Jump to content

The Beatles - Get Back (by Peter Jackson)


Mileslong

Recommended Posts

This looks awesome. Let it Be is such a beating. Apparently when Peter Jackson starting reviewing footage from those sessions, he was surprised to find out that the 4 Beatles actually liked each other after all. I know their relationships were frayed but it will be fun to see the happy moments represented too.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in.
 

There were a lot of factors for the breakup, but I think Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison all figured they were great enough to be solo acts. How do you not explore that as an artist? They all succeeded as solos, so there was really no need to get back together. It was, what it was. 
 

I mean I don’t know shit, I was born decades after The Beatles broke up, but I think the bad blood, especially between McCartney and Lennon was overblown. They were closer than brothers once. 

Edited by billfromlaketravis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of "overblown" and their breakup, I'm no Beatles historian...but I know more than most.  But I always felt that the Yoko Ono factor was blown out of proportion.  She was a huge factor, but so was the songwriting tension, being together everyday on the road, and then being together everyday in the studio reinventing music as we know it.  The enormity of what they were doing had to have weighed on them in ways we cannot understand, they had to lash out somehow.  Often, at those closest to them.    

But then I watch some of these clips, and there's Yoko.  Not just in the booth, but in studio.  And not contributing.  Just sitting there.  Right on top of them.  Staring.  No smiles, no feedback, just this melancholy figure.  Everybody in the band, the booth, and beyond...knows what she tells John each morning as they arrive and each night as they leave.  But she's just sitting there with the judgement and the staring.  She's like a shittier version of David Putty.  

I am really excited about this film though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oversimplified version, but the feeling I get from years of being a Beatles fan is that Paul was frustrated about not being able to play live. John was at the point where being in the greatest band in the world wasn't as important as it once was. George was frustrated about being caught in between Paul and John and being somewhat suffocated in the process. Ringo was frustrated about having virtually no role in the creative process and basically being a muse and glorified session player. They were all tired of dealing with each other's shit. They were all married and living married life, priorities were different. There was also the rift about how the business was being run and splits between those factions.

Yoko and the women problems were more the typical side-effect issues that every band goes through when they're all getting tired of each other. You see micro versions of that kind of thing even in bottom feeding local cover bands that get regular gigs. Yoko and Linda just happened to be Beatles wives, so everybody had an opinion, plus Yoko was a weird chick.

We were extremely lucky to have them together as long as it lasted, and then some pretty great solo work, mixed in with some that was not that great.

Edited by DougO
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DougO said:

We were extremely lucky to have them together as long as it lasted, 

I'm far from the biggest Beatles fan in the world, but consider this:  22 studio albums in 7 years + 2 months, all certified Gold or better.

That's just staggering.  Obviously, it holds up -- they are the gold standard in pop songwriting.  No artist has come close, and certainly not when consistency and sheer output is considered.

The mind boggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm far from the biggest Beatles fan in the world, but consider this:  22 studio albums in 7 years + 2 months, all certified Gold or better.

That's just staggering.  Obviously, it holds up -- they are the gold standard in pop songwriting.  No artist has come close, and certainly not when consistency and sheer output is considered.

The mind boggles.

The labels cheated a bit with the number of albums, having separate releases in Europe and the US, mixing up tracks and packaging singles. But still, the run of number one success they had is something unparalelled, and it was because of the music, not so much clever marketing and aiming for low common denominator easy accessible formula stuff that sells. They kept creating and evolving, the leading edge, when they didn't have to be. They were legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

good point, it wasn't until they dumped all that material onto iTunes, et. al.  that I found all those other repackaged releases/UK versions/etc.  As stated above, even with all that repackaging, their volume of hits remains unparalleled.    I didn't get into them until well into high school with that Anthology disc set and the Blue "best of" record (I probably played a total of 5 Beatles tracks in two years on my radio show).  The only material I really knew up until then was their early stuff that would show up on my dad's Oldies station on fishing trips.  But then in college and really not until I was about 25, I got into their core catalog (the 13 actual stand-alone studio albums).  Between two of my roommates, I think they had every single album. 

The "Help" to "Let It Be" run of albums is certainly on the short list for best album run of all-time for any band.  Only thing that probably keeps it from being the best is "Yellow Submarine" being wedged in the middle there.  

First solo catalog I really got into was Lennon's and that was very early on.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind these guys started hanging around each other in their mid teens and broke up in their late 20s. They spent a lot of time in close proximity. While that creates an incredible bond, there is also an incredible amount of maturity and personal growth that happens during those years. As DougO says, the women were just a symptom. The interpersonal issues were already manifest before that.

A more interesting thought to me is, what if they‚Äôd been a little more mature/less insecure? What if they‚Äôd all said, ‚ÄúYou know, let‚Äôs take a breather and go do our own things. We can always get back together.‚ÄĚ Paul seems to have been there at the time, but the others less so.

There‚Äôs a passage in ‚ÄúYou Never Give Me Your Money‚ÄĚ that talks about how George making mix tapes of the best tracks from former Beatles solo albums for fun. So it probably crossed their minds. Maybe the pressure of the expectations was just too much to deal with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently discovered a youtube where Sean Lennon interviews Paul.  It's quite good, and it's obviously that Paul is telling Sean things that he's never heard before and finds fascinating.  Even simple things like "what was my grandmother Julia like?"

I saw that. Probably because of watching this trailer. It was a great interview.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul was unfairly blamed because he was the first to have a legal battle to protect his own solo works separate from the Beatles and recorded a solo album. But I don't think he ever wanted to leave. He just wanted to have his own thing, too. He was savaged by the music press and many fans and declared "uncool" by the establishment media. But he just wanted to keep doing what he really loved, performing and creating music. The rest were a bit sick of it, at least for a while. If not for the semi smear campaign against Paul, and Yoko for the other factions, I don't think there would have been nearly as much ill will stirred up between them and they would have eventually gotten back together to record some stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2020 at 6:27 AM, Lobo said:

Speaking of "overblown" and their breakup, I'm no Beatles historian...but I know more than most.  But I always felt that the Yoko Ono factor was blown out of proportion.  She was a huge factor, but so was the songwriting tension, being together everyday on the road, and then being together everyday in the studio reinventing music as we know it.  The enormity of what they were doing had to have weighed on them in ways we cannot understand, they had to lash out somehow.  Often, at those closest to them.    

But then I watch some of these clips, and there's Yoko.  Not just in the booth, but in studio.  And not contributing.  Just sitting there.  Right on top of them.  Staring.  No smiles, no feedback, just this melancholy figure.  Everybody in the band, the booth, and beyond...knows what she tells John each morning as they arrive and each night as they leave.  But she's just sitting there with the judgement and the staring.  She's like a shittier version of David Putty.  

I am really excited about this film though.  

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I get that vibe as well.  And it's perfectly right and just for Paul to have that opportunity afforded him.  And with a wonderful story-teller in Peter Jackson to boot.  

I can't imagine with all the beautiful music inside of him, what it must be like for McCartney to look back through the lens of history at this project and think, "Yeah, that was a cool thing we did for about ten years."  He's had a half-dozen full careers including one that happened to be probably the most influential one in modern history.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAN. NOT. WAIT.

I'm loving that we've gotten to the point in technology where all of this amazing footage shot on film can be restored to the point where it looks like it was shot like last week.

It also makes me kind of sad about all of the stuff from the "shit video era", when film was too expensive but before basically everything was shot in HD, will never be able to get a treatment like this... most stuff from around the mid/late 1980s through, say the early/mid 2000s.

So much great music stuff from the 1990s will basically always have to look like shit... (with a few exceptions of stuff that was actually shot on film, like Nirvana Live at the Paramount).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm sure reality is somewhere in the middle. I was not all sunshine and daffodils that led to an amicable separation. There was definitely some bad blood, at least temporarily. A lot of it was stirred by the media, which thrived on semi-fake controversy even back then. Rolling Stone especially was a notorious dick, just like they were about a lot of things in their history, being wrong a lot and having a certain agenda to push musical tastes and shape pubic perception. Fake news isn't new, it's just more instantly and readily available.

But when you have a history of making great music with certain people you can put away a lot of hard feelings and just play and love the music and appreciate the contributions of each member. They valued the music over the rest of the business and their fame, and that shows in their playing together. The business of being Beatles is what became tiresome in different ways for each of them and they were ready to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am 99 percent certain they would have reunited at some point in the '80s, if only for one album/tour, maybe more, were it not for Mark David Chapman. Something like Live Aid would have catalyzed it.

I am glad they never did without John, though. Same as Zep w/o Bonzo it would not have been the Beatles at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^

Zeppelin did play w/o Bonzo in 1985 Live Aid, 1988 Atlantic Party, the No Quarter project, the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame set, Walking into Clarksdale project, and the 2007 Ertugun tribute show.  But most of those are largely forgettable save for the the O2 Arena show and the No Quarter album/tour.  

But I get your point---a Beatles show without John Lennon would have been all kinds of wrong.  But I bet one of those 80's or 90's fundraiser/advocacy shows would have brought John back out of the woodwork and they would have done something spectacular.  

It's strange to think about...but you look at where the members of the Beatles were personally, musically, spiritually in 1980.  They were all playing their own sound, all family men, all in a place of balance and peace.  Everyone had sort of reconciled and their older Beatles music was being discovered by a new generation of Baby Boomers coming of age.  I'd like to think they would have done something together again, if just for the challenge of creating new music that would plot yet another new road forward.  Zeppelin never truly reorganized/toured for a number of reasons, chief among them being that Plant didn't want to go out and be the rock 'n roll frontman cliche in his 60's or 70's like Jagger.  But the Beatles, at any age, could have sat in a studio for a week or two, and laid down something completely original. 

We will never know.  In the end, for all they created and all they changed...we have just 10 years and 13 albums of their music.  It's a lot to dive into, and it nourishes the soul, but it does sometimes leave you wondering "what if?"  I'm guessing "Get Back" will check all those boxes as well.  

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I relish the anticipation.  If you were listening to music in the early 1960s, the advent of the Beatles changed it all, and it was so wonderful.  I play 1964 Ludwig blue oyster pearls to this day for a reason.  Tried to get black oyster pearls, but the world was out.  

Someone once said, about the moment the Beatles stepped out of the dugout at Shea and walked across the infield to the tiny stage at second base, "Before then there was nothing.  After, there was everything." Amen.  I saw them in person two nights later in Atlanta.  Life changing in the best way.  Viva los Beatles!

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lobo said:

^

Zeppelin did play w/o Bonzo in 1985 Live Aid, 1988 Atlantic Party, the No Quarter project, the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame set, Walking into Clarksdale project, and the 2007 Ertugun tribute show.  But most of those are largely forgettable save for the the O2 Arena show and the No Quarter album/tour.  

But I get your point---a Beatles show without John Lennon would have been all kinds of wrong.  But I bet one of those 80's or 90's fundraiser/advocacy shows would have brought John back out of the woodwork and they would have done something spectacular.  

It's strange to think about...but you look at where the members of the Beatles were personally, musically, spiritually in 1980.  They were all playing their own sound, all family men, all in a place of balance and peace.  Everyone had sort of reconciled and their older Beatles music was being discovered by a new generation of Baby Boomers coming of age.  I'd like to think they would have done something together again, if just for the challenge of creating new music that would plot yet another new road forward.  Zeppelin never truly reorganized/toured for a number of reasons, chief among them being that Plant didn't want to go out and be the rock 'n roll frontman cliche in his 60's or 70's like Jagger.  But the Beatles, at any age, could have sat in a studio for a week or two, and laid down something completely original. 

We will never know.  In the end, for all they created and all they changed...we have just 10 years and 13 albums of their music.  It's a lot to dive into, and it nourishes the soul, but it does sometimes leave you wondering "what if?"  I'm guessing "Get Back" will check all those boxes as well.  

Man, I'm just not sure I buy this line of thinking.  I love the Beatles as much as anyone, but it's really hard for to picture them coming back into the music world in the 1980s and feeling relevant.  Would everyone have gone batshit bonkers at a reunion?  Of course.  But let's face it, the musical output of the remaining Beatles during the 80s wasn't that great.  John's last record was good (but for the Yoko bits).  Gone Troppo or Flowers in the Dirt?  Forgettable.  Could they have put the "sum is greater than the whole of its' parts" thing back together?  It's 50/50 I'd say. Imagine them on stage with the Police or Van Halen, and it feeling like they belonged.  I have a hard time with that.  Also, as you reference Led Zeppelin DID do it...and it was underwhelming.  You just can't live up to the hype, and I think that's a large reason the Beatles didn't ever do it.  They knew the time had past and they should...let it be. 

And don't forget, they DID try it back in the early 90s.  I love that they did it, and it was fun.  I enjoyed it.  It sure had the feel of gauzy nostalgia though.  A wee bit saccharine.  You can see that when in the outtakes, there's a jam with the remaining three and George does it for the cams, but at the end, he's like "well that's enough walking down memory lane for me.  I'm out."  Point is, it wasn't like they were all of a sudden making Nirvana and Pearl Jam rethink what they were doing.

It's hard for me to see them getting back together and it being anything like the magic they had once had.  Fun to ponder though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bama Llama said:

I relish the anticipation.  If you were listening to music in the early 1960s, the advent of the Beatles changed it all, and it was so wonderful.  I play 1964 Ludwig blue oyster pearls to this day for a reason.  Tried to get black oyster pearls, but the world was out.  

Someone once said, about the moment the Beatles stepped out of the dugout at Shea and walked across the infield to the tiny stage at second base, "Before then there was nothing.  After, there was everything." Amen.  I saw them in person two nights later in Atlanta.  Life changing in the best way.  Viva los Beatles!

source.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind with you, but Flowers in the dirt was one of McCartney's finest albums. Maybe Press To Play or Off the Ground (early 90s) wold have been better worse examples.

Gone Troppo was absolutely one of the biggest turds of the post-Beatle solo releases.

Just judging from real life stuff, reunions of icons rarely live up to what we would like. Perhaps just recording a few more things together would have produced something really cool, but it's tough to recapture something like that. If they were good it wouldn't have been as good, but would have been embarrassing how overpublicized it would be. And if it were not so good they would have been savaged by the media and fans and that would have been awkward. Yet if any band could have pull it off for real, it was the Beatles. Maybe a surprise rooftop reunion or something like that would have been awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kind with you, but Flowers in the dirt was one of McCartney's finest albums. Maybe Press To Play or Off the Ground (early 90s) wold have been better worse examples.
Gone Troppo was absolutely one of the biggest turds of the post-Beatle solo releases.
Just judging from real life stuff, reunions of icons rarely live up to what we would like. Perhaps just recording a few more things together would have produced something really cool, but it's tough to recapture something like that. If they were good it wouldn't have been as good, but would have been embarrassing how overpublicized it would be. And if it were not so good they would have been savaged by the media and fans and that would have been awkward. Yet if any band could have pull it off for real, it was the Beatles. Maybe a surprise rooftop reunion or something like that would have been awesome.

Well any of them, Zep, Floyd, whoever. They typically go from playing with each other constantly, thousands of hours together, to a ten year break or so. It’s difficult to rebuild that in a short time. Playing together is a perishable skill. Sure, you can knock the rust off, but it’s never like riding a bike. Too much stuff happening in the interim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...
40 minutes ago, Go Pokes said:

Off topic, but I’m listening to Rubber Soul and just realized Revolver was a step back for them. It would fit before RS on their arc of always being better than the prior album.

Funny, a not insignificant number of Beatles fans think revolver is their best album. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Go Pokes said:


What do you think?

Not a huge fan, never listened to them in album form. Just Beatles channel. 
 

eta: pulled up the track list. The British album is pretty great. 
american version less so. ‚ÄúAnd your bird can sing‚ÄĚ is a big missing piece.¬†

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...