Wot, no new Beatles film and album thread

[Cato]

The Beatles would have been a much more relevant band if McCartney had used a Precision with rounds through a solid state Trace head with Barefaced cabs..

Edited September 19, 2016 by Cato

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1474294314' post='3136885']
And that's exactly it. It is history.
[/quote]

I read history, for pleasure and to learn things.

I listen to history for much the same reason. I listen to Bach and Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, Gershwin and Cole Porter, Sinatra and Elvis, The Beatles and David Bowie.

It's pleasant and I learn things.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1474292326' post='3136872']
Is Oasis still relevant?

Blue
[/quote]

Not so much, no.

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1474297376' post='3136910']
I read history, for pleasure and to learn things.
[/quote]

The study of history is productively rewarding on so many levels, not the least of which is better self-knowledge.

As someone once observed: “[i]If you don't know history, then you don't know anything. You are a leaf that doesn't know it is part of a tree[/i]. ”

Edited September 19, 2016 by skankdelvar

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1474297376' post='3136910']
I read history, for pleasure and to learn things.

I listen to history for much the same reason. I listen to Bach and Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, Gershwin and Cole Porter, Sinatra and Elvis, The Beatles and David Bowie.

It's pleasant and I learn things.


[/quote]

But it is just history. As we get further and further away from the early 60s the musical, cultural and social climate that created The Beatles and allowed them to become successful and important at that time, it becomes less relevant to what is happening musically, culturally and socially today.

I find the history fascinating but no more so than any other period or cultural/social happening that I am interested in.

[stingrayPete1977]

As time goes by they will become less and less well known, none of the young people I work with could name all of the Beatles, some of them couldn't name one or tell you a song they did. I know there's always "my neice is 11 and loves them" etc, it's a fraction of the under 20s that feel that way.

[Bassman Sam]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1474306808' post='3137004']


I find the history fascinating but no more so than any other period or cultural/social happening that I am interested in.
[/quote]

If we don't learn from history, we're f@@ked. All the music we play today is adapted from the musical past. It's called progress.

[BrunoBass]

I saw it last week and I thought it was fantastic. I'm a Beatles obsessive so that's hardly an objective opinion but I really, really enjoyed it. It's had quite a limited cinematic release in the U.K.; if you are interested and want to see it you may have missed out until the DVD is released, but if you can try and see it on a big screen with a great sound system do.

Edited September 19, 2016 by PaulGibsonBass

[blue]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1474294314' post='3136885']


And that's exactly it. It is history. And while the majority of pop/rock musicians who have come in their wake have to a certain extent stood upon the shoulders of the Beatles to get where they are, as time goes on their influence becomes less and less relevant. Here in 2016 two of them are dead and the other two might as well be for all the impact they have had on popular music in the last 20 or so years.

Even when I was getting into music at the age of 10 in 1971, to me the Beatles were already old hat. And as a band they were no longer playing together and therefore they weren't releasing any new material. I quite liked one of Ringo's singles and thought that Wings made a couple of decent albums, but when there plenty of bands coming out with new and exciting music, why bother with a band that isn't going to be releasing anything new?

Made nostalgia is something you get more into as you get older?
[/quote]

Hi Big Red,

With respect, I think your missing the point. And many of us think Beatles music has, is and will always be incredibly relevant. They will still be making movies about The Beatles 50 years from now. Those of us that were there and are huge fans know why.

I'm not talking about listening to The Beatles, there's no bigger fan than me and I don't listen to Beatle records. I'm talking about their historical importance.

No offense, but your comments and opinions are completely "out of pocket" IMO.

Again, if you weren't there it's hard to explain this historical phenomenon.

Blue

Edited September 19, 2016 by blue

[discreet]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1474307996' post='3137011']
As time goes by they will become less and less well known, none of the young people I work with could name all of the Beatles, some of them couldn't name one or tell you a song they did. I know there's always "my neice is 11 and loves them" etc, it's a fraction of the under 20s that feel that way.
[/quote]

Yes, but some kids don't know who Hitler was, or Churchill, or can even name the current prime minister, er... old what's-er-name. I think it was George Santayana who said, 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. Which is why every generation makes the same mistakes.

Edited September 19, 2016 by discreet

[blue]

[quote name='PaulGibsonBass' timestamp='1474309486' post='3137028']
I saw it last week and I thought it was fantastic. I'm a Beatles obsessive so that's hardly an objective opinion but I really, really enjoyed it. It's had quite a limited cinematic release in the U.K.; if you are interested and want to see it you may have missed out until the DVD is released, but if you can try and see it on a big screen with a great sound system do.
[/quote]

Paul,

I haven't seen it yet. What was your biggest "take away" or something new you learned about The Fab Four?

Blue

[blue]

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1474274450' post='3136609']

Apparently George said in 1989 with a sigh "I guess it's never going to end"
[/quote]

And he was "spot on".

Blue

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1474309892' post='3137033']


Yes, but some kids don't know who Hitler was, or Churchill, or can even name the current prime minister, er... old what's-er-name. I think it was George Santayana who said, 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'. Which is why every generation makes the same mistakes.
[/quote]

I think there are too many "famous" people now, far more outlets and reality tv etc, being limited to four tv channels as a kid , three until I was 6 years old meant it was easier to know all the celebs of the time.

[blue]

[quote name='Cato' timestamp='1474295995' post='3136897']
The Beatles would have been a much more relevant band if McCartney had used a Precision with rounds through a solid state Trace head with Barefaced cabs..
[/quote]

In those early recordings that Hofner bass thump was part of their signature sound.

There's no rock band more relevant than The Beatles.

Blue

[rushbo]

I saw it last week and thoroughly enjoyed it. How much it adds to the story is debatable. but it's a great movie and I would urge even the sceptics to try and see it when it eventuality gets streamed/Netflixed and DVD'd to death. My "take away" was just how good a live band they were, even in a hail of teddy bears and Jelly Babies. I guess playing for six or seven hours a night, seven days a week in German clubs can really sharpen you up...

After the film ended came the best part for me - the showed all thirty glorious minutes of the enhanced Shea Stadium gig. Absolutely superb. Paul trying to keep it together, Ringo knocking seven shades of something out of his kit and John and George goofing off. Yet it all sounds incredible.

Still relevant? Yeah. They were accidental pioneers, breathing new life into a declining dance craze. The degrees of separation between them and the current crop of skinny white boys toting guitars increases with every generation, but that's a hell of a shadow they've cast. Their legacy will outlive all of us.

It's OK to say "I don't like the Beatles", but to deny their influence and colossal importance is foolish.

[BrunoBass]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1474309941' post='3137035']


Paul,

I haven't seen it yet. What was your biggest "take away" or something new you learned about The Fab Four?

Blue
[/quote]

One thing I never knew was that they put a clause in their contract precluding them from playing to racially segregated audiences in the US.

Edited September 19, 2016 by PaulGibsonBass

[BrunoBass]

[quote name='rushbo' timestamp='1474311163' post='3137052']
I saw it last week and thoroughly enjoyed it. How much it adds to the story is debatable. but it's a great movie and I would urge even the sceptics to try and see it when it eventuality gets streamed/Netflixed and DVD'd to death. My "take away" was just how good a live band they were, even in a hail of teddy bears and Jelly Babies. I guess playing for six or seven hours a night, seven days a week in German clubs can really sharpen you up...

After the film ended came the best part for me - the showed all thirty glorious minutes of the enhanced Shea Stadium gig. Absolutely superb. Paul trying to keep it together, Ringo knocking seven shades of something out of his kit and John and George goofing off. Yet it all sounds incredible.

Still relevant? Yeah. They were accidental pioneers, breathing new life into a declining dance craze. The degrees of separation between them and the current crop of skinny white boys toting guitars increases with every generation, but that's a hell of a shadow they've cast. Their legacy will outlive all of us.

It's OK to say "I don't like the Beatles", but to deny their influence and colossal importance is foolish.
[/quote]

Spot on.

[discreet]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1474310721' post='3137043']
I think there are too many "famous" people now, far more outlets and reality tv etc, being limited to four tv channels as a kid , three until I was 6 years old meant it was easier to know all the celebs of the time.
[/quote]

Ah, yes. Whatever happened to Rolf Harris? You don't see much of him on TV now, do you?

[blue]

[quote name='PaulGibsonBass' timestamp='1474311383' post='3137055']


One thing I never knew was that they put a clause in their contract precluding them from playing to racially segregated audiences in the US.
[/quote]

Yes, Ringo mentioned that in a recent interview.

I also understand their first stint in Hamburg was 6 months. Then I think they got deported because of George's age.

Thanks for sharing the tid bit Paul.

Blue

[wateroftyne]

I love music, and the history of music. The Beatles have great songs and a great story.

Anyone who getting into them for the first time now is in for a great journey. That it happened 50 years ago is irrelevant...

I'll be going to see the film as soon as I can...

[6feet7]

[quote name='rushbo' timestamp='1474311163' post='3137052']
I saw it last week and thoroughly enjoyed it. How much it adds to the story is debatable. but it's a great movie and I would urge even the sceptics to try and see it when it eventuality gets streamed/Netflixed and DVD'd to death. My "take away" was just how good a live band they were, even in a hail of teddy bears and Jelly Babies. I guess playing for six or seven hours a night, seven days a week in German clubs can really sharpen you up...

After the film ended came the best part for me - the showed all thirty glorious minutes of the enhanced Shea Stadium gig. Absolutely superb. Paul trying to keep it together, Ringo knocking seven shades of something out of his kit and John and George goofing off. Yet it all sounds incredible.

Still relevant? Yeah. They were accidental pioneers, breathing new life into a declining dance craze. The degrees of separation between them and the current crop of skinny white boys toting guitars increases with every generation, but that's a hell of a shadow they've cast. Their legacy will outlive all of us.

It's OK to say "I don't like the Beatles", but to deny their influence and colossal importance is foolish.
[/quote]

OK. I'm going to say it then. I don't like the Beatles. But I also don't like anything any of them did individually afterwards either. Whatever their influence I just don't get it or them.

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1474311099' post='3137051']

There was no rock band more relevant than The Beatles.

Blue
[/quote]

[stingrayPete1977]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1474311685' post='3137062']


Ah, yes. Whatever happened to Rolf Harris? You don't see much of him on TV now, do you?
[/quote]

Ah good old Rolf, he's residing very near to me actually!

[jezzaboy]

The track I heard on radio 2 from Shea was full of teenage girls screaming. Giles Martin said they left the screaming in but after about 30 seconds, it did my head right in. What I could hear of the music sounded quite good considering they couldn`t hear one another.

I can`t wait till October when the real Beatles movie - Supersonic, comes out

[rushbo]

[quote name='6feet7' timestamp='1474313553' post='3137086']
OK. I'm going to say it then. I don't like the Beatles. But I also don't like anything any of them did individually afterwards either. Whatever their influence I just don't get it or them.
[/quote]

Fine and dandy...with any Art, it's subjective - I have a real problem with Dylan, Van Morrison and The Doors. I'm in the demographic that generally worships them, but me..nah. The Beatles are important from a contextual point of view because they rescued an American Art form - Rock and Roll - and sold it back to America, just as it was looking like it was all about to fizzle out. Their music was only one part of their appeal as they were the full package to our American cousins - as good looking as Fabian, as quick witted as Jerry Lee Lewis (but without the, er...baggage...) safer than that hip-swinging son of the devil, Elvis and they were exotic - British with that "cute" accent. What the Beatles also had was the ability to generate (in my opinion) absolutely timeless Pop classics at the drop of a hat. Without that, they'd have lasted about as long as Frankie Avalon. They were at the forefront of Pop/Rock music in the sixties - a time of incredible change. Their skill was knowing when to change and by how much - so "Love Me Do" became "Paperback Writer" then "Strawberry Fields Forever" and finally "Come Together". As the world changed, the Beatles were one step ahead, responding to trends, but setting them as well.

"Would The Beatles be as successful (or influential) if they'd have been formed in the 70's, 80's or 90's" is a nice, dinner table debate. Guess what I'd say?

Edited September 19, 2016 by rushbo

[rushbo]

[quote name='jezzaboy' timestamp='1474314294' post='3137102']
The track I heard on radio 2 from Shea was full of teenage girls screaming. Giles Martin said they left the screaming in but after about 30 seconds, it did my head right in. What I could hear of the music sounded quite good considering they couldn`t hear one another.

I can`t wait till October when the real Beatles movie - Supersonic, comes out
[/quote]

I'm too old to say "lol"

I think Giles Martin left the screaming on because no software in the world could remove all that.

Yeah, I'll be standing in line with my salted Popcorn to see "Supersonic". I'm no fan of O*s*s, but they're an interesting band who came to define a genre in a very similar way to the Beatles. Their image, interviews and that tabloid friendly sibling rivalry took them much further than their music alone would have. That's not me hatin' on them Gallaghers, as they would have been a pretty successful Beat Combo anyway, but not the kind of Beat Combo that could sell out Knebworth...

Edited September 19, 2016 by rushbo