Get Back

pedro navahas

DFO Master
Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
3,417
Reaction score
666
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
158
Reaction score
163
Location
North Carolina

Olderschool

DFO Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
491
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
6,213
Reaction score
6,985
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
1,939
Reaction score
491
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
1,152
Reaction score
923
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
1,939
Reaction score
491
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

Very well Known Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2021
Messages
985
Reaction score
742
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.
 


Top