|
|
Post by rick on Apr 30, 2012 22:41:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 1, 2012 16:53:51 GMT -5
And still no re-release of "Let It Be."
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 1, 2012 17:19:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 2, 2012 8:31:24 GMT -5
I've heard there have been plans for years now to reissue "Let It Be" to dvd and blu-ray, but nothing ever comes of it. One of the rumors that floated at one time mentioned something about extra footage was even going to be released but when you consider Paul and Ringo plus John's and George's wives won't even authorize reissuing the original albums with any unreleased songs particular to a specific album, that was one rumor that must've been wishful thinking on someone's part. There's allegedly enough unreleased filmed footage from "Let It Be" that they could do an Anthology-styled release if they were of the mind to release an extended version of the movie but if it's released at all, my guess is it will only be the 1970 movie with no extras. But, even getting that on dvd or blu-ray would be most welcome for those of us to whom the Beatles mattered.
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on May 2, 2012 15:30:11 GMT -5
The Beatles are truly the best band that ever was. Not even Elvis can compare to their sheer genius and talent. I wonder if we will ever see another like them?
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on May 2, 2012 18:35:01 GMT -5
Quote by ronstadtfanaz:
I don't think there will be another Beatles. But as John Lennon said, "Without Elvis, there never would have been the Beatles."
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 2, 2012 23:03:07 GMT -5
I don't think there will be another Beatles. But as John Lennon said, "Without Elvis, there never would have been the Beatles." I second that. I'm an Elvis and I'm a Beatles fan and I think that without Elvis, there not only wouldn't have been a Beatles, but many of the rockers who came in Elvis's aftermath but before the Beatles - people like Buddy Holly, Rick Nelson, the Everly Brothers, Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, would've had far different musical careers. Elvis was the catalyst, the rock and roll supernova who exploded and whose musical impact affected all those musicians and many of the bands and artists who were part of the British Invasion. Elvis didn't influence every single BI act but he did influence Holly, who was mentioned by quite a few British rockers as an influence. Holly credited Elvis for redirecting his musical path from country to rock. The Beatles were brilliant, no question about that but so was Elvis and both obviously did something right musically to have remained in the public collective long after their glory days. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 3, 2012 2:44:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 5, 2012 13:49:40 GMT -5
Not a bad album but as a reviewer noted on amazon, so much of the LIB...N album had already been released on "Anthology, Vol. 3." I'm not sure if all of the Beatles would've been in complete agreement with this version of the album had it been released in 1969 or even in 1970. A big part of the problem with the original plans for the album was that no one agreed on anything, so John, George and Ringo handed the project over to Phil Spector to sort out the mess, over Paul's objections. I didn't think the 1970 "Let It Be" album was really that bad, although given the idea was to record the songs live and put that out on album, Spector adding orchestra and choir to "Across the Universe" and "The Long and Winding Road," while it made those songs even more beautiful than they already were, went against what the Beatles supposedly wanted to do. Likewise,adding the horns, additional choir backing and bringing up George's electric guitar solo and Ringo's drums on "Let It Be" may have been what Spector thought was a good idea but Paul didn't like it and as it was his tune, Spector should've deferred to what Paul wanted on his song. The 1970 album sounded louder and all things considered, I still preferred the Spectorized-versions of ATU and TLAWR. But, hearing LIB...N along side the 1970 album gives the listener a sense of the difficulty the Beatles were going through in trying to come up with something they could all agree on. Had John been around when LIB...N was released, I have to wonder if he would've been okay with it, given he had mellowed to some degree. And since George was still around when most of the LIB...N was released on "Anthology, Vol. 3," he probably would've been okay with the album. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 5, 2012 22:53:39 GMT -5
Thank you, Slide. I appreciate your take on this. My brother was the big Beatles' fan in our family. We shared a bedroom and he would put usually four Beatles' albums on the stereo in our bedroom, and, while he'd be asleep during the first track on the first album, I would lie in bed and listen to the sides of the albums as they played. My experience is with the Phil Spector-ized original release of "Let It Be" and I did not purchase "Let It Be .. Naked." I noticed one of the hundreds of Amazon reviews mentioned creating one's own "Let It Be," as it were, picking and choosing from among the original release, the Anthology 3 tracks and then "Naked." The Amazon user's name is "A Customer"  " Want a REAL alternate version? (Instructions included) November 24, 2003 By A Customer Format:Audio CD By taking out the dialogue, this has been made into an antiseptic, somewhat ordinary work. The point was to strip away Spector's figerprints, but they removed the charm as well. Far from being "Naked," it actually sounds well-produced. These versions are for the most part ones we've heard before, so there's no great revelation. Many note that "Anthology Disc 3" provided better insights, and I agree; a good fifty percent of the "Let It Be" songs are on that disc! But the most egregious thing those in charge (and, contrary to many claims I've read in these reviews, I think Paul had less to do with this than many claim) did was to change the running order of the songs. Sorry -- once you're used to it, it doesn't pay to change the formula; you can't act as if the original never existed. SO -- if you really want a cool, alternate "Let It Be," get the ORIGINAL "Let It Be," the ANTHOLOGY 3 disc, and "Let it Be NAKED," and then burn the following songs onto a CD in this order: 1. Two Of Us (Anthology 3) 1. Two Of Us (Anthology 3) 2. Dig A Pony (Anthology 3) 3. Across the Universe (Naked) 4. I Me Mine (Anthology 3) 5. Dig It (Original) 6. Let It Be (Anthology 3) 7. Maggie Mae (Original) 8. Medley: Rip It Up/Blue Suede Shoes (Anthology 3) 9. Mailman, Bring Me No More Blues (Anthology 3) 10. Old Brown Shoe (Anthology 3) 11. I've Got a Feeling (Anthology 3) 12. One After 909 (Naked or Original) 13. Long and Winding Road (Anthology 3) 14. For You Blue (Anthology 3) 15. Don't Let Me Down (Naked) 16. Get Back (Anthology 3) " Am just curious, Slide, if you could make your own version of "Let It Be," as this user suggests, what would you include? Thank you. (Apologies to Tony and Erik if this should be its own thread and not under "Yellow Submarine") |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 6, 2012 1:12:56 GMT -5
Thank you, Slide. I appreciate your take on this. My brother was the big Beatles' fan in our family. We shared a bedroom and he would put usually four Beatles' albums on the stereo in our bedroom, and, while he'd be asleep during the first track on the first album, I would lie in bed and listen to the sides of the albums as they played. My experience is with the Phil Spector-ized original release of "Let It Be" and I did not purchase "Let It Be .. Naked." I noticed one of the hundreds of Amazon reviews mentioned creating one's own "Let It Be," as it were, picking and choosing from among the original release, the Anthology 3 tracks and then "Naked." The Amazon user's name is "A Customer" " Want a REAL alternate version? (Instructions included) November 24, 2003 By A Customer Format:Audio CD By taking out the dialogue, this has been made into an antiseptic, somewhat ordinary work. The point was to strip away Spector's figerprints, but they removed the charm as well. Far from being "Naked," it actually sounds well-produced. These versions are for the most part ones we've heard before, so there's no great revelation. Many note that "Anthology Disc 3" provided better insights, and I agree; a good fifty percent of the "Let It Be" songs are on that disc! But the most egregious thing those in charge (and, contrary to many claims I've read in these reviews, I think Paul had less to do with this than many claim) did was to change the running order of the songs. Sorry -- once you're used to it, it doesn't pay to change the formula; you can't act as if the original never existed. SO -- if you really want a cool, alternate "Let It Be," get the ORIGINAL "Let It Be," the ANTHOLOGY 3 disc, and "Let it Be NAKED," and then burn the following songs onto a CD in this order: 1. Two Of Us (Anthology 3) 1. Two Of Us (Anthology 3) 2. Dig A Pony (Anthology 3) 3. Across the Universe (Naked) 4. I Me Mine (Anthology 3) 5. Dig It (Original) 6. Let It Be (Anthology 3) 7. Maggie Mae (Original) 8. Medley: Rip It Up/Blue Suede Shoes (Anthology 3) 9. Mailman, Bring Me No More Blues (Anthology 3) 10. Old Brown Shoe (Anthology 3) 11. I've Got a Feeling (Anthology 3) 12. One After 909 (Naked or Original) 13. Long and Winding Road (Anthology 3) 14. For You Blue (Anthology 3) 15. Don't Let Me Down (Naked) 16. Get Back (Anthology 3) " Am just curious, Slide, if you could make your own version of "Let It Be," as this user suggests, what would you include? Thank you. (Apologies to Tony and Erik if this should be its own thread and not under "Yellow Submarine") I probably would've gone along with the original track list for the album under its original title, "Get Back." I haven't looked at that track list in some time but think it had most of the songs mentioned in the Amazon review, minus "Across the Universe," "Dig It," "Old Brown Shoe" (which I don't believe originated during the "Get Back" sessions) and "I Me Mine," which wasn't recorded until 1970 by George, Paul and Ringo (John wasn't on the track) - all on their various respective instruments and all contributing backing vocals, and wasn't part of the songs recorded during the "Get Back" sessions. The song was mentioned or possibly played very briefly in the movie, which resulted in the 1970 studio recording. I don't think anyone compiled a complete list of what songs were recorded. Presumably, John, Paul and George proffered songs that would either show up later on "Abbey Road" or on their solo albums but I think some songs were never meant to be givern serious consideration for possible release on any album, particularly the songs they didn't write. As for the others, I know there is a version of "Get Back" with John on lead vocals - there's a version of John singing the song that can be heard on youtube but it doesn't sound like the version that was mentioned in the book "Shout! The Beatles In Their Generation." Doesn't even come close to the version described in that book (which was described as a vocal by John that had a bitter bite that Paul's best version lacked), so I'm wondering if there were two or more versions of the song with John on lead vocals recorded? Paul also took the group on a tour through another group's hit, Canned Heat's "Going Up the Country," but again, don't think it was meant for anything other than just for the fun of doing the song. What was interestimg about "Let It Be" or "Get Back" was that anything was released at all. The Beatless themselves as individuals tried to come up with an acceptible version, didn't work, George Martin tinkered with the album with about the same unacceptible results as did Glynis Johns. No one could make it work and I'm not sure Spector even made it work but by then, the Beatles were so tired of the album, they signed off on it although Paul remained one very unhappy camper with Spector's production. Even George Martin didn't like what he heard. He suggested the credit should've read "Produced by George Martin and Overproduced by Phil Spector." I always took that to mean that Spector took the mixes that Martin was responsible for and added his two bits to them. What was amazing was the Beatles came back after that debacle to bring an end to their reign with "Abbey Road," but "Let It Be" came super close to being the last thing the Beatles ever did. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 8, 2012 5:09:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 8, 2012 15:31:59 GMT -5
If I were Paul or Ringo or John's or George's widows, I'd keep the Magical Mystery Tour TV special in the vault. I remember watching that on the USA Network back in the 80s and feeling embarrassed for the Beatles. It was a good idea on paper, I guess, but put to film, not so good. It was Paul's idea, he directed the film but then gave the director's credit to Ringo. Lovely idea on his part to let someone else take the blame. I recall John not being very happy with MMT, describing the original plan as going off on a bus and having all these magical adventures and what they got instead was boredom. I think John also said in an interview that had Brian been alive, MMT never would've been done. The songs are passable but not particularly great and the video footage for Paul's "Fool on the Hill" received too much praise for its very amateurish production. Pity about the "Let It Be" movie being pushed back to 2014, but I've got a feeling that come 2014, we'll find the date has been moved back to 2017! Just hope Linda's autobiography doesn't get delayed. I didn't see AMC's "Mad Men" TV show because I was at work but I ead the account of how much the producers paid for the use of "Tomorrow Never Knows." Someone paying that much for the rights to use a song is worrisome because you know that some other songwriter or artist with a huge ego will think they're entitled to the same amount of money for their song to be in a TV show or movie. Of course, the royalties go to the Beatles as artist and to Lennon's estate and McCartney as songwriters, but on the down side, part of the publishing royalties go to Sony and Michael Jackson's estate as owners of the Northern Songs/Maclen publishing catalog. It would be nice if Paul and Yoko could regain control of the publishing but that's unlikely to happen, even though they have the financial resources to get the copyrights back.  |
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 8, 2012 18:27:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 8, 2012 19:00:53 GMT -5
I rather like the idea that they got the rights to use the Beatles's original performance of TNK in the show ratehr than use a not even close soundalike cheap imitation. I think about all those episodes of "Happy Days" in which the producers featured an Elvis song except that it wasn't Elvis singing but someone else. I think Garry Marshall once said they tried to get the rights to use Elvis's recordings in the series but the rights for the songs were too expensive.
Of course, Matt Weiner may think he got TNK for a steal at $250,000 - don't know how much of the song was heard in "Mad Men," but hate to disappoint him if he thinks his TV show was the first TV show to feature an actual Beatles song in a TV episode. The first TV show I recall that aired an actual Beatles song was the very last episode of "The Monkees," on the episode "Mijacgeo." It was only a few seconds' worth of the song "Good Morning, Good Morning," and I believe it was said the Beatles personally approved its use and the price was very right, no charge. Of course, the Beatles and the Monkees had hung out together in 1967 and they were friends, which may have had something to do with GMGM's brief inclusion in a Monkees episode. Don't think the Beatles did that for any other TV show in all the years between the Monkees episode (1968) and the Mad Men episode, but most aren't even aware of the presence of a genuine Beatles song in a Monkees episode.
|
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 8, 2012 19:08:26 GMT -5
I rather like the idea that they got the rights to use the Beatles's original performance of TNK in the show ratehr than use a not even close soundalike cheap imitation. I think about all those episodes of "Happy Days" in which the producers featured an Elvis song except that it wasn't Elvis singing but someone else. I think Garry Marshall once said they tried to get the rights to use Elvis's recordings in the series but the rights for the songs were too expensive. Of course, Matt Weiner may think he got TNK for a steal at $250,000 - don't know how much of the song was heard in "Mad Men," but hate to disappoint him if he thinks his TV show was the first TV show to feature an actual Beatles song in a TV episode. The first TV show I recall that aired an actual Beatles song was the very last episode of "The Monkees," on the episode "Mijacgeo." It was only a few seconds' worth of the song "Good Morning, Good Morning," and I believe it was said the Beatles personally approved its use and the price was very right, no charge. Of course, the Beatles and the Monkees had hung out together in 1967 and they were friends, which may have had something to do with GMGM's brief inclusion in a Monkees episode. Don't think the Beatles did that for any other TV show in all the years between the Monkees episode (1968) and the Mad Men episode, but most aren't even aware of the presence of a genuine Beatles song in a Monkees episode. Slide, I did watch "The Monkees" while growing up and believe that possibly with the two groups being friends, it enabled "Good Morning" to be played on their TV show. I didn't read that NY Times' piece to suggest that The Beatles had never been heard in a U.S. TV program. I think I took it to mean that it is rare for it to happen. And then the authors of the article interviewed Matt Weiner who talked about how he was willing to let Apple see the script for the episode. A lot of the song is played. Both during the episode and over the credits. I believe in an earlier season, over the end credits of "Mad Men," there is an instrumental version of "P.S. I Love You." While at the time, I did long for the vocal version by The Beatles, I can see why they bided their time to try to get "Tomorrow" for this episode. I don't want to give away a lot about the plot and how it figures into it. Also, I thought that Matt Weiner made a good point when he said that it was also not inexpensive to use "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" in the LSD episode of "Mad Men." I took that to mean that Forbes and bloggers weren't scrambling to find out how much Lionsgate paid for the rights to a Beach Boys' song. |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on May 8, 2012 22:58:24 GMT -5
Slide, I did watch "The Monkees" while growing up and believe that possibly with the two groups being friends, it enabled "Good Morning" to be played on their TV show. I didn't read that NY Times' piece to suggest that The Beatles had never been heard in a U.S. TV program. I think I took it to mean that it is rare for it to happen. And then the authors of the article interviewed Matt Weiner who talked about how he was willing to let Apple see the script for the episode. A lot of the song is played. Both during the episode and over the credits. I believe in an earlier season, over the end credits of "Mad Men," there is an instrumental version of "P.S. I Love You." While at the time, I did long for the vocal version by The Beatles, I can see why they bided their time to try to get "Tomorrow" for this episode. I don't want to give away a lot about the plot and how it figures into it. Also, I thought that Matt Weiner made a good point when he said that it was also not inexpensive to use "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" in the LSD episode of "Mad Men." I took that to mean that Forbes and bloggers weren't scrambling to find out how much Lionsgate paid for the rights to a Beach Boys' song. Quite right that it's a rare event but I think some in the news media think this is the first time that such a thing has happened. It was sort of like way back in the 80s when Michaerl Jackson and Lionel Richie concocted "We Are The World" and got some of the biggest egotists on the planet to sing on that song. Many in the press reported the WATW even as the first time pop music celebrities had gotten together for a charity event. Did the press forget the Bee Gees's 1979 Music for Unicef project in which artists donated their songs and the publishing rights to Unicef to help combat world hunger? (And actually, only the Bee Gees and ABBA donated the artist and publishing royalties on their songs to Unicef in perpetuity - the righsts on the other songs were limited to the soundtrack album.) Or when George Harrison brought together an assortment of performers for the "Concert for Bangladesh?" Or the Farm Aid concerts, which was started by Willie Nelson around the same time as WATW, yet the news media would've had you believe pop music charity events hadn't happened prior to WATW. I got a chuckle about the price Matt Weiner paid for the use of "Tomorrow Never Knows" (which is one of my favorite Beatle tracks) but had to wonder would he had felt it quite the bargain if he had known that the Monkees had gotten the right to use "Good Morning Good Morning" without paying a dime? Of course, it's also gratifying that there are people like Weiner and others who don't mind putting out the big bucks to get the right to have a Beatles song or an Elvis song in their shows and movies. For a long time, the attitude was the Beatles and Elvis were unapproachable and too expensive as far as the licensing rights were concerned. Of course, such high licensing fees kept their songs out of certain movies and TV shows where it might've been preferable to have kept them out. Not every movie or TV show is a work of art. I recall Roy Orbison declined the use of one of his songs in "More American Graffitti" because the producers didn't want to pony up the big bucks to license songs from Elvis and the Beatles. MAG (or "Lesser American Graffitti" as I refer to it) wasn't quite as good as the original movie, nor as successful and thankfully that embarrassment of a movie didn't include any songs from Elvis, the Beatles or Roy. |
|
|
|
Post by rick on May 9, 2012 16:41:00 GMT -5
Quite right that it's a rare event but I think some in the news media think this is the first time that such a thing has happened. It was sort of like way back in the 80s when Michaerl Jackson and Lionel Richie concocted "We Are The World" and got some of the biggest egotists on the planet to sing on that song. Many in the press reported the WATW even as the first time pop music celebrities had gotten together for a charity event. Did the press forget the Bee Gees's 1979 Music for Unicef project in which artists donated their songs and the publishing rights to Unicef to help combat world hunger? (And actually, only the Bee Gees and ABBA donated the artist and publishing royalties on their songs to Unicef in perpetuity - the righsts on the other songs were limited to the soundtrack album.) Or when George Harrison brought together an assortment of performers for the "Concert for Bangladesh?" Or the Farm Aid concerts, which was started by Willie Nelson around the same time as WATW, yet the news media would've had you believe pop music charity events hadn't happened prior to WATW. I got a chuckle about the price Matt Weiner paid for the use of "Tomorrow Never Knows" (which is one of my favorite Beatle tracks) but had to wonder would he had felt it quite the bargain if he had known that the Monkees had gotten the right to use "Good Morning Good Morning" without paying a dime? Of course, it's also gratifying that there are people like Weiner and others who don't mind putting out the big bucks to get the right to have a Beatles song or an Elvis song in their shows and movies. For a long time, the attitude was the Beatles and Elvis were unapproachable and too expensive as far as the licensing rights were concerned. Of course, such high licensing fees kept their songs out of certain movies and TV shows where it might've been preferable to have kept them out. Not every movie or TV show is a work of art. I recall Roy Orbison declined the use of one of his songs in "More American Graffitti" because the producers didn't want to pony up the big bucks to license songs from Elvis and the Beatles. MAG (or "Lesser American Graffitti" as I refer to it) wasn't quite as good as the original movie, nor as successful and thankfully that embarrassment of a movie didn't include any songs from Elvis, the Beatles or Roy. As always, Slide, your posts are very articulate and informative and add much to the discussion. Yes, not every TV show or movie is a work of art. I think Matt Weiner was slyly trying to say to The New York Times reporter that there was not this kind of hub-bub when "Mad Men" paid for the rights to use a Beach Boys' song, but there is for The Beatles. That said, I can remember how much ink was spilled on when/if/how The Beatles catalog would ever become available on iTunes. It just seemed liked it was a constant rumor in the press, who got to report on what the sticking points were, etc. And now, finally, The Beatles are on iTunes. Nothing against the Mamas and the Papas, but I can't imagine that much being written about it if they had been a hold-out. It just shows what an impact The Beatles had in the 1960s. I have my bachelor's and master's degrees, so I do get a bit defensive when I read a comment about "the news media." However, having now been out of the news business for more than 20 years, I have no idea what they are teaching in journalism schools anymore because I see so many examples of what I consider to be shoddy journalism. There is no context. And there also seems to be no shame in reporting wrong information and rarely any attempt to correct the record. And then the error that got reported as fact gets repeated as fact by other outlets. It is maddening. As a follower of "Mad Men," I do credit Matt Weiner for staying with the show and not jettisoning it to some showrunner in Season Two as a lot of these creators/producers do to make some new deal with another network. They are always on to "the next thing." Matt Weiner deserves credit for having a vision for "Mad Men" and wanting to see that vision through to the last episode. I don't want to discuss Sunday night's episode yet, Slide, if you haven't watched it. Just found this on HuffPo -- it is a video that show a clip from the most recent "Mad Men," but then quite a number of theatrical films that used songs by The Beatles. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/beatles-supercut-original-recordings-movies-tv_n_1502594.html And then the Los Angeles Times found the episode of The Beatles' cartoon series from the 1960s that featured the song -- latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/05/mad-men-beatles-cartoon.html |
|
