|
|
Post by rick on Aug 22, 2012 13:55:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 23, 2012 12:30:29 GMT -5
If you've never seen "Magical Mystery Tour," you're fortunate as it was not the Beatles's finest hour. It was a total embarrassment. In fact, the idea was Paul's idea and he handled the direction but then in an act of generosity, gave the "credit" for the disaster to Ringo. As John said, they rode around on a bus expecting magical things to happen and nothing really special happened. Even the music, which was the only thing which redeemed anything about the special, wasn't all that great. It could've been better.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 23, 2012 12:38:38 GMT -5
Well certainly it was the first time the Fab Four had been barbecued by the critics, the public (insofar as the movie went, less so the album, which went to #1 here in the US), and even Queen Elizabeth herself. It was probably the least understood of anything they had done up to that point, and arguably a letdown after Sergeant Pepper.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 24, 2012 1:47:16 GMT -5
Well certainly it was the first time the Fab Four had been barbecued by the critics, the public (insofar as the movie went, less so the album, which went to #1 here in the US), and even Queen Elizabeth herself. It was probably the least understood of anything they had done up to that point, and arguably a letdown after Sergeant Pepper. What hurt was they had a good idea but no script. Critics cited McCartney's "Fool on the Hill" as being professionally produced but you wanted to slap the critics and ask them how much LSD had they taken before making that assessment? It just wasn't so. Almost every teen, music critic and radio station in the US loved the album though the music was a letdown after "Pepper" and it was very overrated. Back in the day, I almost always played the second side (the hits) and then only three or four of the MMT tunes. Only if I was in the mood to hear all of the songs, which was rarely. |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 24, 2012 8:46:29 GMT -5
If anything, I think Magical Mystery Tour kind of outlined what the limits and excesses of psychedelia, flower power, and LSD were in general, and what the Beatles' own limitations were in particular. They no longer had a guiding hand, since Brian Epstein had fatally overdosed on August 27, 1967; and once that happened, it really marked the beginning of the end of the band.
I had seen the film once on TV here, and I thought it looked haphazard, jagged, and, dare I say it, pretentious even for a late 60s artifact. In many ways, I think the critics were a kind to the Beatles because they had thought of the group as musical Messiahs of sorts. It proved that John Lennon was more right than he realized when he had lamented back in '66 that the band was more popular (i.e., better known) than Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 24, 2012 10:29:22 GMT -5
[b If anything, I think Magical Mystery Tour kind of outlined what the limits and excesses of psychedelia, flower power, and LSD were in general, and what the Beatles' own limitations were in particular. They no longer had a guiding hand, since Brian Epstein had fatally overdosed on August 27, 1967; and once that happened, it really marked the beginning of the end of the band. [/b]
I don't know about the limits and excesses of psychedelia amd flower power as MMT didn't particularly strike me as being either. LSD? Maybe, as I see it as acting upon an idea without putting too much thought behind it. But then, you had people who made extremely bad movies in the 70s like Earl Owensby who made up the scenes and dialogue on the spot and no scripts. Same principle but no inspirational drug behind it. Might've helped the Owensby movie if there had been some drugs "inspiring" him. But, I believe Brian Epstein had greenlighted MMT before he died because of the Beatles having made some sort commitment to make a TV special, which is what MMT was. Judging by some comments from John I read later on, I don't think the Beatles were all that enthused about MMT or "Yellow Submarine," for that matter. Their reaction being sort of like get it done and get it out of the way.
I had seen the film once on TV here, and I thought it looked haphazard, jagged, and, dare I say it, pretentious even for a late 60s artifact. In many ways, I think the critics were a kind to the Beatles because they had thought of the group as musical Messiahs of sorts. It proved that John Lennon was more right than he realized when he had lamented back in '66 that the band was more popular (i.e., better known) than Jesus.
What was kind of funny was the reaction in England was the same: haphazard, jagged and pretentious. It wasn't seen almost anywhere else for a very long time. Not in the Beatles-loving US until the 80s on the USA Network. The Beatles could do no wrong with their US fans, many of whom were or are obsessive to an extreme. Many thought it an act of blasphemy if you said the Beatles could do something wrong or that someone else could or did sell more than they did. Unfortunately, MMT proved the Beatles were infallible and could make an occasional goof but many of their US fans still thought MMT was a work of art. They won't hear of any criticism about it, not even when it came from the Beatles themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by erik on Aug 24, 2012 13:34:21 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
This kind of points out the difference between being merely a fan who looks at his/her favorites with objectivity, and a fanatic (or a stuffy music critic, which is sometimes one in the same [IMHO]) who thinks that everything their fave does is immortal. The Beatles had just gone like gangbusters the previous four years or so before Magical Mystery Tour, but then they proved that they could unwittingly step on a landmine. It does make you wonder whether they were ever much of a group after that. A similar case could be made for the Eagles following Hotel California: How do you keep topping your past achievements year in and year out, without it causing you to go stir crazy?
|
|
|
|
Post by the Scribe on Aug 24, 2012 16:23:18 GMT -5
I remember at the time Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour came out (pretty close together I think) that there was huge outrage amongst fans. I recall Dick Clark on Bandstand doing a segment of love it or hate it with the fans. The Beatles went Psychedelic and it was quite a departure of the Rock and Roll stuff people were used to. It set a standard at the time and I personally loved those albums although I have to say I think Abbey Road is my favorite (at the moment) Beatles album, then again as far as the Beatles are concerned their music transcends any album. What a talented group of guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 27, 2012 2:18:53 GMT -5
This kind of points out the difference between being merely a fan who looks at his/her favorites with objectivity, and a fanatic (or a stuffy music critic, which is sometimes one in the same [IMHO]) who thinks that everything their fave does is immortal.
Fanatics can also be the most dangerous kind of fan to their favorite celebrity. Some lose touch with reality, sometimes thinking they and the celebrity are close friends and even more. Worse yet is when the fanatic turns stalker and hunts the celebrity down and harms or kills them. Once upon a time, celebrities didn't mind mingling with their public. Now, they can't tell the fan who would like nothing more than to just meet them (and possibly become a friend in the process) from the fanatic who means them harm. They can't afford to let the fans these days get too close. All they have to do is think about what happened to John Lennon or Rebecca Schaeffer.
The Beatles had just gone like gangbusters the previous four years or so before Magical Mystery Tour, but then they proved that they could unwittingly step on a landmine. It does make you wonder whether they were ever much of a group after that. A similar case could be made for the Eagles following Hotel California: How do you keep topping your past achievements year in and year out, without it causing you to go stir crazy?
I think the Beatles began to implode right around the time of Magical Mystery Tour." They only recorded three additional albums after MMT and contribute four then-new songs on "Yellow Submarine." John bitterly complained about Paul trying to take over the group, calling recording sessions when he had written about ten to twenty new songs while he and George had yet to come up with anything. John also called Paul's music "granny" music, citing "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" as an example. For his part, George struggled just to get two songs per album and a song chosen as an A-side. "Something" was finally chosen as an A-side with "Come Together" as the B-side initially, but then elevated to double A-side status. They argued amongst themselves and Yoko did nothing to help ease the tensions, going so far as to offer her opinion of what was being recorded. Not just John's tunes but Paul's and George's songs, and probably Ringo's few songs as well. And if it wasn't that, then it was the tensions over who would take over Brian's role as manager. Paul favored his father-in-law or brother-in-law (who didn't think his in-laws managing the Beatles was a conflict of interest) while the other three chose to go with Allan Klein, whom Paul refused to recognize as his manager. That they managed three and a third albums after MMT instead of just breaking up was remarkable.
I think every solo performer or band that had some kind of high level of achievement felt some kind of pressure to make that next one as successful and the one after that as well. I think it's pretty hard to keep your head and feet on the ground when you've millions on each and every release. You want to think that kind of success is going to go on and on and never come to an end. Your ego gets that big. Consider Michael Jackson, who believed every album he recorded after "Thriller" was going to sell a minimum of twenty million copies. He was just dreaming of the hundreds of millions he would have to add to his bank account. It must've been a shock to his system when "Invincible" sold four million copies and was considered a flop because it hadn't sold that well. Not that Jackson should have minded. He managed to get $30 million out of Sony as an advance against his royalties for "Invincible." I think Sony only made back the money they advanced Jackson after his passing. I'm not a Jackson fan but I thought it would personally have served Sony right if they never recouped the money. They should've known that the record business is a crap shoot, that there's no guarantee that because an artist sells thirty million today means the artist sells thirty million tomorrow. Jackson was on a downhill slide and neither he or his record label saw it or if they did, refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Aug 27, 2012 2:35:02 GMT -5
I remember at the time Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour came out (pretty close together I think) that there was huge outrage amongst fans. I recall Dick Clark on Bandstand doing a segment of love it or hate it with the fans. The Beatles went Psychedelic and it was quite a departure of the Rock and Roll stuff people were used to. It set a standard at the time and I personally loved those albums although I have to say I think Abbey Road is my favorite (at the moment) Beatles album, then again as far as the Beatles are concerned their music transcends any album. What a talented group of guys! I can't think of any album of theirs I actually dislike totally, though I thought "The Beatles" (a/k/a the "White Album") was a bit bloated and filled with a few songs I thought were substandard - most on the sliced Apple side (a/k/a side two of each of the albums), though side one of the first album had the bizarre and practically unnecessary "Wild Honey Pie." Producer George Martin tried to get them to pare it down to the fourteen best tunes for a single album but the Beatles refused that idea. Still, the good tunes made up for the weaker tunes and even for the bizarreness of WHP and John's (and either Ringo's or George's) truly off the wall "Revolution 9." |
|
|
|
Post by rick on Nov 30, 2012 15:20:20 GMT -5
I know people have had their share of comments about "Magical Mystery Tour." When I was a kid (so, 10 in 1967), I only knew the album and my brother played it over and over and over and over.... I never saw the TV program. Stumbled upon this promo on YouTube for the newly remastered DVD -- I think Paul, as is his wont, sums it up pretty well when he says it came from their imaginations, which were pretty active at that time (he said with a wink). |
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 1, 2012 13:35:01 GMT -5
I know people have had their share of comments about "Magical Mystery Tour." When I was a kid (so, 10 in 1967), I only knew the album and my brother played it over and over and over and over.... I never saw the TV program. I think Paul, as is his wont, sums it up pretty well when he says it came from their imaginations, which were pretty active at that time (he said with a wink). That was around the time Paul had tried LSD to expand his mind, and either it's a great example of how the drug diminished his thinking capacity or he didn't take enough of the drug. Seriously, the idea wasn't a bad idea but I think it would've been better if they had written a script or had hired a writer to come up with a script. It came off looking amateurish or like the movies that would be made in the 70s and early 80s by Earl Owensby, who also used the no script approach and made up the scenes as he went along. The Owensby movies and MMT were good examples of how not to make a movie or tv special. But, if one had to watch either, I'd tell them to take MMT over the Owensby movies as the Owensby movies had the worst acting this side of Ed Wood! |
|
|
|
Post by erik on Dec 1, 2012 19:58:39 GMT -5
Quote by sliderocker:
"Revolution 9" was definitely one of the few Beatles songs that had me scratching my head and asking myself "What in the hell were they thinking?!"
|
|
|
|
Post by sliderocker on Dec 2, 2012 14:01:17 GMT -5
"Revolution 9" was definitely one of the few Beatles songs that had me scratching my head and asking myself "What in the hell were they thinking?!" It's had me scratching my head as well over the years. Strictly speaking, "Revolution 9" is not a song but a collection of various noises and people speaking (including John and Yoko, probably Ringo and George), radio and tv programs, so I'm not sure why there was a songwriting credit given, and also why it was credited as Lennon-McCartney, when it possibly should've been at least three of the Beatles and maybe all four. I'm not sure McCartney had anything to do with it yet his and John's songwriting deal stipulated all the songs they came up with individually had to be credited as Lennon-McCartney. That's why Paul's name was on "Give Peace a Chance" and John's name was on "Goodbye." Curiously, Paul's name was not on John's 1969 solo song "Cold Turkey" but John's name was also not on a few of Paul's songs that were outside projects: "Woman" (as Bernard Webb), the hit for Peter and Gordon, and the musical score for "The Family Way." Another thing about "Revolution 9" was that some of the collection of noises were looped backwards, so if you wanted to hear what those were, you had to spin the record backwards on the turntable. That created a whole other mess later on as TV preachers, regular preachers and religious fanatics began claiming that rock stars were putting Satanic messages on their recordings, and that playing the LP backwards the only way you could hear them. I thought all those people just had too much time on their hands and/or were themselves doing drugs. All of the religious fanatics were pretty bold as what they claimed met the legal standards for libel and slander and could easily have been sued. Don Henley, in particular wanted to sue a TV preacher who was claiming the Eagles worshipped Satan and that the "Hotel California" album cover had a stanic figure on the front cover and that the song itself was about worshipping Satan, but Henley didn't know who it was who said it. (The major manure spreaders about the Eagles were a California TV preacher and his wife - the preacher and his wife conned their viewers with pleas for donations to fight the evil satanic rockers.) The irony was that while certain things could be heard if you played an album backwards, there was no proof that it was put there by the artist. The only artist I remember intentionally putting a backward message in was Jeff Lynne, on ELO's album "Secret Messages." But, the joke was on the preachers and religious fanatics because when you played the album backwards to see if there were any hidden messages, all you heard was someone at the end of "Rock & Roll Is King" say "Secret messages" and then laugh. Lynne was another artist who had been slandered and libeled in being accused of being a satanic worshipper, but he dished their dirt right back at them. But, getting back on track about "Revolution 9," I was one who would've been in favor of the Beatles or John using another song in place of "Revolution 9." While it was interesting and off the wall, it was one of the few 'White Album' tracks that probably would've been better served if it had been a stand alone or as part of an album with similar cacaphinious noises. McCartney also made a similar type recording, "Carnival of Light," which had was almost double the run time of "Revolution 9." I couldn't have seen the Beatles being successful releasing an album of noise to the general public, but it could've been an in-house release or fan club release. |
|
