The Beatles

Latchy wrote: »

I was watching the Love Me Do ,50th anniversary documentary on BBC 4 over the weekend and I was familiar with the story of how 3 different people Pete Best , Ringo Starr and Andy White all played on various takes of love me do (23 takes in all ) but there is still some dispute as to who played on the official single release .

In the documentary Andy White ( a session drummer hired by friend of George Martin ) tells of how he was laying down a track with a nervous looking Ringo looking on and how he's convinced it's his drumming on the released single .

Pete Best seemed to get some Joy out telling how Ringo was going through something similar to himself at that session ie, feeling like his Beatle career was over before it even began while he watched Andy White banging away with approving looks from George Martin a.

Best looks well for his age and is proud to have been part of that musical history ( ''you can't take that away from me '' he say's ) but you can still see some bitterness in his face from knowing he lost out to Ringo as the Beatles drummer and all the fame that went with it .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nfbt2[/QUOTE]

Excellent documentary. Best can't be too glum...the royalties from 'Anthology 1' made him a millionaire.

Bassfish wrote: »

Anyone else feel the way I do? I'm an avid Beatles fan, love their music and remain in a state of awe at how they managed to produce such a vast amount of amazing music in the space of about 9 years BUT i can barely listen to any of their post-Beatles solo work. I love John Lennon's Beatles work but the only solo songs i like are Imagine and Jealous guy. As far as i'm concerned Paul McCartney hasn't written a decent song since 1970, George had one or two nice songs and i think Ringo had the right idea doing Thomas the Tank Engine.
This really all came to me this evening when i watched a concert of John Lennon with the Plastic Ono Band in 1972 in Madison Square Garden, John's last full concert. The concert was actually rubbish and i really had to struggle to not change the channel.
I just find it strange that people who were such amazing songwriters collectively could produce so little good music as solo artists or collarborating with others. Anyone else agree or am i being unfair to Wings and Lennon's solo stuff?

I watched that concert too and the sound quality was rubbish. I turned it off after a while.
I don't agree totally about their solo work - All things must pass by George Harrison is one of my favourite albums. The album Imagine is good - Oh Yoko! is a great song! And I really like crippled inside. Paul never did anything too great, though, except live and let die.

I am and have always be a big Fan of the Beatles music , prior to them " coming on the scene" we had to put up with Cliff and Shadows who never made it in America ,Marty Wilde , Evis was the man at the time .

The Beatles in the early 60's, they were something different unusually writing their own songs which some are classics and have stood the test of time , have been sang by the likes of Shirley Bassey , Joe Cocker and many others .

My favourites of theirs being, Here , There, and Everwhere , Strawberry Fields Forever , Heres Comes The Sun ( Harrison ) to name a few .

THey have and will go down in history as Four Ordinary Lads who shook the world

Used to drive my flatmates mad listening to the Beatles. Then I almost drove my girlfriend mad listening to them. Then I almost drove my wife mad the same way. Now my kids roll their eyes when they see me reaching for Abbey Road. LOVE their music.

I think they were, in their different ways, excellent musicians. Pauls bass was fantastic. Listen to Johns rythym on 'All Your Loving'; he was rightly proud of it. George was an excellent guitarist, especially, I think, on their more countryish numbers. And I like Ringo's 'lag' in his drumming, though I've known many drummers who don't rate him at all.

They were no virtuosos in the strictess sense of the word, but they were bloody good musicians. Did not Lemmy himself say they were the best live act he ever saw?

Praising their songwriting skills is redundant, but I'm going to do it anyway because why the hell not. Both John and Paul were great, though John could be lazy, and Paul sometimes lacked a BS filter. But working together, they really were second to none. I probably prefer Johns pre-Pepper songs (not taking anything away from this later stuff), and I think Paul was pretty consistent throughout their career, though he did let slip some awful dross (I can sometimes tap my foot through 'Maxwells Silver Hammer', but 'I Will' makes me want to reach for a firearm).

What gets me about them is their singing. The harmonies are fantastic, and they don't just sound happy, they sound joyous on so many of their songs. I always want to join in when I hear them, much to the discomfort of those in my vicinity.

Dag nab it, it's Sunday, and after writing all that, I'm now spending the rest of the day listening to the Beatles. Better warn the missus.

Yes, I do. Think Let it Be naked is a considerable improvement on the original. Soundwise, lay out of songs, everything. The stripped down version of Long and Winding Road is better too. I know some people viewed it as (another) big ego trip of Pauls, but I definitely think it was worth doing.

(And I'm a lot older than you judging by your post.)

taylorconor95 wrote: »

Yes, I am 17.. Strangely enough though I have been pretty much obsessed with everything Beatles for as long as I can remember (just short of crossing Abbey Road myself... Give me a few years!).

Good to know someone shares my feelings on the Let it Be album too.

Jesus, now I really feel ancient. I think I've got clothes older than you Still, nice to see the younger generation can still appreciate the Beatles. Proves what I've always thought - timeless music (as all the best stuff is.)

Pauvre Con wrote: »

Even with the bass vocals?! The White Album is one of those where the whole is way in excess the sum of its parts. Even the crap bits add to the brilliance.

The Beatles were so good they took p*ss really. Love them. Untouchable.

Totally disagree, I have the edited album & it's an incredible single album, but as a double it's hopeless.

Pauvre Con wrote: »

Even with the bass vocals?! The White Album is one of those where the whole is way in excess the sum of its parts. Even the crap bits add to the brilliance.

The Beatles were so good they took p*ss really. Love them. Untouchable.

Yes, even with the bass vocals. It just grates on me, it's like being slowly drowned in warm treacle. Sorry.

They did take the pee though, and I love them for it. I agree, untouchable.

While I agree with the above, the album should only contain the music recorded in those sessions (unless the additional tracks were also recorded & then abandoned until they were reworked for inclusion), I don't see anything wrong with taking tracks off because they don't fit the album flow or they're just bad music.

I listen to the edited version a lot, but would never listen to the full version. Take out the likes of Ob-la-di, Revolution 9, Long, long long etc. Get it down to 14/15 tracks & it's an amazing album

Ziegfeldgirl27 wrote: »

I am very disappointed at the lack of McCartney fans here. Fair enough, a few song post-Beatles aren't great but mostly I think he really has a very solid catalogue. He was always "the performer" of the Beatles and he is really a wonderful showman. I am absolutely sick to death of people criticising him for "the frog song" and whatever else, the fact remains that he HAS done some amazing work, the majority of people are just too lazy to listen and its much easier to just slag him off.

Paul was probably the "best" all round member of the band. He was the best musician (his guitar playing and solos outshone John's and even some of George's; he was by far the best piano player of the four, and of course his bass work is amazing). His singing was amazing - the shrieking of Long Tall Sally, the Sgt Pepper title track, Oh Darling - next to tender things like Hey Jude and the opening of You Never Give Me Your Money. Show me anyone else with that kind of versatility.

But its also his production and arrangement work that was top - John would come in with a hazy description of what he wanted; Paul would come in knowing exactly what he wanted, and more so, exactly how to achieve it. I hate when people call him a "craftsman" because of this - it takes real musical talent and understanding to be able to create music this way. John would often just get lucky, and in many cases, turn to Paul for the solution (A Day In The Life, Come Together); with Paul, his genius was knowing to get a complete piece of work completed - it was already complete in his head. Mozart was the same! :-)

I admit that a lot of the Paul-hating comes from the Wings or solo era; but if Paul had died or never made music after 1971 he would've been rightly considered the real genius of the Beatles. Unfortunately he will always be considered second to "Saint" John.

He'll always be my favourite Beatle though!

Prettyblack wrote: »

Paul was probably the "best" all round member of the band. He was the best musician (his guitar playing and solos outshone John's and even some of George's; he was by far the best piano player of the four, and of course his bass work is amazing). His singing was amazing - the shrieking of Long Tall Sally, the Sgt Pepper title track, Oh Darling - next to tender things like Hey Jude and the opening of You Never Give Me Your Money. Show me anyone else with that kind of versatility.

But its also his production and arrangement work that was top - John would come in with a hazy description of what he wanted; Paul would come in knowing exactly what he wanted, and more so, exactly how to achieve it. I hate when people call him a "craftsman" because of this - it takes real musical talent and understanding to be able to create music this way. John would often just get lucky, and in many cases, turn to Paul for the solution (A Day In The Life, Come Together); with Paul, his genius was knowing to get a complete piece of work completed - it was already complete in his head. Mozart was the same! :-)

I admit that a lot of the Paul-hating comes from the Wings or solo era; but if Paul had died or never made music after 1971 he would've been rightly considered the real genius of the Beatles. Unfortunately he will always be considered second to "Saint" John.

He'll always be my favourite Beatle though!

YES YES YES!! You just said what I have been trying for so long to say. I actually could not agree more and am delighted that there is more love for Paul!