header.nohb.html

Get Back

pedro navahas

DFO Master
Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
3,642
Reaction score
843
I finally finished it last night.
A lot of it was like watching paint dry.
All those hours of Ringo hanging out while the other three worked out the parts, crazy!
Never thought about Billy Preston being such an important part of that record.
Loved seeing the rooftop concert in its entirety, seeing how they inspired each other and the songs that are on the album from the performance.
And the fact that it was a live album!
So many funny one liners you have all picked out from it, mine was when Paul’s daughter was screaming into the mic and I think it was John saying “she’s doing Yoko”!
 

MusicianMagic

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2020
Messages
169
Reaction score
181
Location
North Carolina

Olderschool

DFO Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
505
Location
Usa
As a long time Beatle nut...I learned a few things.
For one...John wasn't the jerk I always read about. He actually came across as quite likable. On the flip side George came across as being a spoiled child who was mad he wasn't getting the attention John and Paul received.
Also...without Paul being the "drive", I don't think John or George had the desire in them to finish a project under pressure at this stage in thier career.
Having said that, Paul was annoying with his "take over" attitude but again...somebody had to.
Ringo was definitely the most laid back and cool. But let's be honest...he had the less pressure since he really wasn't involved in much writing.
Basically...they had outgrown each other...which is understandable given thier amount of stardom. But I also am left wondering why the Rolling Stones could stay together for 50 years and at work through their personality issues and be adult enough to at the very least put out music?
 

Houndog

DFO Star
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
10,380
Reaction score
13,720
Location
Oklahoma City
As a long time Beatle nut...I learned a few things.
For one...John wasn't the jerk I always read about. He actually came across as quite likable. On the flip side George came across as being a spoiled child who was mad he wasn't getting the attention John and Paul received.
Also...without Paul being the "drive", I don't think John or George had the desire in them to finish a project under pressure at this stage in thier career.
Having said that, Paul was annoying with his "take over" attitude but again...somebody had to.
Ringo was definitely the most laid back and cool. But let's be honest...he had the less pressure since he really wasn't involved in much writing.
Basically...they had outgrown each other...which is understandable given thier amount of stardom. But I also am left wondering why the Rolling Stones could stay together for 50 years and at work through their personality issues and be adult enough to at the very least put out music?
Maybe The Stones realized thier solo careers didn’t have much of a chance .

The Beatles however did quite well in theirs ..
 

Olderschool

DFO Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
505
Location
Usa
Maybe The Stones realized thier solo careers didn’t have much of a chance .

The Beatles however did quite well in theirs ..
That's a good point. Didn't think of that. The three songwriting Beatles were IMO individually more talented and therefore probably felt artistically hindered anchored to a group. They also probably knew they had good opportunities apart from each other in all sorts of stuff. Movies, producing, etc... It's almost like the amount of time and scheduling required for "The Beatles" was a major inconvenience.
But it still seems it was more than that. They could have pursued individual careers and still made it work but they genuinely didn't seem like they had much in common anymore... especially George. He was blossoming as a song writer and coming into his own and genuinely seemed fed up being in the shadows.
From my readings of the Stones...while they had thier problems (especially Jagger and Richards)...they knew they would be much more successful staying together and their egos didn't completely get in the way.
 

ThomFloor

Very well Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2017
Messages
1,304
Reaction score
1,144
Basically...they had outgrown each other...which is understandable given thier amount of stardom. But I also am left wondering why the Rolling Stones could stay together for 50 years and at work through their personality issues and be adult enough to at the very least put out music?

Good points. Maybe some key differences though.
The Beatles, whether they liked it or not, were more pop stars and part of pop culture with some serious political undertones. A lot of pressure there.
Stones were the rough cut, less pop, more bad boys, less pressure and expectation, no political flavours at all.

Beatles had Epstein, Stones had Andrew Loog Oldham. Epstein gave some questionable advice at times, Andrew was very shrewd.

Beatles had no personnel changes to shake things up, the Stones did (Brian died, Mick Taylor left...eventually Bill left), and they ran with the changes.

Beatles - 3 strong songwriters, Stones only 2 the whole way.

Beatles - A competition, Lennon vs McCartney, then George wanting space. Competition is good but too much is unhealthy.
But the Stones? Mick Keith really are inseparable songwise and actually worked with their differences in personality in a positive way, with really no competition. Somebody like Keef was never interested in solo, and he really only 'leads' from behind the scene. Keef did solo well, Mick not so much. I think they almost called it quits in the 80's, but couldn't. Keef wants to be in a BAND. The Stones are more a band. Mick-Keef-Charlie are the glue.

The Stones membership had more tolerance. How else could they all wait around so much for Keef?

Lastly, the Beatles hung their guitars high, the Stones slung low,lol
 
Last edited:

Olderschool

DFO Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
505
Location
Usa
Good points. Maybe some key differences though.
The Beatles, whether they liked it or not, were more pop stars and part of pop culture with some serious political undertones. A lot of pressure there.

Beatles had no personnel changes to shake things up, the Stones did (Brian died, Mick Taylor left...eventually Bill left), and they ran with the changes.
Yeah...the Beatles were almost a complete industry in themselves. Sometimes I forget the huge empire they were part of. The Stones were simply not at that level and that probably helped them in the long run.

Also...good point about the change of personnel. That HAD to help. Let's say the Beatles would have simply replaced George with someone? Or brought in a fifth player? Who knows if that would have afforded them the excitement to continue.

I still think the biggest demise for the Beatles was the decision to stop playing live and touring. Can you imagine never playing live and only playing parts of songs in pieces? I don't think any band can survive long only producing music piece by piece in a studio and not actually enjoying the reason they started in the first place...which was to play music.
 

Steech

DFO Veteran
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
2,936
Reaction score
3,263
Location
East coast
As a long time Beatle nut...I learned a few things.
For one...John wasn't the jerk I always read about. He actually came across as quite likable. On the flip side George came across as being a spoiled child who was mad he wasn't getting the attention John and Paul received.
Also...without Paul being the "drive", I don't think John or George had the desire in them to finish a project under pressure at this stage in thier career.
Having said that, Paul was annoying with his "take over" attitude but again...somebody had to.
Ringo was definitely the most laid back and cool. But let's be honest...he had the less pressure since he really wasn't involved in much writing.
Basically...they had outgrown each other...which is understandable given thier amount of stardom. But I also am left wondering why the Rolling Stones could stay together for 50 years and at work through their personality issues and be adult enough to at the very least put out music?
I had a renewed respect and admiration for Paul, which surprised me. He seemed to be the most accomplished, polished, and focused of all of them. And yeah, I loved Ringo’s overall vibe and personality. What bothered me was that I went into it really wanting to like and admire George but felt like he wasn’t really on par with the others, which was a letdown. And I loved John’s goofiness and his bizarre originality in his songwriting. I am going to go watch it again and see if I still feel the same way about all of them.
 

gbow

Very well Known Member
Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
787
Reaction score
785
Location
Michigan
I watched the original "Let It Be" movie for the first time in many many years.

I was actually surprised. Pretty much all the footage in the original movie is also in the new documentary. Due to it being a lot shorter, there isn't nearly as much of the banter and non-music moments as in the Documentary.

I found my self wondering why we thought it was so bad back in the day and why this new version is so much better. Then I realized one of the biggest reasons was simply the quality of the new version.

The old movie, due to the constraints on both video and sound quality of the TV format, just lost a lot. Obviously tv quality of the day was very poor, but also the audio. TVs of that era just had a little mono speaker, but we had full blow stereo's so we were accustomed to higher quality audio.

My brain remembered the original as being dark and "the end" for the fab four, but actually there was more of the "disagreements" shown in the new version.

I was very surprised that so much of the same footage was used in both. I guess out of the hours and hours of footage, there were just some moments that were powerful and begged to be included. Obviously the rooftop show had to be in both, but many of the other scenes as well. The new one basically elaborated on most of the same themes.

Watching the new version was all very surreal to me because the way they wrote songs and hashed out songs is pretty much exactly the way my band The Moderns has done it since the 70s. Our primary song writer is also named Paul and he would do many of the same things, writing songs on the fly and sometimes just picking up on something in the paper and impromptu starting a song with it.

All very entertaining to watch and enjoy.

gabo
 

BenjiDrums

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
68
Reaction score
27
Location
Boston, MA
I thought the docu was awesome

Such great insights into the creative process, and the Beatles themselves
 

Vistalite Black

Ludwigs in the Basement
Joined
Feb 17, 2015
Messages
6,684
Reaction score
5,995
Location
North Carolina
Listening to the Spike's Car Radio podcast today, and Jerry Seinfeld recalled what he asked Paul McCartney when he met the former Moptop a few years ago ... "With everything you had going on in the late 60s," obviously referring to the mansions, the girls, the cars, the drugs, the girls ... "what possessed you to spend some much time in the studio making music."

"The music was so fun," Paul answered.

Fun fact: None of the Beatles had reached 30 years old when the band broke up in 1970.
 


Top