Concert For George--Your Thoughts?
-
The "tamborine guy" is well know Ray Cooper & he is a GREAT percussionist. He's worked with George Harrison, Billy Joel, Rick Wakeman, Eric Clapton and Elton John.
-
Erik in NJ:
I thought it was a bit like a mini Concert for Bangladesh, though less heady in terms of musical performances performed in their hey-day. Overall a very enjoyable concert both musically and visually. I loved the Indian music and Ravi's daughter is not only very attactive, but also very talented. I have liked Ravi's music for years thanks to GH! Thanks George. I thought that Olivia and Dhani really missed an opportunity to speak about George...it's amazing how little they had to say about him--I think that would have been very interesting as we don't really know them and seeing GH thru their eyes would have been a treat! Clapton as well could have had more to say since he was running the gig...it was a bit like Concert For Eric at times, I think he should have marginalized himself more. Certainly he knew George well and could have shared some great stories with us. Was that Patti Boyd/Cynthia Lennon on stage later on towards the end? (big blonde woman). Any idea who that woman was? Tom Petty was a breath of fresh air--his lead guitarist nailed Taxman...that guy's awesome on guitar! Why the heck didn't Dylan show up?? I don't care for him much, but it would have been appropriate. What about Leon Russell, Bonnie & Delaney Bramlett?? Geeze there were so many Bangladesh veterans and Apple musicians that should have been there. It'd be interesting to find out if they were invited or turned it down. What the heck was Jim Capaldi (old Clapton pal from Blind Faith?) doing there? Don't get me wrong, I love Blind Faith, but I'm not aware of any connection between him and GH. Eric should have invited Ginger too! Nice to see good ol' Billy Preston there--he still looked good and sounded well. His style is a bit different, but he has a long history with the Beatles. Would have been nice to hear more of his keyboards. No introduction of the people on stage?? I didn't even know who several were! I know at Bangladesh, GH introduced the musicians, and Eric really should have done it here--this was a big oversight as far as I'm concerned. E.g., not everyone knows what Klaus Voorman looks like these days. What about Julian Lennon? Surely he must have had a connection to GH, no? Oh and Thank God Yoko wasn't there!! I'd love to know why
I can certainly understand Dhani Harrison wanting to take part as I too have sadly lost my Dad, but you could have just put a cardboard cutout with a guitar there and it would have had the same effect musically! No one could hear his acoustic guitar! It would have been nice if he'd learned a couple licks to solo with--he seems like he plays guitar even though you can tell he's not a professional caliber musician. Not just picking on Dhani here, there were several musicians up there that added no real value to the concert as they were not showcased and their volumes turned way down or off. How many drummers did they have including Ringo...3 or 4?? This got to be a bit absurd. I'm not sure why Ringo always needs at least a second drummer next to him--he can still play from what I can tell--he's a "big star" man...put him up front! Ringo's speech was nice, would have liked to hear more and maybe seen his drum kit moved away from the other drummers and nearer the front. That tambourine guy played a mean tambourine! 
: Another cardboard cutout The two backing vocal women dressed like they were in a Vegas show is something Clapton always has with him to thicken is vocals--it's a bit pathetic to see and watch with their 70s hip swaying like wind in the banana trees...OK thanks gals, here's your 20 quid. Cheers! Seriously, do we really need this and then to have the camera continually cut to them?? Paul was too marginalized in the performance. His vocals are head and shoulders over Clapton's and Lynn's, he would have been a welcome addition to perform on a couple more Beatles tunes. Poor guy, you could tell he wanted to play more. Well he was a class act as usual and I think he was really the highlight of the show--it just changed everything when we walked onto the stage. Putting that Monty Python skit right after the Indian musicians was very disrespectful to them as their music is so serious. I know George liked them, but it was in poor taste the way the acts were sequenced. From very somber to the absurd in the blink of an eye. The "yukes" kind of look like a joke...I wish they hadn't done that. I don't know why GH became so fond of them as you never saw them "pulled out" during the Beatles' era. A yuke to me has aways been a bit of a comedic instrument. Choice of songs was pretty good--they don't really have that many to choose from. Clapton did a very nice version of Beware of Darkness. I think doing that mediocre song "Wah Wah" written about Paul was kind of disrespectful to Paul--Clapton (the musical director), Olivia (the executive producer), and Dhani probably didn't have a clue though. There were some obvious choices that were missed like "What Is Life" and "Apple Scruffs" which would have had a double meaning and been fun. Certainly "Crackerbox Palace" should have been done, WTF?? The pictures of George were quite nicely displayed and I think overall it was a very nice show--just not epic. I enjoyed the interviews on the second disc esp. with Clapton saying "sometimes you'd think you were doing George a big favor only to find out he didn't like it...he might have said 'I didn't really want a show like that', etc." I'm sure it was tough to put a show like that together so kudos to Eric for pulling it off. I'm just being an armchair quarterback and providing my honest feedback on the show, so please take it for what it's worth before flaming me 
I'll add more feedback as I think of it (or have to defend my words) 
Funny how we perceive things. I have to disagree with 90 percent of the above.
-
It was a concert celebrating the life of a dear friend not a talk fest.
-
moptops:
Funny how we perceive things. I have to disagree with 90 percent of the above.
Great! Care to elaborate on what and why?
-
oobu24:
The "tamborine guy" is well know Ray Cooper & he is a GREAT percussionist. He's worked with George Harrison, Billy Joel, Rick Wakeman, Eric Clapton and Elton John.
Thanks for the info. The camera focused a lot of the tambourine work. Unfortunately you could not hear it. Similar story with the guy holding the cabasa in the back. I'm not really up on my percussionists in the rock/pop space.
-
Erik in NJ:
And he added a bit of levity at the end when he said "Olivia says with Dhani up here it looks like George is on stage and only the rest of us have gotten older."
No. He added awkwardness at an inappropriate moment. Jumping in on Joe Brown as he's about to sing a touching rendition of a song that entirely summed up the reflective mood of the evening was typical of Paul. Up until that point he'd kept his usual dumb spotlight hogging in check. Even his ukelele story didn't grate (only because it was relatively new at the time, unlike now). The only thing missing was his daft thumbs aloft schtick, thank goodness.
-
graystoke:
It was a concert celebrating the life of a dear friend not a talk fest.
That's pretty funny
-
graystoke:
Erik in NJ:
And he added a bit of levity at the end when he said "Olivia says with Dhani up here it looks like George is on stage and only the rest of us have gotten older."
No. He added awkwardness at an inappropriate moment. Jumping in on Joe Brown as he's about to sing a touching rendition of a song that entirely summed up the reflective mood of the evening was typical of Paul. Up until that point he'd kept his usual dumb spotlight hogging in check. Even his ukelele story didn't grate (only because it was relatively new at the time, unlike now). The only thing missing was his daft thumbs aloft schtick, thank goodness.
Maybe you ought to lighten up a bit on the Foster's there mate!
-
Erik in NJ:
Maybe you ought to lighten up a bit on the Foster's there mate!
No need. Reading your post sufficiently lightened my mood. Many laugh out loud moments there. Now, time for me to go back to throwing shrimp on my barbie.
-
oobu24:
You JUST got it? It is a GREAT concert & a great DVD! We've had many discussions of it. THAT is the way to film a concert DVD! ONE of my favorite performances was Sam Brown doing George's Horse to Water.
I checked this out from the library not long after it was made. I wanted to reach in and hug her and Dani so bad. It was the same when Ravi's Daughter played sitar....Beautiful Indeed!
-
I thought that Olivia and Dhani really missed an opportunity to speak about George...it's amazing how little they had to say about him--I think that would have been very interesting as we don't really know them and seeing GH thru their eyes would have been a treat! I think a memorial concert for George Harrison is a forum where his music speaks best. Furthermore, emotionally, it must have been wrenching for them to get through it. Clapton as well could have had more to say since he was running the gig...it was a bit like Concert For Eric at times, I think he should have marginalized himself more. Certainly he knew George well and could have shared some great stories with us. What does this mean? He could have had more to say, but he should have marginalized himself more? It was a bit like Concert For Eric??? He's the musical director of the concert, perhaps George's best mate, a truly great musician and the glue that held it all together. No introduction of the people on stage?? I didn't even know who several were! I know at Bangladesh, GH introduced the musicians, and Eric really should have done it here--this was a big oversight as far as I'm concerned. E.g., not everyone knows what Klaus Voorman looks like these days. I don't think it was an oversight at all! In fact because of the amount of people on stage and to keep the flow going, I'd suggest it was practical and necessary not to introduce EVERYBODY. The beauty of the concert is the intimate and laid back and SINCERE feel it has. Eric did occasionally introduce or acknowledge artists, but everyone knows whoever was playing on that stage was there because they shared a friendship and/or a tight musical bond with George: be they a major star like McCartney or a lesser known (but no less a musician) like the wonderful Emil Richards, Jim Keltner, Jim Horn and others. What about Julian Lennon? Surely he must have had a connection to GH, no? Oh and Thank God Yoko wasn't there!! I'd love to know why What about Julian Lennon? Yes they shared a connection, but were they close friends? Who knows? Should Zak Starkey have been there? They shared a connection. And I get you don't like Yoko... I can certainly understand Dhani Harrison wanting to take part but you could have just put a cardboard cutout with a guitar there and it would have had the same effect musically! No one could hear his acoustic guitar! It would have been nice if he'd learned a couple licks to solo with--he seems like he plays guitar even though you can tell he's not a professional caliber musician. Not just picking on Dhani here, there were several musicians up there that added no real value to the concert as they were not showcased and their volumes turned way down or off. Surely you can appreciate it's about the occasion, symbolism and the fact he's George's boy more than an opportunity for Dhani to fire off "a couple of licks to solo with" I'd have thought. Several musicians up there added "no real value" because they were not showcased????? How many drummers did they have including Ringo...3 or 4?? This got to be a bit absurd. I'm not sure why Ringo always needs at least a second drummer next to him--he can still play from what I can tell--he's a "big star" man...put him up front! Ringo's speech was nice, would have liked to hear more and maybe seen his drum kit moved away from the other drummers and nearer the front. Henry Spinetti , Jim Capaldi and Jim Keltner deserved to be on that stage as much as Ringo. Moreover they all deserved to be beside Ringo. And Ringo was not "moved away...nearer the front" because it would not have been in keeping with the intent of the concert: no egos, everybody is a musician and a friend and...an equal. I'm sure Ringo would have demanded he not be treated any differently. By the way suggesting Ray Cooper's (and Dhani's) contributions as comparable to cardboard cutouts is pretty harsh. The two backing vocal women dressed like they were in a Vegas show is something Clapton always has with him to thicken is vocals--it's a bit pathetic to see and watch with their 70s hip swaying like wind in the banana trees...OK thanks gals, here's your 20 quid. Cheers! Seriously, do we really need this and then to have the camera continually cut to them?? Yes Katie and Tessa are Eric's backing vocalists, and sang back up for most the entire night. Your comments dismiss them as unrequired lightweights. Hey they're pretty...so what? So is Anouska Shankar...as you gladly pointed out. Katie and Tessa have worked with everyone...and I mean everyone because they are great singers. That was their job, to augment the other vocalists. Sure they were swaying to the rhythm of the music...or should they have stood still...like 20 quid cardboard cutouts??? Paul was too marginalized in the performance. His vocals are head and shoulders over Clapton's and Lynn's, he would have been a welcome addition to perform on a couple more Beatles tunes. Poor guy, you could tell he wanted to play more. Well he was a class act as usual and I think he was really the highlight of the show--it just changed everything when we walked onto the stage. You wanted more Paul. That's fine. Yes he was a class act, yes you might say he was the highlight of the show. This was very definitely NOT the place to showcase and spotlight Paul. "Poor guy - you could tell he wanted to play more." Oh boo hoo Paul. If you don't see that, then again, I suggest you might be missing the point of the concert. I think the number of songs he performed and others he contributed to was just about right. Any more and it becomes all about him...entirely inappropriate - unless of course one wants it to become all about him. Putting that Monty Python skit right after the Indian musicians was very disrespectful to them as their music is so serious. I know George liked them, but it was in poor taste the way the acts were sequenced. From very somber to the absurd in the blink of an eye. The Indian musicians closed and the Pythons opened after a clear interval in the concert. And rather than poor taste sequencing, I found it perfect! Clearly it was intended to mark a more upbeat 2nd half of music after the more formal Indian music section. AND it was ok'd by Olivia and Dhani. Most of all, George would have loved it, and the Python's "up yours" to convention and all things proper. The "yukes" kind of look like a joke...I wish they hadn't done that. I don't know why GH became so fond of them as you never saw them "pulled out" during the Beatles' era. A yuke to me has aways been a bit of a comedic instrument. The "ukes" represent George's love of the oddball and his sense of fun. In fact the ukulele has become associated with George as much as the sitar. For my money the concert would not have been complete without the ukulele making an appearance. Joe Brown's piece was exceptionally moving. Choice of songs was pretty good--they don't really have that many to choose from. Clapton did a very nice version of Beware of Darkness. I think doing that mediocre song "Wah Wah" written about Paul was kind of disrespectful to Paul--Clapton (the musical director), Olivia (the executive producer), and Dhani probably didn't have a clue though. There were some obvious choices that were missed like "What Is Life" and "Apple Scruffs" which would have had a double meaning and been fun. Certainly "Crackerbox Palace" should have been done, WTF?? George Harrison songs: "They don't really have that many to choose from." WHAT??? Wah Wah is a "mediocre song" in your eyes...because it was directed at Paul, right??? The pictures of George were quite nicely displayed and I think overall it was a very nice show--just not epic. I enjoyed the interviews on the second disc esp. with Clapton saying "sometimes you'd think you were doing George a big favor only to find out he didn't like it...he might have said 'I didn't really want a show like that', etc." I'm sure it was tough to put a show like that together so kudos to Eric for pulling it off. I'm just being an armchair quarterback and providing my honest feedback on the show, so please take it for what it's worth before flaming me I beg to differ. I say the concert was epic in every sense of the word. It was incredibly well shot, well directed, well sequenced and well executed. All artists were told to check their egos at the door. For that night everyone on that stage was an equal. The final result left me feeling I'd seen perhaps the finest example of a filmed concert - ever. Again, we perceive things differently...
-
OK, some interesting feedback there, thanks, it's a bit late here, so I'll have replies for you tomorrow on each of your points
-
Sam...Anoushka...Dhani Amen
-
Erik i think it was mainly just from reading you in the thread about the New cover that had lead me to think you were new or young, that's all. You were convinced paul had used the roman numeral for 3 to mean his 3rd wife! As well as being a huge believer of the Paul is dead clues, and wouldn't take what people who were actually there in the studio for walrus as fact for example instead choosing to believe they were covering up. That combined with over 300 posts in less than 3 weeks just had me think you were younger and pretty hyper in posts, that's all. But i now remember in that thread you were extremely rude to anyone who disagreed with you unless they disagreed in a jokey way, such as how you were to Nancy. I just found the fact that you have only just bought Concert for george and yet wrote a bit by bit pick apart of it all criticising almost everything the kind of thing someone who doesn't know their facts - and it wasn't a dig, you admitted you didn't know Ray Cooper, you asked was it Cynthia on stage (!) and lots of things like that, and all i meant in a badly worded way was the concert was 12 years ago and there has been site after site mentioning facts from it, that's all i meant. I just wanted to explain myself here, and i did after all write a long thing about the concert myself yet you picked up on a negative line only, so i wanted to asnwer to clear it up. Now peace and love and lets get back to the forum
-
I thought it was a great show, i went to the concert and the atmosphere was electric, people were offering £1000 pounds for a ticket because they couldnt get any and i even had Japanese TV film my Ticket! It was very emotional, but i had to be there as i had previously seen George do his only UK full concert at the RAH. I thought the DVD and the CD captured it brilliantly and i defy anyone to watch it and not get a tear in their eye or a lump in their throat when Joe Brown does his song at the end!
-
moptops:
I thought that Olivia and Dhani really missed an opportunity to speak about George...it's amazing how little they had to say about him--I think that would have been very interesting as we don't really know them and seeing GH thru their eyes would have been a treat! I think a memorial concert for George Harrison is a forum where his music speaks best. Furthermore, emotionally, it must have been wrenching for them to get through it.
C'mon it was a whole year after his passing, not a month. It was obviously an emotional show, but it's highly unlikely they were so wracked with pain that they could not speak a bit of George for the occaision. I know of what I speak having sadly lost both of my parents now. As you unboubtedly already know, some of the best parts of live concerts are some of the stories from the musicians. I was suprised that Olivia, as the Executive Producer and George's wife, said nothing! When she got up and lit whatever it was around that rooster (?) a few words about George would have been appropriate as far as I'm concerned. Same for Dhani, he wanted to be on stage and play guitar even though you could not hear his guitar or singing, but a few words about his Dad would have been appropriate and would have been a nice touch. These sorts of things are often done after the first or second song. Clapton's small speech was nice and he speaks well--would have loved to hear a couple more stories of his "best mate." In the 2nd DVD, Clapton admits that they rehearsed music for 3 weeks, but not the talking parts and so what little they did seemed a bit awkward. Even in Bangladesh there was more information about the situation as well as the musicians and show.
moptops:
Clapton as well could have had more to say since he was running the gig...it was a bit like Concert For Eric at times, I think he should have marginalized himself more. Certainly he knew George well and could have shared some great stories with us. What does this mean? He could have had more to say, but he should have marginalized himself more? It was a bit like Concert For Eric??? He's the musical director of the concert, perhaps George's best mate, a truly great musician and the glue that held it all together.
You made the comments about Paul being marginalized, which is fine, he did his songs and sat down at the piano on the side, but the show was a bit Clapton heavy in my opinion that's all.
moptops:
No introduction of the people on stage?? I didn't even know who several were! I know at Bangladesh, GH introduced the musicians, and Eric really should have done it here--this was a big oversight as far as I'm concerned. E.g., not everyone knows what Klaus Voorman looks like these days. I don't think it was an oversight at all! In fact because of the amount of people on stage and to keep the flow going, I'd suggest it was practical and necessary not to introduce EVERYBODY. The beauty of the concert is the intimate and laid back and SINCERE feel it has. Eric did occasionally introduce or acknowledge artists, but everyone knows whoever was playing on that stage was there because they shared a friendship and/or a tight musical bond with George: be they a major star like McCartney or a lesser known (but no less a musician) like the wonderful Emil Richards, Jim Keltner, Jim Horn and others.
C'mon, this is the de facto standard in any show. Clapton is typically lazy and he winged it. GH winged it at Bangladesh too ("we've forgotten Billy Preston!
"), but at least you knew who was up there on stage. Few know what Keltner, Horn, Voorman, etc. look like these days even if they know their names which the typical person doesn't. I think it WAS necessary to mention the musicians that were on that stage! Maybe Dhani could have at least done that.moptops:
What about Julian Lennon? Surely he must have had a connection to GH, no? Oh and Thank God Yoko wasn't there!! I'd love to know why What about Julian Lennon? Yes they shared a connection, but were they close friends? Who knows? Should Zak Starkey have been there? They shared a connection. And I get you don't like Yoko...
I said Julian because no Lennons were represented and he's had some limited success in the commercial realm of pop/rock. Having Yoko there unless she was there to speak about George would have been innappropriate and I'm glad she was not there. You are aware that she wouldn't let John perform at Bangladesh without her being on stage, no?
moptops:
I can certainly understand Dhani Harrison wanting to take part but you could have just put a cardboard cutout with a guitar there and it would have had the same effect musically! No one could hear his acoustic guitar! It would have been nice if he'd learned a couple licks to solo with--he seems like he plays guitar even though you can tell he's not a professional caliber musician. Not just picking on Dhani here, there were several musicians up there that added no real value to the concert as they were not showcased and their volumes turned way down or off. Surely you can appreciate it's about the occasion, symbolism and the fact he's George's boy more than an opportunity for Dhani to fire off "a couple of licks to solo with" I'd have thought. Several musicians up there added "no real value" because they were not showcased?????
I have mixed feeling about this as a musician myself. I can understand him wanting to be there and play and all and I learned from the DVD interview that he originally wanted to pop in and out, but Clapton said play the whole show for some reason. I am not a fan of musicians appearing on stage that you cannot hear--it's rediculous. Certainly he could have done a vocal or guitar intro to lend some credibility to his performance. I feel the same about other musicians that were up there that you could not hear. Cooper on the tambourine waving his hands like he'd just caught a wild bird was a prime example of showmanship with no real essence. Sorry, not a buyer of this.
moptops:
How many drummers did they have including Ringo...3 or 4?? This got to be a bit absurd. I'm not sure why Ringo always needs at least a second drummer next to him--he can still play from what I can tell--he's a "big star" man...put him up front! Ringo's speech was nice, would have liked to hear more and maybe seen his drum kit moved away from the other drummers and nearer the front. Henry Spinetti , Jim Capaldi and Jim Keltner deserved to be on that stage as much as Ringo. Moreover they all deserved to be beside Ringo. And Ringo was not "moved away...nearer the front" because it would not have been in keeping with the intent of the concert: no egos, everybody is a musician and a friend and...an equal. I'm sure Ringo would have demanded he not be treated any differently. By the way suggesting Ray Cooper's (and Dhani's) contributions as comparable to cardboard cutouts is pretty harsh.
How many drummer does it take to change a lightbulb?
At one point there must have been four drummers playing at the same time...I know for a fact there were at least three. I even think two looks a bit rediculous (I don't know why Ringo seems to like this format, because he can still play drums!). My opinion is put one drummer up at a time...less is more.moptops:
The two backing vocal women dressed like they were in a Vegas show is something Clapton always has with him to thicken is vocals--it's a bit pathetic to see and watch with their 70s hip swaying like wind in the banana trees...OK thanks gals, here's your 20 quid. Cheers! Seriously, do we really need this and then to have the camera continually cut to them?? Yes Katie and Tessa are Eric's backing vocalists, and sang back up for most the entire night. Your comments dismiss them as unrequired lightweights. Hey they're pretty...so what? So is Anouska Shankar...as you gladly pointed out. Katie and Tessa have worked with everyone...and I mean everyone because they are great singers. That was their job, to augment the other vocalists. Sure they were swaying to the rhythm of the music...or should they have stood still...like 20 quid cardboard cutouts???
Figures they were pulled from Clapton's band! I have seen him live several times in New York and it's always a let down. He's very lazy handing off his signature leads to 25 year old guitarists! I came there to see Clapton play the solo to Crossroads, not Johnny No-name! The band doesn't want to or can't sing backing vocals and so they have an array of those women up there all dressed up in sparkly gowns and swaying like they were part of some 70s pop review. I didn't say they were pretty...I don't think they were pretty. Again, it was for show as there were certainly enough people there to fill out the background vocals.
moptops:
Paul was too marginalized in the performance. His vocals are head and shoulders over Clapton's and Lynn's, he would have been a welcome addition to perform on a couple more Beatles tunes. Poor guy, you could tell he wanted to play more. Well he was a class act as usual and I think he was really the highlight of the show--it just changed everything when we walked onto the stage. You wanted more Paul. That's fine. Yes he was a class act, yes you might say he was the highlight of the show. This was very definitely NOT the place to showcase and spotlight Paul. "Poor guy - you could tell he wanted to play more." Oh boo hoo Paul. If you don't see that, then again, I suggest you might be missing the point of the concert. I think the number of songs he performed and others he contributed to was just about right. Any more and it becomes all about him...entirely inappropriate - unless of course one wants it to become all about him.
You and your buddy obviously don't like Paul--this is a forum attached to Paul's official site, of course there are going to those of us that would have loved to see more Paul. I think Paul McCartney is wonderful and for me he was head and shoulders the best part of the concert. Putting that Monty Python skit right after the Indian musicians was very disrespectful to them as their music is so serious. I know George liked them, but it was in poor taste the way the acts were sequenced. From very somber to the absurd in the blink of an eye.
moptops:
The Indian musicians closed and the Pythons opened after a clear interval in the concert. And rather than poor taste sequencing, I found it perfect! Clearly it was intended to mark a more upbeat 2nd half of music after the more formal Indian music section. AND it was ok'd by Olivia and Dhani. Most of all, George would have loved it, and the Python's "up yours" to convention and all things proper.
It may have been OKed by Olivia and Dhani to be back to back with the Indian segment, but that doesn't mean they (O and D) have any taste...I don't know much about them so I don't know what was going through their minds. I personally thought it showed a lack of judgement, but that's just my opinion. Hey I know, maybe they could have superimposed a big red clown nose and rainbow curly hair on George's pic during the Python skits, that would have been funny too!
:moptops:
The "yukes" kind of look like a joke...I wish they hadn't done that. I don't know why GH became so fond of them as you never saw them "pulled out" during the Beatles' era. A yuke to me has aways been a bit of a comedic instrument. The "ukes" represent George's love of the oddball and his sense of fun. In fact the ukulele has become associated with George as much as the sitar. For my money the concert would not have been complete without the ukulele making an appearance. Joe Brown's piece was exceptionally moving.
Ukes
I can do without them!moptops:
Choice of songs was pretty good--they don't really have that many to choose from. Clapton did a very nice version of Beware of Darkness. I think doing that mediocre song "Wah Wah" written about Paul was kind of disrespectful to Paul--Clapton (the musical director), Olivia (the executive producer), and Dhani probably didn't have a clue though. There were some obvious choices that were missed like "What Is Life" and "Apple Scruffs" which would have had a double meaning and been fun. Certainly "Crackerbox Palace" should have been done, WTF?? George Harrison songs: "They don't really have that many to choose from." WHAT??? Wah Wah is a "mediocre song" in your eyes...because it was directed at Paul, right???
They did the usual suspects. He doesn't have a huge catalog of material to draw from that would have worked in that setting. Even before I read that it was about Paul, I never thought "Wah Wah" was a wonderful song. The overproduced Spector version gives me a "Wah Wah" (that was George studio slang for a headache) when I listen to it! It was a bit like them doing "How Do You Sleep" if Paul had been at a John tribute concert or John having to take part in a version of "Too Many People."
moptops:
The pictures of George were quite nicely displayed and I think overall it was a very nice show--just not epic. I enjoyed the interviews on the second disc esp. with Clapton saying "sometimes you'd think you were doing George a big favor only to find out he didn't like it...he might have said 'I didn't really want a show like that', etc." I'm sure it was tough to put a show like that together so kudos to Eric for pulling it off. I'm just being an armchair quarterback and providing my honest feedback on the show, so please take it for what it's worth before flaming me I beg to differ. I say the concert was epic in every sense of the word. It was incredibly well shot, well directed, well sequenced and well executed. All artists were told to check their egos at the door. For that night everyone on that stage was an equal. The final result left me feeling I'd seen perhaps the finest example of a filmed concert - ever.
OK I give in, it was the epitome of epic concerts, in fact so epic that no more tribute concerts need to be ever done again as this concert stands alone in it's epic epicness. Every musician stellar, every note was perfect, every harmony spot on, every guitar and uke in perfect tune as if by some diving intervention--so much so that when the last uke was put away and the colored paper was dropped on the audience, the angels came down and smiled!
I said many complementary things in my review, but you and your buddy seem to focus on the critiques. I thought it was a well balanced review and in the end I said it was a great concert--I'm sure it was even better in person and would have loved to have been there. -
Eeee Cor Blimey:
Erik i think it was mainly just from reading you in the thread about the New cover that had lead me to think you were new or young, that's all. You were convinced paul had used the roman numeral for 3 to mean his 3rd wife!
Why is that so bad? The way "NEW" is represented is odd--we were all trying to suss it out. I threw that idea up there thinking aloud and all of a suddent I know nothing about the Beatles in your opinion?
Eeee Cor Blimey:
As well as being a huge believer of the Paul is dead clues, and wouldn't take what people who were actually there in the studio for walrus as fact for example instead choosing to believe they were covering up.
If you go back and read my posts you'll see that I'm not a believer in the clues or the myth, but of the opinion that some were put there by the Beatles (good ol' John for the most part) to perpetuate the myth and mess with the fans a little.
Eeee Cor Blimey:
That combined with over 300 posts in less than 3 weeks just had me think you were younger and pretty hyper in posts, that's all. But i now remember in that thread you were extremely rude to anyone who disagreed with you unless they disagreed in a jokey way, such as how you were to Nancy.
Nancy and I are good--not sure why you are trying to drag her into this. 100 posts a week makes me young and unknowledgeable?
:Eeee Cor Blimey:
I just found the fact that you have only just bought Concert for george and yet wrote a bit by bit pick apart of it all criticising almost everything the kind of thing someone who doesn't know their facts - and it wasn't a dig, you admitted you didn't know Ray Cooper, you asked was it Cynthia on stage (!) and lots of things like that, and all i meant in a badly worded way was the concert was 12 years ago and there has been site after site mentioning facts from it, that's all i meant.
Oh, you mean I haven't "paid my dues" by watching it for the past 12 years and memorizing the names of the odd rock percussionist--not my cuppa
Yes, I just bought it, I watched it, and I posted *my* review with *my* opinions of the show and solicited the opinions of others. So I just bought the DVD, so what? That doesn't mean that I wasn't aware of the concert mate, GH used to be my favorite Beatle back in the day (till I wised up ) I just too bought Beatles Rock & Roll Music too for the first time--I guess I can't know anything about the Beatles then. So who was that bigger blonde woman that walked across the stage at the end....I asked whether it was Cynthia Lennon or Patti Boyd, that's all. I have no clue as to who it was, if you know then why don't you just answer the question? Why is askinging if it was Cythia so preposterous?? She was friends with George. You seem to be taking the mickey out of me for asking that question....why? -
You know Erik, i get the feeling no matter what i say in this thread you will pick it apart... meanness and attitude are something i cannot stand on these forums, i was only trying to help originally with my write up of the concert and pointing out there was a long interval between india/python thinking that would explain it to you, but you leapt down my throat. So you win, you can have the forum to yourself - i don't want to be in a place so full of people who are so so so keen to be negative and snappy to people. So be happy here, its all yours.
-
Eeee Cor Blimey:
You know Erik, i get the feeling no matter what i say in this thread you will pick it apart... meanness and attitude are something i cannot stand on these forums, i was only trying to help originally with my write up of the concert and pointing out there was a long interval between india/python thinking that would explain it to you, but you leapt down my throat. So you win, you can have the forum to yourself - i don't want to be in a place so full of people who are so so so keen to be negative and snappy to people. So be happy here, its all yours.
Wow! Let's see, I get criticised multiple times in multiple posts (I don't want to respost these) and I try to counter the assertions in a civil tone and I'm negative and snappy?? I see the end statement, but I fail to see any basis for it being made.
-
I'm sure it was a great show live--thanks for sharing! By any chance did you get to see the Al Stewart "Year Of The Cat" show at the RAH that he did with his original band from the album? Apparently they played the entire album front to back in order and then did a bunch of other songs. I considered flying over for that show! It was last fall. The other epic show I'm aware of, but didn't see was the Cream reunion.
Boggle:
I thought it was a great show, i went to the concert and the atmosphere was electric, people were offering £1000 pounds for a ticket because they couldnt get any and i even had Japanese TV film my Ticket! It was very emotional, but i had to be there as i had previously seen George do his only UK full concert at the RAH. I thought the DVD and the CD captured it brilliantly and i defy anyone to watch it and not get a tear in their eye or a lump in their throat when Joe Brown does his song at the end!
