A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic: Worst year for the Beatles?  (Read 5991 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

  • Guest
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2004, 01:52:03 AM »

[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=39 date=1089423597]

Of course i can lve with that, but in the spirit of debate...NEVER

You say you referenced Lewisohm, well I will now reference another respected source, Steve Turner's a Hard Days Write.
Logged

Herecomesyoursun

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3220
  • Shake your tired eyes the world is waiting for you
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2004, 01:54:26 AM »

I think my source trumps Playboy.  They're not known for their hard-hitting journalism, more for the boobies.
Logged

 [face=Arial]            Give me love, give me peace on Earth...[/face]

Herecomesyoursun

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3220
  • Shake your tired eyes the world is waiting for you
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2004, 01:55:54 AM »

if you want to go to the source, listen to Paul's comments on Anthology, I'm checking them right now for the exact quote.
Logged

 [face=Arial]            Give me love, give me peace on Earth...[/face]

broady

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 110
  • Rock on baby!
    • pureclass.org
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2004, 03:58:15 AM »

Playboy is a good source - let me see that magazine! *shifty eyes*
Logged

Rowdy

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 963
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2004, 04:59:28 AM »

You have the Australian version.......Outback Girls....

hmm....
Logged

"Only people know just how to talk to people. Only people know just how to change the world."

broady

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 110
  • Rock on baby!
    • pureclass.org
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2004, 05:05:26 AM »

;D Need you say more?
Logged

  • Guest
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2004, 05:20:21 AM »

[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=41 date=1089424466]I think my source trumps Playboy.
Logged

  • Guest
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2004, 05:21:08 AM »

[quote by=Herecomesyoursun link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=42 date=1089424554]if you want to go to the source, listen to Paul's comments on Anthology, I'm checking them right now for the exact quote.[/quote]


And what did you find then?
Logged

Rowdy

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 963
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2004, 05:52:45 AM »

Paul doesn't date when he heard of the San Francisco band names and all. Pretty sure.....but I could be wrong since I haven't watched it in a while...
Logged

"Only people know just how to talk to people. Only people know just how to change the world."

  • Guest
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2004, 07:24:14 AM »

As to the Anthology BOOK Paul is equally vague, with no dates mentioned.

"I started thinking about what would be a really mad name to call a band. ... I took an idea back to the guys in London: 'As we're trying to get away from ourselves --- to get away from touring and into a more surreal thing --- how about if we become an alter-ego band, something like, say, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts"?  I've got a little bit of a song cooking with that title.' "


*This confirms some of herecomesthesun's ideas.

"'Sgt. Pepper' is Paul, after a trip to America.... He was trying to put some distance between The Beatles and the public --- and so there was this identity of Sgt. Pepper"  - John Lennon, Anthology.


*Doesn't really say this was meant to be a concept album sort of reason, just a vague and 'trippy' thing to maybe play around with. IMO.

George Martin, Anthology: "Basically it was Paul's idea: he came in and said he had the song 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' and that he was identifying it with the band, with the Beatles themselves.  We recorded the song first, and *then* (emphasis mine) the thought came to make it an idea for the album.

*In other words, Pepper was recorded (in 1967) and THEN the idea of the alter-ego came into play.  In 1966 all Paul did was think of the trippy name.  And yes, When I'm 64 was recorded in December 1966.  But not for any concept except perhaps in keeping with the childhood theme that was *initially* the concept for Pepper (SFF and PL).

Again, going to the source:

In Many Years From Now (Miles/McCartney) it does confirm the Kenya/Nairobi flight (November 1966) being the one Paul came up with the idea, so obviously this is another example of imperfect memories contradicting themselves.

"Sgt. Pepper is often described as the first concept album, but it was not initially conceived as such.  There was never an intention to make a themed album, a 'northern' album, or present a mini-opera as the Who did later.  ... It freed them [the Pepper alter-ego idea] from their public image and allowed them to take a new, unfettered direction; it gave them the distance necessary to attempt something as extraordinary as 'A Day In The Life'.
Only later in the recording did Neil Aspinall have the idea of repeating the 'Sgt. Pepper' song as a reprise, and The Beatles and George Martin begin to use the linking tracks and segues to pull it all together, making it into more of a concept album."

*So this backs my contention that the concept (beyond the initial name) was come up with during the recording process and that that occurred in 1967.  It is too bad the dates and such are not more precise on these events.

Again, it really is a case of both proponents being somewhat right and being somewhat wrong.


Logged

Rowdy

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 963
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #50 on: July 10, 2004, 07:27:22 AM »

Wow! Thanks for mentioning the Anthology book......I just remembered that the paperback version was coming out a while back. Lo and behold it's only 13 bucks at Amazon. I definitely have to get it. I saw the hardcover, which was fantastic looking, but I couldn't see spending sixty bucks, now it's reasonably priced.
Logged

"Only people know just how to talk to people. Only people know just how to change the world."

John Leppord

  • One And One Is Two
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2004, 09:46:05 PM »

does this include the silver beatles? if it does  when they were in Hamburg was pretty bad, the hours they had to do were outrageous

(John Lennon,Paul McCartney,George Harrison, Peter Best, Stuart Sutcliffe)
     guitar              guitar                  guitar              drums          bass
Logged

Taxgirl

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 1165
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #52 on: July 15, 2004, 04:32:08 PM »

[quote by=strutter84 link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=14 date=1088142089]Am I the only one that thinks 2001 was a bad year?[/quote]

No you are not... :'(

I'd say 1980 and 2001 both were bad years.
Logged

  • Guest
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2004, 04:39:05 PM »

1980.
Logged

Herecomesyoursun

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3220
  • Shake your tired eyes the world is waiting for you
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #54 on: July 22, 2004, 01:17:34 AM »

[quote by=misterchaz link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=49 date=1089444254]As to the Anthology BOOK Paul is equally vague, with no dates mentioned.

"I started thinking about what would be a really mad name to call a band. ... I took an idea back to the guys in London: 'As we're trying to get away from ourselves --- to get away from touring and into a more surreal thing --- how about if we become an alter-ego band, something like, say, "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts"?
Logged

 [face=Arial]            Give me love, give me peace on Earth...[/face]

Herecomesyoursun

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3220
  • Shake your tired eyes the world is waiting for you
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #55 on: August 01, 2004, 03:12:11 AM »

[quote by=John_Leppord link=Blah.pl?b=cc,m=1087745108,s=51 date=1089841565]does this include the silver beatles? if it does
Logged

 [face=Arial]            Give me love, give me peace on Earth...[/face]

Wonderwall

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 92
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #56 on: August 01, 2004, 07:49:45 AM »

I would say 1970 because the Beatles as a group were over.. officially from a performing/recording standpoint.
Logged

Indica

  • A Thousand Pages
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3130
  • Getting into the Herbal Jazz
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #57 on: August 01, 2004, 01:27:09 PM »

1970..
But in a way, I dont think the Beatles would have suited the 70's with the prog rock boom etc.

Logged
Whats the matter lads? Blue Meanies?

Mairi

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 7886
  • The owls are not what they seem
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #58 on: August 01, 2004, 07:34:37 PM »

1970.
Logged
I am posting on an internet forum, therefore my opinion is fact.

ringorama

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 214
  • Control yourself, you'll spurt
Re: Worst year for the Beatles?
« Reply #59 on: August 01, 2004, 09:27:36 PM »

1970, 1980, 2001 all bad years in their own ways.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
 

Page created in 0.958 seconds with 26 queries.