Quote
HelterSkelter
I don't know if he ever did but McCartney should have thrown Pete a couple million pounds - that's about one hour of interest on Macca's savings in the bank.....

Pete Best was paid something like $1 million for his "work" on Anthology 1.

I don't think they are trying to whitewash history. I think it's just a case of not wanting to have to get involved in promoting something that they feel negatively about. Imagine having to show snapshots of the worst holiday you ever went on (with an an partner) and enthuse!!

It's surprising Paul doesn't want this out, because it shows him at HIS peak, when Paul, for all practical purposes, WAS the Beatles. I think it says something about the man's character that he wants to keep it hidden, as if he values the preservation of the band's legacy more than the opportunity to say "Look here. In '68-'69 I was THE BEATLE (singular). These other guys were just along for the ride".

It's admirable, but it's also misguided. It's not as if it's an UNRELEASED film. If I remeber correctly, it WAS released in 1970 for the whole world to see. Many of us actually saw it in a movie theatre. I'd love to able to do that again, and for younger fans, seeing the rooftop show in a movie theatre, big and loud on the big screen, is as close as you'll ever get to seeing a Beatles concert and it'd be nice if you had that opportunity.

The legacy of the Beatles is not best served by putting together some moronic Las Vegas circus set to Beatles music. It is best served by allowing people to see the real thing.

Paul was THE Beatles?

I disagree...one only has to listen to what John Lennon was writing/recording at the time to know better than that.
Even though he was distracted/infatuated with Yoko at the time, he was still the mastermind, integrity, and attitude of the band.
And what about George? By George! His writing was hitting it's peak at the time!

I think it is sad that these guys suddenly start to ban or censor stuff that was already put into circuit decades ago. It really sounds like polishing the actual history.

In this sense Jagger & co are more mature nowadays. They did withdraw releasing some stuff they didn't appropriate at the time (like ROCK&ROLL CIRCUS, @#$%& BLUES), but decades after they seem have total different, funnier perspective to this material (if it is true that Jagger is actually showing green light for the official release of CS BLUES). Jeez, it's all part of history, and all, including the people who were once creating them, should adapt this historicist, non-serious attitude, like "weren't we young and fool, etc."

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-02 17:53 by Doxa.

[Paul was THE Beatles?

I disagree...one only has to listen to what John Lennon was writing/recording at the time to know better than that.
Even though he was distracted/infatuated with Yoko at the time, he was still the mastermind, integrity, and attitude of the band.]


John lost interest in the Beatles and ceased wanting to be the mastermind when Brian Epstein died. Paul filled the void that was created by John's abdication.


[And what about George? By George! His writing was hitting it's peak at the time!]


What writing? I count only three great Harrisongs recorded by the Beatles during 1968-69.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-08-02 18:45 by tatters.

Let's not forget, The Beatles had the opportunity to release some of Georges finest work, but didn't. Such gems as:

Isn't it a Pity
All Things Must Pass
The Art of Dying
Hear Me Lord
Let it Down


As much as I love Lennon...my thoughts are, he and McCartney felt threatened by Georges writing prowess. Those are some stellar songs to throw in the garbage/cutting room floor.

Quote
Bingo
Let's not forget, The Beatles had the opportunity to release some of Georges finest work, but didn't. Such gems as:

Isn't it a Pity
All Things Must Pass
The Art of Dying
Hear Me Lord
Let it Down


As much as I love Lennon...my thoughts are, he and McCartney felt threatened by Georges writing prowess. Those are some stellar songs to throw in the garbage/cutting room floor.

Just like The Stones could have release the masterpieces Bill Wyman was forced to release in STONE ALONE... (okay, that was a joke...><)

- Doxa

Try this:
[thepiratebay.org]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Would the Stones ever do an Anthology? I mean there must be a shed load of material out there, released, not released, private footage etc.
But the Stones don't seem to have a "Neil Aspinall" equivalent as far as I can tell.
With the new Universal contract, some of the legalities might be a bit more straightforward and relations between the band and ABCKO seem to be-shall we say-businesslike.
So why not?

I saw this movie when it was released. Brilliant then, brilliant now. I own a copy of the movie on VHS. It isn't bad at all. And AFA there being tension, it's really no worse than day to day tension working in an office. I always enjoy the live performances in the studio and on the rooftop. Shame Paulie can't pull the drumstick out of his arse, eh? Ringo's too dull to have an opinion, me t'inks.

"The wonder of Jimi Hendrix was that he could stand up at all he was so pumped full of drugs." Patsy, Patsy Stone

Ironically, it seems to have been Lennon's idea to bring some polish to the recordings, bringing in Mad Phil and his million and one strings.
So from that point on it ceased to be a "warts and all" production.
At the end of the day they own the rights though.
I mean I can't see Mick ever sanctioning the 71 Marquee film for TV, for example.

Quote
The Menace of Mayfair
And AFA there being tension, it's really no worse than day to day tension working in an office.

Exactly! And these guys can even drink on the job AND bring their own drugs and women ;-)

There's so much footage - hundreds of hours. Maybe they should re-edit it and take out all the nasty bits. Make it a "happier" documentary. Call it "Let It Be... Happy"

A little revisionist Beatles history...

Hasnt everyone thats interested pretty much seen this? Outtakes too ? With all the dvds and audio cds from the Nagra tapes out there it doesnt seem like theres anything to hide. On the subject of Pete Best, they did kinda f--k him! I'm glad if he got the money from Anthology. From the Decca tapes and the live stuff that exists it seems he was an adequate drummer. Even Ringo was snubbed by George Martin on the first recording session. Dont get me wrong- I love Ringo and "John,Paul,George and Pete" doesnt have the same ring to it but Pete did deserve better after his Mom booking the Beatles at her coffee bar when no one else would and acting on there behalf in a semi-mangement and booking role before anyone else gave em serious consideration!

Quote
tatters
Pete Best was paid something like $1 million for his "work" on Anthology 1.

He's recieved a whole lot more than that from the Anthology!