looks like (not that this is the first time I'm seeing it or anything) that the Beatles set the trends and people followed. Obviously thats what they'll push, but thats also totally true. The Beatles did a lot of their own things and they became iconic of the time period. I don't even mean to give them the credit, I don't even think they meant at the time to take credit. Its just that they really were THAT big that anything they did just became magnified, even if they weren't the first people on Earth. The one thing thats true about them is all the hype about Beatlemania was right on the money. They truly were just larger than life.

It really is amazing to immerse yourself in the Beatles every now and then. Haven't done a DEEP dive like this in a long time, watching the Anthology then listening to those albums after each corresponding episode. They really did just never stop. Its truly mind blowing how young they were. The whole thing was done by the time they were 30 or younger! George wasn't even 20 when they had their first album out. You watch it and it feels historical. It feels like every innovation is just this stroke of genius. Which obviously isn't true, they were just messing around, same as any band, but they had a great track record and the results really do speak for themselves. While they were like every other band, because of where it lead I watch that thing and it feels different than any other band. While I prefer a ton of Stones albums to any one Beatles record, there is something that seems unlike any other band when you hear how they did Tomorrow Never Knows. Or I'm Only Sleeping.

I also think they are incredibly lucky. Paul McCartney LOVES that their discography is remembered exactly the way he hoped it would be. Cause you can never predict that, but his dream seems like it always was for people to cherish every little move that band made, and boy if that ain't the truth. Its nuts because things like Rocky Raccoon, Martha My Dear... if they were solo efforts no one would even mention them. But any Beatles track is just treated with this different respect. And I'm not knocking it, its just fascinating to me. Cause those guys DID do that kind of stuff solo and it doesn't get talked about the same way. Hell, they did some BETTER stuff than their Beatles work in their solo time and its still never talked about in the same air. The Beatles are very much the sum of its parts. On its own, there's really nothing spectacular about What Goes On, The Word, Wait, etc, the way that every track really does shine on something like Sticky Fingers. But its the Beatles, and somehow they did it perfectly that they are remembered exactly as they'd probably want you to remember them, at least Paul. I really don't think there's any other band remembered the same way, and a lot of times I can't even explain why beyond "that just is how it is." Its not even them that propagate it, they just feed off the lasting impression from 50 years.

That's an excellent summation of The Beatles, and you really made a great point about their solo songs ie Rocky Raccoon etc within the Beatles vs if they had done those on solo albums - nobody would know or care.

It's easy to say something like AC/DC-Pink Floyd-Led Zeppelin-The Rolling Stones-U2-etc are/were unique because of ABCDEFG... and that's true.

BUT.

The Beatles will always be at the top and for a lot of very good reasons.

Excellent look at The Beatles.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
jbwelda
>another myth is beatles lead the psychedelic revolution, the truth is that they
>never


I can tell you, no one who was around back then (1967 - 1968) would make a statement like that. They led the revolution at least as far as the media and their relationship to it goes. They were THE measure of the psychedelic times for many many people. Charlie Manson didn't hit on the White Album out of nowhere.

jb

I just watched the full Beatles Anthology over the past week and yeah, I wasn't around then but it definitely looks like (not that this is the first time I'm seeing it or anything) that the Beatles set the trends and people followed. Obviously thats what they'll push, but thats also totally true. The Beatles did a lot of their own things and they became iconic of the time period. I don't even mean to give them the credit, I don't even think they meant at the time to take credit. Its just that they really were THAT big that anything they did just became magnified, even if they weren't the first people on Earth. The one thing thats true about them is all the hype about Beatlemania was right on the money. They truly were just larger than life.

It really is amazing to immerse yourself in the Beatles every now and then. Haven't done a DEEP dive like this in a long time, watching the Anthology then listening to those albums after each corresponding episode. They really did just never stop. Its truly mind blowing how young they were. The whole thing was done by the time they were 30 or younger! George wasn't even 20 when they had their first album out. You watch it and it feels historical. It feels like every innovation is just this stroke of genius. Which obviously isn't true, they were just messing around, same as any band, but they had a great track record and the results really do speak for themselves. While they were like every other band, because of where it lead I watch that thing and it feels different than any other band. While I prefer a ton of Stones albums to any one Beatles record, there is something that seems unlike any other band when you hear how they did Tomorrow Never Knows. Or I'm Only Sleeping.

I also think they are incredibly lucky. Paul McCartney LOVES that their discography is remembered exactly the way he hoped it would be. Cause you can never predict that, but his dream seems like it always was for people to cherish every little move that band made, and boy if that ain't the truth. Its nuts because things like Rocky Raccoon, Martha My Dear... if they were solo efforts no one would even mention them. But any Beatles track is just treated with this different respect. And I'm not knocking it, its just fascinating to me. Cause those guys DID do that kind of stuff solo and it doesn't get talked about the same way. Hell, they did some BETTER stuff than their Beatles work in their solo time and its still never talked about in the same air. The Beatles are very much the sum of its parts. On its own, there's really nothing spectacular about What Goes On, The Word, Wait, etc, the way that every track really does shine on something like Sticky Fingers. But its the Beatles, and somehow they did it perfectly that they are remembered exactly as they'd probably want you to remember them, at least Paul. I really don't think there's any other band remembered the same way, and a lot of times I can't even explain why beyond "that just is how it is." Its not even them that propagate it, they just feed off the lasting impression from 50 years.

Amen to the part about them doing some better stuff solo than they did with the Beatles. There is some Wings stuff or solo John stuff I'd much rather listen to than a lot of Beatles stuff...and 'All Things Must Pass', well..it's a masterpiece.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-04-29 21:36 by floodonthepage.

McCartney singing Gimmie Shelter

[www.youtube.com]

Herald Sun --- 8 May 2020



ROCKMAN

I've recently found in some sources, including the German Wikipedia, that certain Beatles albums (With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale, and Revolver) were released in West Germany before the UK:

[de.wikipedia.org] (November 12 vs. November 22, 1963)
[de.wikipedia.org]) (July 9 vs. July 10, 1964)
[de.wikipedia.org] (November 13 vs. December 4, 1964)
[de.wikipedia.org]) (July 28 vs. August 5, 1966)

Is this information true? I admit I am relatively unable to research further in German sources due to my very poor command of the language, but I found it very strange (particularly because, if those dates are true, certain releases seem very rushed, such as Beatles for Sale, the recording sessions of which ended on October 26).

Quote
NastyHabits
I've recently found in some sources, including the German Wikipedia, that certain Beatles albums (With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles for Sale, and Revolver) were released in West Germany before the UK:

[de.wikipedia.org] (November 12 vs. November 22, 1963)
[de.wikipedia.org]) (July 9 vs. July 10, 1964)
[de.wikipedia.org] (November 13 vs. December 4, 1964)
[de.wikipedia.org]) (July 28 vs. August 5, 1966)

Is this information true? I admit I am relatively unable to research further in German sources due to my very poor command of the language, but I found it very strange (particularly because, if those dates are true, certain releases seem very rushed, such as Beatles for Sale, the recording sessions of which ended on October 26).

Hmmm.... That seems very strange indeed to me. Never heard of it before and I suspect that's the sort of thing I'd have picked up.

Wiki is always a good place to start research, but you'll need to find some primary sources for these sorts of issues. German 'pop' newspapers, or even the German equivalents for the record company web sites.

(1 day is plausible, but a week or more makes no sense in this context.)

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Do you know websites of this type (or chart databases, etc.) in German?

Another source in English, 45worlds, seems to agree with those Wikipedia dates:

[www.45worlds.com]

I think its Toto.. Can someone confirm?

Life's just a cocktail party on the street

Isnt it "Hey"?

Guess that was a different bulldog from a different song

jb

UGA


A few will understand

Erich Segal.

The song was written in honour of him. He was a Classicist, and he also wrote the screenplay to Love Story (Ali MacGraw / Ryan O'Neil film). I read a book of his on Greek Tragedy many years back when I was at university. He was quite erudite, but not a Simon Goldhill or Oliver Taplin (Greek Tragedy experts when I was doing my degree).

Quote
NastyHabits
Do you know websites of this type (or chart databases, etc.) in German?

Another source in English, 45worlds, seems to agree with those Wikipedia dates:

[www.45worlds.com]

[www.beatlesbible.com] seems to be a likely reliable source.

I'm amazed.

--
Captain Corella
60 Years a Fan

Quote
NastyHabits

Do you know websites of this type (or chart databases, etc.) in German?

To find out the true release-dates of the German pressings you would probably have to check the archives of the former EMI (Odeon / Electrola Cologne, Germany) or the GEMA (Rights-Society).

Bummer

Disney Postpones Release of Peter Jackson’s ‘The Beatles: Get Back’ to 2021

By Rock Cellar Magazine Staff on June 12, 2020

Get Back

This upcoming Sept. 4 was intended to see the release of The Beatles: Get Back, the anticipated documentary from filmmaker Peter Jackson, but Disney announced on Friday (per the Wrap) that the film’s release has been pushed back to 2021. In a detail that should come as no surprise, the decision was made with the COVID-19 pandemic in mind, and uncertainty over the state of the film industry and when things might be able to “return to normal,” so to speak. The Beatles: Get Back is now scheduled to be released in August 2021.

When the film was first announced, it garnered interest stemming from its inclusion of previously unseen footage of John, Paul, George and Ringo:
The official news release states that the doc will include previously unseen footage of the Let It Be sessions, plus “the entire iconic rooftop concert, fully restored.”
Said Disney Executive Chairman Bob Iger in a statement regarding this definitive doc on John, Paul, George and Ringo:

“No band has had the kind of impact on the world that The Beatles have had, and ‘The Beatles: Get Back’ is a front-row seat to the inner workings of these genius creators at a seminal moment in music history, with spectacularly restored footage that looks like it was shot yesterday. I’m a huge fan myself, so I could not be happier that Disney is able to share Peter Jackson’s stunning documentary with global audiences in September.”

More:

Compiled from over 55 hours of unseen footage, filmed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg in 1969, and 140 hours of mostly unheard audio recordings from the “Let It Be” album sessions, “The Beatles: Get Back” is directed by Jackson and produced by Jackson, Clare Olssen (“They Shall Not Grow Old”) and Jonathan Clyde, with Ken Kamins and Apple Corps’ Jeff Jones serving as executive producers.

So … stay tuned. Get Back will be released, it’ll just take a bit longer now.
________________________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

That is terribly sad news...however, I was kind of wondering when this was coming.

"Take all the pain...It's yours anyway"

Lots of Unreleased Beatles songs (100+), even for someone like me who searches & finds them on 10+ sources...worth a good look...


Unreleased Songs By The Beatles, 1956-1959

Unreleased Songs By The Beatles, 1960-1961

Unreleased Songs By The Beatles, 1962-1964

Unreleased Songs By The Beatles, 1965-1967

Unreleased Songs By The Beatles, 1968-1970

Working Song Titles

Main Blog:
Unreleased Songs By The Beatles: 1956-1970

Complete (403 songs) list: The Beatles’ ‘Get Back/Let It Be’ recording sessions



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-16 08:12 by KevinM.

Nice little tribute article re: George Harrison.

(What Keith Richards Admired About George Harrison's Guitar Playing)

[www.cheatsheet.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-29 19:17 by Sighunt.

Stones logo ="Day Tripper" in Alan Aldridge's The Beatles Illustrated lyrics '69

Borrowed? Impression & then forgotten logo? Stolen?

Quote
KevinM

Stones logo ="Day Tripper" in Alan Aldridge's The Beatles Illustrated lyrics '69

Borrowed? Impression & then forgotten logo? Stolen?

We'll probably never know it since Alan Aldridge unfortunately died in 2017 (aged 78).

Maybe Ron Schneider knows more - [iorr.org] . I've posted a picture of the 1969 Lyrics-Book - [iorr.org] - and that Tongue-comparison already here in 2015 - [iorr.org] .

The famous logo from Sticky Fingers 1st US-Edition 1971 was redrawn in New York - [iorr.org] - by Craig Braun's in-house illustrators Walter Velez and Toni DiMiceli - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2020-06-30 14:20 by Irix.

Quote
Irix

Quote
KevinM

Stones logo ="Day Tripper" in Alan Aldridge's The Beatles Illustrated lyrics '69

Borrowed? Impression & then forgotten logo? Stolen?

We'll probably never know it since Alan Aldridge unfortunately died in 2017 (aged 78).

Maybe Ron Schneider knows more - [iorr.org] . I've posted a picture of the 1969 Lyrics-Book - [iorr.org] - and that Tongue-comparison already here in 2015 - [iorr.org] .

The famous logo from Sticky Fingers 1st US-Edition 1971 was redrawn in New York - [iorr.org] - by Craig Braun's in-house illustrators Walter Velez and Toni DiMiceli - [iorr.org] , [iorr.org] .

Too make it a little more "mysterious" ... Alan Aldridge was involved in a Rolling Stones project in 1968. He designed a poster which was never used for .... The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus project. It shows a tiger on a small plateau (the ones they use to let tigers and lions sit on during the dompteur act). Doesn't that remind of the photos taken with Mick standing next to a real tiger?
Since Aldridge has past away, I wonder if it will ever surface why it wasn't used.
I love this kind of mistery

Happy 80th birthday to Ringo! Best drummer this side of Charlie Watts.

I know he's one of the two remaining Beatles, destiny perhaps the Beatles thread, but, OMG, Ringo turns 80 this year. I think he's earned his own spot regarding this milestone. It will be interesting and, hopefully, fun to see what his charity show is like on the 7th.

[www.rollingstone.com]

"only the good die young"

Bob Dylan "Foot Of Pride (1983)

Quote
dcba
"only the good die young"

Bob Dylan "Foot Of Pride (1983)

Why would a good vibes, peace promoting person like Ringo inspire such snark?


Happy Birthday, Ringo!

He looks great! What is his secret?

Hard to believe. Happy birthday Ringo and yes, he does look great!

The luckiest musician in history,but also a great drummer

Quote
loog droog

Why would a good vibes, peace promoting person like Ringo inspire such snark?

That's not what I was reading in Brit music mags from the 90's...
maybe Ringo was resentful of the fact he's always been the "disposable Beatle"?