Beatles revisionist history

[mr. kite]

You're right Steve, TJ sang it and EH has a version of it, too.

Green green grass of home....[:D]

[DylansMrJones]

The Beatles happened because every event in their formative years led to each step that eventually got them their audition with EMI. Had EMI turned them down, we may never have had The Beatles to begin with. They might have lived very different lives...

Speaking of Harrison being replaced by Clapton...Somewhere amongst my cassette tapes is a recording from the January 1969 sessions from about the time George quit the group and went home and wrote WAH WAH. Yoko was screaming, John was playing feedback guitar, and soon after we hear John, Yoko, Paul, Ringo and Michael Lindsay Hogg discussing what to do if George doesn't come back. John Lennon quickly mentions, "We can always get Clapton." I'm rather glad George came back.

[Chris Speers]

I agree Clapton wouldn't have worked if George left. Clapton was so unreliable back then due to drugs it wouldn't have been a good idea. The beatles checked out at the right time - we didn't see or witness the inevitable decline.

[Aujouret]

I don't go along with this notion of "inevitable decline".
They never have declined. Even with free As A Bird, which I think is brilliant. Paul, George and John continued to write great work. Paul certainly still does. witness FP and DR, just two examples.
Certainly the Beatles were in a mess and couldn't have stayed together because of personal conflicts within the band, but without Bin-Ono, they probably would have survived, if they had grown up and given George his due.

[Ram1]

I have to agree with Chris. I don't think Chris was talking about them MUSICALLY. I mean, I think their decline WAS pretty much inevitable. They had been straining in their relationship for years. And they had been together since they were basically kids. They matured. It was time to move on. It was natural.

[Ram1]

quote:Originally posted by stevew628
I was very upset at the time, but in retrospect, I prefer to remember tham as they were when it ended. Perfect timing.


EXACTLY. I totally agree. The Beatles ended at the PERFECT time. Any sooner, and it wouldn't have been complete. Any longer, and it probably would have messed up the legacy. Yes, perfect timing. Well said.

[dakota]

I not 100% sure that they couldn't of carried on a bit longer. Maybe if they had lengthy sabaticals between projects they could've put up with each other. The confines artistically as a group would be lifted with their solo projects. Judging by their early '70s quality output I feel they could of continued to put out music that was up to Beatle standards. As musicians they didn't appear to become burnout 'till the mid seventies. Paul, by all accounts wasn't ready to quit in 1970.

[Man Tissa]

quote:Originally posted by mr. kite
Fate and I must add LUCK, too.


... and I must add talent..... fate brought them together, talent made them succeed and keep them at the top...

[mr. kite]

quote:Originally posted by Man Tissa
quote:Originally posted by mr. kite
Fate and I must add LUCK, too.


... and I must add talent..... fate brought them together, talent made them succeed and keep them at the top...


I agree.

[optic]

Just saw the Stones on HBO. Like them or hate them - one thing's for sure - they can still play and it's pretty neat to see a great band still rock.

I got a little upset when i thought of the Beatles being the Stones - you know - sort of never breaking apart and still continuing with the music. Imagine seeing Lennon and McCartney jamming with Harrison in 2003??? Can you picture how cool that would be? Especially if Yoko joined in on tamborine and backing vocals to "The night before".

Do you think we would sort of not appreciate the Beatles as much because they would always be around? It's like Hendrix - and Dylan. Hendrix gets way more love than Dylan cause the man was like a shooting star...only around for a limited amount of time and never got old or sort of out of favor. Dylan's been around like a good pair of socks sort of ...and you don't really revere or appreciate him as much cause he's always here touring and doing this thing.

I think the Stones are like that. It's like the never left so maybe people don't trip on their legacy as much cause they can still talk about new stuff and tours and what not.

I think The Beatles are loved more because they left on their terms and on top of their game. And what new music do you sort of have? The fifth or sixth version of "I've got a feeling" where Yoko belches her grape neigh in the middle of the chorus. Perhaps, because we never saw the decline or the rust....we sort of have them like JFK in our minds..forever capable and at their peak. Maybe, that's why we sort of worship their greatness more..