The Beatles
- Thread starter Norrin Radd
- Start date
We're probably not going to see a Let It Be DVD release. At least, not for a very long time. People would need to change.When the HELL is "Let It Be" getting a release? Last time it was on home video was in the very early '80s when VHS was new-ish...and it's NEVER been on DVD.
The problem is that Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia need to be in 100-percent agreement; it's how the Beatles are structured. (It's the same reason that as much as Paul wants to see "Carnival of Light" released, it won't be; George vetoed it thirteen years ago for Anthology 2, and Olivia's probably going to keep on vetoing it.)
It's widely believed that Paul is the sticking point on Let It Be, yet he's the one who has said in interviews frequently that he would like to see it released.
My guess is that Yoko is the sticking point. The film doesn't paint a particularly flattering portrait of John, and Yoko has a particular image of John that she's fought for nearly thirty years to protect. Look at the way Imagine: John Lennon whitewashes the early 70s (and casts May Pang's role in an ahistorical light), or her anger toward Philip Norman's new biography (which is rather positive, actually). As much as Yoko says herself that John Lennon was just a man, anything that actually shows that he was anything other than St. John of Lennon doesn't fly with her.
One of the best suggestions I've heard is that the cannisters of film footage from the Twickenham and Apple sessions could be recut into a completely different film of the making of Let It Be, one that put a rosier picture on what happened in those days as a supplement or a replacement for the film. In a way, the final part of The Beatles Anthology is almost there. But that may be the most... inoffensive version of events of early 1969 that's possible, too.
We're probably not going to see a Let It Be DVD release. At least, not for a very long time. People would need to change.When the HELL is "Let It Be" getting a release? Last time it was on home video was in the very early '80s when VHS was new-ish...and it's NEVER been on DVD.
The problem is that Paul, Ringo, Yoko, and Olivia need to be in 100-percent agreement; it's how the Beatles are structured. (It's the same reason that as much as Paul wants to see "Carnival of Light" released, it won't be; George vetoed it thirteen years ago for Anthology 2, and Olivia's probably going to keep on vetoing it.)
It's widely believed that Paul is the sticking point on Let It Be, yet he's the one who has said in interviews frequently that he would like to see it released.
My guess is that Yoko is the sticking point. The film doesn't paint a particularly flattering portrait of John, and Yoko has a particular image of John that she's fought for nearly thirty years to protect. Look at the way Imagine: John Lennon whitewashes the early 70s (and casts May Pang's role in an ahistorical light), or her anger toward Philip Norman's new biography (which is rather positive, actually). As much as Yoko says herself that John Lennon was just a man, anything that actually shows that he was anything other than St. John of Lennon doesn't fly with her.
One of the best suggestions I've heard is that the cannisters of film footage from the Twickenham and Apple sessions could be recut into a completely different film of the making of Let It Be, one that put a rosier picture on what happened in those days as a supplement or a replacement for the film. In a way, the final part of The Beatles Anthology is almost there. But that may be the most... inoffensive version of events of early 1969 that's possible, too.
Even though John himself called the "Let It Be" sessions the most misreable on Earth and a living hell, I think there is plenty of good and netertaining stuff to be had in the footage they filmed. Youtube is littered with bits and pieces and snippets of stuff that was not in the original film and it's great. There's plenty of footage of the Boys having fun and clowning and carrying on. Despite John's claim (and he was SLIGHTLY prone to exaggeration from time to time) I think there WERE enjoyable times to be had there.
I'm certain an fun entertaining movie could be cut fromt he film available--assuming there is quality footage available. The stuff I've seen on Youtube tends to be in black and white and low copy quality.
We know what happened to the Beatles. I'm NOT interested in seeing another film showing the band "disintegrating". That's the "Let It Be" film. But the guys WERE magical together and I know there is magic to be seen that hasn't been shown yet. I'd love to see it. No one needs to "re-write" history to make a film showing the fun parts of generally bad time. You can't re-do it anyway because what happened, HAPPENED and is done. But I'd like to peek in the windows of Twickingham one more time and see John, Paul George, Ringo and Billy having fun and playing and clowning. Who wouldn't?
A couple funny clips here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLQa4fM-fPQ&feature=PlayList&p=D793BD9F11D8BB9B&playnext=1&index=4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey64bKA2mKA
Now now...remember, what he REALLY meant was that the Beatles were TALLER than Jesus.
Now now...remember, what he REALLY meant was that the Beatles were TALLER than Jesus.
Well . . . . except for Ringo . . .
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
Ringo did kinda luck out with the Beatles thing.
I don't dispute the man's talent at drums, but c'mon now...
I don't dispute the man's talent at drums, but c'mon now...
The situation was lucky for him, yes, but he was also the perfect drummer for them. He fulfilled his roles - drummer, once-an-album singer, and the less-serious one - to a T, and his drumming was always tasteful and never flashy, allowing the songwriting talents of the rest of the group to shine.
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
I think Ringo should be credited with keeping them together. I've heard that Pete Best's good looks overshadowed John, Paul, and George. If he had stayed, that may have caused group instability. Plus, with Ringo, there was one less creative prima donna in the group.
Also, what about experimental songs like Tomorrow Never Knows? The drum part - though powerful and tight - is very limited and repetitive, which IMO is exactly what the song needs for that locked-into-a-groove droney feel.
A drummer such as Keith Moon wouldn't have done that, I feel. He'd have been all over the kit in that flashy way of his - and don't get me wrong, I LOVE Moon's drumming. The man was a drummy god.
So yes, Ringo was limited in some areas. But he shone in others.
BTW - I LOVE the drumming on Rain and She Said, She Said. '66 was a good year for Ringo.
A drummer such as Keith Moon wouldn't have done that, I feel. He'd have been all over the kit in that flashy way of his - and don't get me wrong, I LOVE Moon's drumming. The man was a drummy god.
So yes, Ringo was limited in some areas. But he shone in others.
BTW - I LOVE the drumming on Rain and She Said, She Said. '66 was a good year for Ringo.
And Ringo was/is genuinely funny. His presence contributed quite a bit to the Beatles humor and charm, particularly during the famous first trip to America.
The Beatles wouldn't have been the the Beatles without Ringo. My comment meant exactly what it implied--Ringo's a shorty (as in NOT very tall).
Ringo's "talents" can be debated til the cows come home but, as John himself pointed out, they didn't become THE BEATLES until Ringo joined. He had (has) personality and unique style of playing that was favored by John and Paul's tendencies to experiment. Part of the charm of the entire group was how they could manage such incredible music despite certain limitations. None of them could read or write music. John himself stated he was not "technically" a good guitarist. But, he pointed out, he was an artist and a creative human being and therefore capable of making someting out of whatever tools he had to work with.
A LOT of what makes a group or a person successful is "personality". Ringo brought that in by the truckload. I'd put him second only to John as far as quick wit goes and, as bizarre as John's observations could become, Ringo's balanced by being mundane and very ordinary. I mean, it was Ringo who took cans of beans in a suitcase to India and the Maharishi's camp, for crying out loud, because he couldn't stomach the local food.
Ringo's "talents" can be debated til the cows come home but, as John himself pointed out, they didn't become THE BEATLES until Ringo joined. He had (has) personality and unique style of playing that was favored by John and Paul's tendencies to experiment. Part of the charm of the entire group was how they could manage such incredible music despite certain limitations. None of them could read or write music. John himself stated he was not "technically" a good guitarist. But, he pointed out, he was an artist and a creative human being and therefore capable of making someting out of whatever tools he had to work with.
A LOT of what makes a group or a person successful is "personality". Ringo brought that in by the truckload. I'd put him second only to John as far as quick wit goes and, as bizarre as John's observations could become, Ringo's balanced by being mundane and very ordinary. I mean, it was Ringo who took cans of beans in a suitcase to India and the Maharishi's camp, for crying out loud, because he couldn't stomach the local food.
I don't know where I would start and/or end so I'll just say that The Beatles are amazing! Absolute perfection as far as I'm concerned. I won't argue my point against anyone because it doesn't matter to me what other people think. They are the single greatest music group ever. No one can touch them in my eyes.
All of this is of course, IMO.
All of this is of course, IMO.
I agree. I met him years ago, in a restaurant.
I was eating dinner with my girlfriend at the time. A group of people walked by, and a young kid about eleven was fishing something out of his pocket and dropped a watch on the floor.
I picked it up, followed them to their table, and gave the watch back to the kid. No big deal.
Ten minutes later, I noticed Paul McCartney walk in. A minute after that, he comes up to our table and thanks me for giving his son the watch back. It had been a gift.
Very nice guy. No drama.
And from the glances, he certainly appreciated my girl's big tits, too.
Joe, ditto
When the HELL is "Let It Be" getting a release? Last time it was on home video was in the very early '80s when VHS was new-ish...and it's NEVER been on DVD.
Do you like watching road accidents too?
Norrin Radd
Vice Admiral
Some people say "Let it Be" is their worst album. I honestly think it's their best...or at least no worse than their other work.
I'm not sure about the video, though. Never seen it.
I'm not sure about the video, though. Never seen it.
Well, the 3 or 4 times I saw it, I never really felt that way. It was like watching someone falling out of love...or, better put, coming to the realization that what they once had they can never quite re-attain.When the HELL is "Let It Be" getting a release? Last time it was on home video was in the very early '80s when VHS was new-ish...and it's NEVER been on DVD.
Do you like watching road accidents too?
It was the best of times for them and the worst of times. I doubt Brian Epstein would have even allowed the filming of it had he been alive at the time.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
