Paul and Ringo played together on Paul's song Queenie Eye.

<<Paul and Ringo played together on Paul's song Queenie Eye.>>

And also....





But they haven't played together live since....

Played together at ringo's 70th

I meant that they played together on Paul's song live tonight. Happened at 10 pm. Yes, I think it was the first time they'd played live together since Ringo's 70th.

Ringo has played with paul on various others records over the years. Ringo Y Not cd

They also played together at the David Lynch benefit for Transcendental Meditation. Additionally, they played at the Concert for George.

They also played at George Harrison's wedding in 1978. But, so what? It was neither filmed nor taped. Ringo's 70th? A private affair. A David Lynch benefit? David Lynch isn't all that mainstream, so not too many would have heard about it (this thread is the first I've heard of it). Concert for George? Well, OK, but a tribute with a million other artists onstage as well.

Let's put it this way: It's the first time Paul and Ringo have played together on live television, for no other reason but for the sake of celebrating the Beatles themselves, since, you know....






Paul, Ringo, and George celebrating Ringo's 60th.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 07:49 by stonehearted.

"Queeny Eye" then? With all the Beatles songs in Macca's set you'd think he could have found something more appropriate but he just can't help plugging the new material can he ! Like when he plugged ("this is our new single") the pathetic "From a Lover to a Friend" at the 2001 Benefit...

Full low-res and out of synch video :




--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 09:09 by gotdablouse.

It was kind of sad, really. Ringo can't seem to hold down the kit himself for a song. He was in the spotlight but it was obvious a drummer off in the darkness was actually providing the beat. It seems like you never see Ringo alone backing up a band at these things.

<<"Queeny Eye" then? With all the Beatles songs in Macca's set you'd think he could have found something more appropriate but he just can't help plugging the new material can he !>>

That's exactly the sort of thinking that leaves Mick Jagger reluctant to record a new album of Stones material.

These artists used to be all about new material, but now their fans won't have any part of it.

Life's a jukebox, so play hits.

Completely missed my point...besides the pretty crass "plugging" (especially at the CFNY in 2001) with Ringo around there was NEVER a better time to play a Beatles song like he does throughout his shows instead of playing recent (other than the latest album) or solo or Wings material.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

Quote
gotdablouse
"Queeny Eye" then? With all the Beatles songs in Macca's set you'd think he could have found something more appropriate but he just can't help plugging the new material can he ! Like when he plugged ("this is our new single") the pathetic "From a Lover to a Friend" at the 2001 Benefit...

Full low-res and out of synch video :

Not bad at all, imo. Ringo is still a cool drummer

Did the "Live In England 65"-CD from Charlie Is My Darling get a Grammy, btw?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 10:56 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
gotdablouse
Completely missed my point...besides the pretty crass "plugging" (especially at the CFNY in 2001) with Ringo around there was NEVER a better time to play a Beatles song like he does throughout his shows instead of playing recent (other than the latest album) or solo or Wings material.

So what about George plugging his new solo stuff at the Concert for Bangladesh, then? Should he have just played Beatles songs instead, so as to lend more "meaning" to the event?

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
gotdablouse
Completely missed my point...besides the pretty crass "plugging" (especially at the CFNY in 2001) with Ringo around there was NEVER a better time to play a Beatles song like he does throughout his shows instead of playing recent (other than the latest album) or solo or Wings material.

So what about George plugging his new solo stuff at the Concert for Bangladesh, then? Should he have just played Beatles songs instead, so as to lend more "meaning" to the event?

Well to be fair they DID play Beatles stuff there, and George fresh off the Beatles I would give him a bit of a pass. But they did play Something and While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Also Here Comes The Sun sans Ringo, so its hard to say they missed the opportunity because they didn't.

Here's what should have happened. I'm fine with them playing together and having it on a new Paul song. BUT, what they should have done (and I said this from the beginning) is had Paul and Ringo as the finale, similar to what Paul did a year or two ago with all the guitar special guests, and have them do a Beatles song then. Paul gets to plug his record and the world gets to see the surviving Beatles play a Beatles song together. And really, when the surviving Beatles are at an event, how are they NOT the closing act. That was stupid from the get go. But that would have been the best thing to happen.

Now having said all of that, this is probably not really necessary to discuss, but clearly the two are also performing together at the thing they are showing on February 9th, and they will most certainly do a Beatles song then. So the whole thing is kind of null and void at this point if its gonna happen in 2 weeks anyway. But yeah, the Grammys missed an opportunity for a true Grammy moment by having the two Beatles rock out to a Beatles song with some special guests like Dave Grohl, etc.

McCartney also played a benefit with Wings in 1979, Concert for Kampuchea, which turned out to be the last show done in the Wings format. They played 24 songs in all--only 3 Beatles songs, 4 if you include the version of Let It Be done with the "Rockestra" lineup--including numbers from the recently released Back To The Egg album as well as a "shameless" plug for Paul's yet to be released Coming Up.

I think the issue is simply the difference between 2014 and 1979. In 1979, Paul was still having huge hits, people still wanted new music from him, and they bought his new albums and listened to them regularly for years after. In 2014, he is viewed merely as a museum relic, a mere celebratory figure, rather than as a creative artist.

I just can't stop laughing at the comment in the post above--he just can't help plugging the new material--because plugging new material is something he's been doing for more than 50 years. That's what songwriters do: they plug their new material because they want for people to hear and like it.

And so what if Ringo is playing on a Paul song instead of a Beatles song? That's what Ringo did in the movie Give My Regards To Broad Street, he played on Paul's new stuff that he had out at that time. What's wrong with that? Imagine if fans had this attitude back in 1966: 'Oh, they're plugging that new-fangled crap off Revolver--they won't play She Loves You anymore'. And the nerve of them using that rooftop concert in 1969 to plug those new Get Back sessions, when they could have seized the moment and really rocked their early classics.

I still maintain that this jukebox mentality is the reason there has been no new Rolling Stones album since 2005. And what if the Stones had performed at the Grammys, for the first time ever, only to squander the event by shamelessly plugging Doom and Gloom when they could have brought the house down with Jumping Jack Flash instead?

Not sure what kind of chip you have on your shoulder (besides way too much time on your hands) but the fact that you can't see that there NEVER was a better time to play a Beatles song than yesterday with Ringo is rather worrying. Not that it matters but I doubt you'll find anyone here as interested as myself in new Macca or Stones material (and unreleased songs) and lamenting their similar treatment if their recent output live (other than a few songs off the latest album and zero from the recent ones) as myself but again that's a moot point.

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 12:41 by gotdablouse.

<I still maintain that this jukebox mentality is the reason there has been no new Rolling Stones album since 2005. And what if the Stones had performed at the Grammys, for the first time ever, only to squander the event by shamelessly plugging Doom and Gloom when they could have brought the house down with Jumping Jack Flash instead?>

There is a difference with the Stones, though, as they haven't come up with new material in ages - and finally had a good single that people liked with Doom And Gloom - whereas Paul is coming up with new stuff pretty regularly.

They probably would have played YGMR and JJF anyway, though

<<Not sure what kind of chip you have on your shoulder (besides way too much time on your hands)>>

Because I make a thoughtful post I have way too much time on my hands? Hmmm, OK, but there are some here whose posts are lengthier, but nevermind.

OK, let's try a hypothetical approach. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that all 4 Beatles were alive and well and that they decided to use the occasion of the Grammys for a 50th anniversary reunion appearance. Now, what if, instead of one of their tried and true classics, they decided to play a new song? Would that have been a let down?

Anyway, why should Paul and Ringo have played a Beatles song? They weren't appearing as The Beatles, but as Paul and Ringo, and Paul has a new song to plug so why not plug it? Besides, the Beatles weren't awarded a Grammy last night, Wings was. It was an occasion for Paul to celebrate his post-Beatles solo work and show that he could still deliver a decent new song, with a little help from one of his friends.

Oh, there I go again, multiple paragraphs because I have too much time on my hands. Speaking of which, I'd better get back to my soap opera--Prisoner Cell Block H, an Australian soap set in a women's prison that ran from 1979 to 1986. All 692 (45-minute) episodes are up on YouTube and this very moment as I type this I'm halfway through episode 41, which I've watched all in the last 6 days, because I have too much time on my hands. HaHaHa!

<Would that have been a let down?>

For most people, I reckon it would be.

Personally, I would have loved it.

The 46-year-old actress who introduced Paul and Ringo is barely old enough to remember when Wings were together. They really do come from a world that no longer exists, and they dropped in on this kids party like something out of bygone era, like Charlie Chaplin showing up at the Oscars when I was a kid. I loved it. I also love that they did a new song of Paul's, as if this is what the new Beatles song would have been, if there still had been a group called the Beatles.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 13:30 by tatters.

<<I also love that they did a new song of Paul's, as if this is what the new Beatles song would have been, if there still had been a group called the Beatles.>>

Quote
gotdablouse
Not sure what kind of chip you have on your shoulder (besides way too much time on your hands) but the fact that you can't see that there NEVER was a better time to play a Beatles song than yesterday with Ringo is rather worrying. Not that it matters but I doubt you'll find anyone here as interested as myself in new Macca or Stones material (and unreleased songs) and lamenting their similar treatment if their recent output live (other than a few songs off the latest album and zero from the recent ones) as myself but again that's a moot point.

Not sure what kind of chip you have on your shoulder (besides way too much time on your hands)

In my opinion it's not nice at all to say this because there is no reason at all to say it... Lot's of people like to spend hours a day on iorr; reading the good information or chatting about nothing which can also be fun to read sometimes.
But why would the best reporter on iorr who must spend a lot of time and effort to inform us say this about the best researcher on iorr??

Quote
stonehearted
They also played at George Harrison's wedding in 1978. But, so what? It was neither filmed nor taped. Ringo's 70th? A private affair. A David Lynch benefit? David Lynch isn't all that mainstream, so not too many would have heard about it (this thread is the first I've heard of it). Concert for George? Well, OK, but a tribute with a million other artists onstage as well.

The concert on Ringo's 70th birthday was at Radio City Music Hall which has a seating capacity of 6,000. I assume it was open to the general public and that anyone could have gone.

Quote
24FPS
It was kind of sad, really. Ringo can't seem to hold down the kit himself for a song. He was in the spotlight but it was obvious a drummer off in the darkness was actually providing the beat. It seems like you never see Ringo alone backing up a band at these things.

He's not even alone backing up the band at his own concerts. I remember one Ringo show I was at where Sheila E was doing this long solo and the guy next to me said all disappointed like, "Why isn't Ringo doing this? I thought he was supposed to be the drummer!" All I could say was, "He's not that kind of drummer."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 15:08 by tatters.

Quote
RollingFreak

Here's what should have happened. I'm fine with them playing together and having it on a new Paul song. BUT, what they should have done (and I said this from the beginning) is had Paul and Ringo as the finale, similar to what Paul did a year or two ago with all the guitar special guests, and have them do a Beatles song then. Paul gets to plug his record and the world gets to see the surviving Beatles play a Beatles song together. And really, when the surviving Beatles are at an event, how are they NOT the closing act. That was stupid from the get go. But that would have been the best thing to happen.

Beatles fans are old and tired and need to go to bed. I'm glad they put them on early so I could see it and then turn it off.

Quote
tatters

Quote
RollingFreak

Here's what should have happened. I'm fine with them playing together and having it on a new Paul song. BUT, what they should have done (and I said this from the beginning) is had Paul and Ringo as the finale, similar to what Paul did a year or two ago with all the guitar special guests, and have them do a Beatles song then. Paul gets to plug his record and the world gets to see the surviving Beatles play a Beatles song together. And really, when the surviving Beatles are at an event, how are they NOT the closing act. That was stupid from the get go. But that would have been the best thing to happen.

Beatles fans are old and tired and need to go to bed. I'm glad they put them on early so I could see it and then turn it off.

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the pizza?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<I still maintain that this jukebox mentality is the reason there has been no new Rolling Stones album since 2005. And what if the Stones had performed at the Grammys, for the first time ever, only to squander the event by shamelessly plugging Doom and Gloom when they could have brought the house down with Jumping Jack Flash instead?>

There is a difference with the Stones, though, as they haven't come up with new material in ages - and finally had a good single that people liked with Doom And Gloom - whereas Paul is coming up with new stuff pretty regularly.

They probably would have played YGMR and JJF anyway, though

I think the difference is that Paul is an artist who just can't help but continue creating new stuff, while the Stones are businessmen who can't be bothered to put in the hours (much the less the time they would have to spend in each other's company) to make new music unless there's a substantial financial reward involved. Doom and Gloom and the other new one were put out there only as bait to get people to buy Grrrrrrr or whatever it was called (and to give them a new song to play at their concerts, thus creating the illusion that they are still an ongoing creative entity when in fact nothing could be further from the truth). And it still didn't sell, making it even more unlikely that we'll ever get an entire album of new material out of them ever again.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 15:37 by tatters.

I just wish I could see Ringo - at least once - be the only drummer behind a band. I love Ringo and I love his playing. I think he is a fantastic drummer with a style all his own that influenced generations of players since he came onto the scene 50 years ago. In my mind, he is a musical god.

But his constant playing with another drummer only gives ammunition to the "Ringo sucks" brigade.

Yeah it wasn't a very nice thing to say, so I'll apologize, fact is Macca should have known better than plug his latest song yesterday if only because Ringo was there because of the 50th. stonehearted was also wrong in (repeatedly) asserting that this reaction is why we get "old songs" at concerts, it's not...and it's barking up the wrong tree so that's what you get, an annoyed reply by an annoyed poster, now if you will excuse me I'm off for a little Stones related trek ;-)

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-01-27 18:41 by gotdablouse.

Quote
tatters

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<I still maintain that this jukebox mentality is the reason there has been no new Rolling Stones album since 2005. And what if the Stones had performed at the Grammys, for the first time ever, only to squander the event by shamelessly plugging Doom and Gloom when they could have brought the house down with Jumping Jack Flash instead?>

There is a difference with the Stones, though, as they haven't come up with new material in ages - and finally had a good single that people liked with Doom And Gloom - whereas Paul is coming up with new stuff pretty regularly.

They probably would have played YGMR and JJF anyway, though

I think the difference is that Paul is an artist who just can't help but continue creating new stuff, while the Stones are businessmen who can't be bothered to put in the hours (much the less the time they would have to spend in each other's company) to make new music unless there's a substantial financial reward involved. Doom and Gloom and the other new one were put out there only as bait to get people to buy Grrrrrrr or whatever it was called (and to give them a new song to play at their concerts, thus creating the illusion that they are still an ongoing creative entity when in fact nothing could be further from the truth). And it still didn't sell, making it even more unlikely that we'll ever get an entire album of new material out of them ever again.

I agree with everything you wrote, except for the bit about Doom And Gloom.

True, it didn't sell per se (like in psycial copied moved), but it achieved what they were after - creating many views on YT, lots of sharing in social media and a song that youngsters could embrace. And they did! At the shows I attended, I could see that reaction - they loved it, and they were singing it. And I don't think the number of downloads was disappointing at all, for a bunch of 70 year olds?