Let It Be / Get Back (the movie)
-
jl4761 wrote:
toris wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
Listen to 28:26 in this recording, you will hear the metal version of "Get Back!"
I've heard this version before, with John front and central. This early version of the song just shows how brilliant those boys were in 'forming' a song. Knocking it out, and eventually coming up with something so superior. The final product so much better. The guitar licks and solo so much better in the release. And Paul so much better in singing it (no offence, John, I love ya).
It's obviously a Paul song (cos, as we know, back in those days whoever sung it pretty much wrote it).... was this just a version of John mucking around (like Paul with 'I'm So Tired'), when he already knew Paul was going to be singing it? I presume so. I can't imagine John ever singing this song. Paul rocks this song. A vocal treat.
I ask....cos I wonder whether they both sang the song, and then decided who sung it best?.... I think not. Those days long gone... but who knows what process they went through? Hence, the majesty of these 'unearthed' recordings.
I may also have read that John wanted to sing Oh! Darling. But Paul wasn't letting go of that brilliant dynamo. What a song!
Get Back.... one of my faves.
Hi toris! How are you? This is a blistering version of "Get Back" isn't it? You can tell they were playing around but listen to what came out of those amps! This would have been a GREAT version had they continued in that direction.
One wonders why"Oh! Darling" wasn't placed as cut three on the album, if not as cut two... instead of Paul's"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and be directly...after John's "Come together" and George's "Something." We would have had three brilliant songs to kick off the album. Each different from the other. Since Paul was working on "Junk" one also wonders why he didn't work a little harder on it and push for it to be on the album....instead of ".....Hammer," a cute but very inconsequential song. (Why would Paul want that one to be his first song on the album?????) I reversed the two on my copy to give it a stonger start. One wonders too why Paul ...with his ego...would be content to not have a song until after John and George. Guess he knew he was going to own side two of the album and stepped back....waiting for his moment. John may have wanted to sing "Oh! Darling"....can't quite imagine it myself....as good of a singer as he was.....and since he couldn't....wasn't permitted to or whatever.... he may have retaliated by not permitting Paul to sing backup on "Come together." I've read that Paul really wanted to do that. John did it himself.
-
jl4761 wrote:
toris wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
Listen to 28:26 in this recording, you will hear the metal version of "Get Back!"
I've heard this version before, with John front and central. This early version of the song just shows how brilliant those boys were in 'forming' a song. Knocking it out, and eventually coming up with something so superior. The final product so much better. The guitar licks and solo so much better in the release. And Paul so much better in singing it (no offence, John, I love ya).
It's obviously a Paul song (cos, as we know, back in those days whoever sung it pretty much wrote it).... was this just a version of John mucking around (like Paul with 'I'm So Tired'), when he already knew Paul was going to be singing it? I presume so. I can't imagine John ever singing this song. Paul rocks this song. A vocal treat.
I ask....cos I wonder whether they both sang the song, and then decided who sung it best?.... I think not. Those days long gone... but who knows what process they went through? Hence, the majesty of these 'unearthed' recordings.
I may also have read that John wanted to sing Oh! Darling. But Paul wasn't letting go of that brilliant dynamo. What a song!
Get Back.... one of my faves.
Hi toris! How are you? This is a blistering version of "Get Back" isn't it? You can tell they were playing around but listen to what came out of those amps! This would have been a GREAT version had they continued in that direction.
Hey, howdy!... It is a great version, but this is one where I reckon the final product was so much better. This is one of my favourite songs. Paul was so brilliant at this time. Keeping it alive.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
toris wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
Listen to 28:26 in this recording, you will hear the metal version of "Get Back!"
I've heard this version before, with John front and central. This early version of the song just shows how brilliant those boys were in 'forming' a song. Knocking it out, and eventually coming up with something so superior. The final product so much better. The guitar licks and solo so much better in the release. And Paul so much better in singing it (no offence, John, I love ya).
It's obviously a Paul song (cos, as we know, back in those days whoever sung it pretty much wrote it).... was this just a version of John mucking around (like Paul with 'I'm So Tired'), when he already knew Paul was going to be singing it? I presume so. I can't imagine John ever singing this song. Paul rocks this song. A vocal treat.
I ask....cos I wonder whether they both sang the song, and then decided who sung it best?.... I think not. Those days long gone... but who knows what process they went through? Hence, the majesty of these 'unearthed' recordings.
I may also have read that John wanted to sing Oh! Darling. But Paul wasn't letting go of that brilliant dynamo. What a song!
Get Back.... one of my faves.
Hi toris! How are you? This is a blistering version of "Get Back" isn't it? You can tell they were playing around but listen to what came out of those amps! This would have been a GREAT version had they continued in that direction.
One wonders why"Oh! Darling" wasn't placed as cut three on the album, if not as cut two... instead of Paul's"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and be directly...after John's "Come together" and George's "Something." We would have had three brilliant songs to kick off the album. Each different from the other. Since Paul was working on "Junk" one also wonders why he didn't work a little harder on it and push for it to be on the album....instead of ".....Hammer," a cute but very inconsequential song. (Why would Paul want that one to be his first song on the album?????) I reversed the two on my copy to give it a stonger start. One wonders too why Paul ...with his ego...would be content to not have a song until after John and George. Guess he knew he was going to own side two of the album and stepped back....waiting for his moment. John may have wanted to sing "Oh! Darling"....can't quite imagine it myself....as good of a singer as he was.....and since he couldn't....wasn't permitted to or whatever.... he may have retaliated by not permitting Paul to sing backup on "Come together." I've read that Paul really wanted to do that. John did it himself.
Mate, I have a soft spot for that Maxwell with his hammer. As a young lad, it used to be played all the time at primary school. Which is strange, cos the lyrics are quite opposite to the joyful musak. Actually, some of the lyrics are probably best suited to the background of the guitar that defines Helter Skelter. Lyrics are dark at times. I think the song fits perfectly on any album, as much as it might have been 'painful' for a couple of the others to perform. A great 'album' track. Just my view.
-
toris wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
toris wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
Listen to 28:26 in this recording, you will hear the metal version of "Get Back!"
I've heard this version before, with John front and central. This early version of the song just shows how brilliant those boys were in 'forming' a song. Knocking it out, and eventually coming up with something so superior. The final product so much better. The guitar licks and solo so much better in the release. And Paul so much better in singing it (no offence, John, I love ya).
It's obviously a Paul song (cos, as we know, back in those days whoever sung it pretty much wrote it).... was this just a version of John mucking around (like Paul with 'I'm So Tired'), when he already knew Paul was going to be singing it? I presume so. I can't imagine John ever singing this song. Paul rocks this song. A vocal treat.
I ask....cos I wonder whether they both sang the song, and then decided who sung it best?.... I think not. Those days long gone... but who knows what process they went through? Hence, the majesty of these 'unearthed' recordings.
I may also have read that John wanted to sing Oh! Darling. But Paul wasn't letting go of that brilliant dynamo. What a song!
Get Back.... one of my faves.
Hi toris! How are you? This is a blistering version of "Get Back" isn't it? You can tell they were playing around but listen to what came out of those amps! This would have been a GREAT version had they continued in that direction.
Hey, howdy!... It is a great version, but this is one where I reckon the final product was so much better. This is one of my favourite songs. Paul was so brilliant at this time. Keeping it alive.
Howdy mate! I love the versions of "Get Back" especially the last song ("Get Back") during the rooftop concert in LET IT BE. Talk to you soon, take care.
-
-
toris wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
toris wrote:
jl4761 wrote:
Listen to 28:26 in this recording, you will hear the metal version of "Get Back!"
I've heard this version before, with John front and central. This early version of the song just shows how brilliant those boys were in 'forming' a song. Knocking it out, and eventually coming up with something so superior. The final product so much better. The guitar licks and solo so much better in the release. And Paul so much better in singing it (no offence, John, I love ya).
It's obviously a Paul song (cos, as we know, back in those days whoever sung it pretty much wrote it).... was this just a version of John mucking around (like Paul with 'I'm So Tired'), when he already knew Paul was going to be singing it? I presume so. I can't imagine John ever singing this song. Paul rocks this song. A vocal treat.
I ask....cos I wonder whether they both sang the song, and then decided who sung it best?.... I think not. Those days long gone... but who knows what process they went through? Hence, the majesty of these 'unearthed' recordings.
I may also have read that John wanted to sing Oh! Darling. But Paul wasn't letting go of that brilliant dynamo. What a song!
Get Back.... one of my faves.
Hi toris! How are you? This is a blistering version of "Get Back" isn't it? You can tell they were playing around but listen to what came out of those amps! This would have been a GREAT version had they continued in that direction.
One wonders why"Oh! Darling" wasn't placed as cut three on the album, if not as cut two... instead of Paul's"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" and be directly...after John's "Come together" and George's "Something." We would have had three brilliant songs to kick off the album. Each different from the other. Since Paul was working on "Junk" one also wonders why he didn't work a little harder on it and push for it to be on the album....instead of ".....Hammer," a cute but very inconsequential song. (Why would Paul want that one to be his first song on the album?????) I reversed the two on my copy to give it a stonger start. One wonders too why Paul ...with his ego...would be content to not have a song until after John and George. Guess he knew he was going to own side two of the album and stepped back....waiting for his moment. John may have wanted to sing "Oh! Darling"....can't quite imagine it myself....as good of a singer as he was.....and since he couldn't....wasn't permitted to or whatever.... he may have retaliated by not permitting Paul to sing backup on "Come together." I've read that Paul really wanted to do that. John did it himself.
Mate, I have a soft spot for that Maxwell with his hammer. As a young lad, it used to be played all the time at primary school. Which is strange, cos the lyrics are quite opposite to the joyful musak. Actually, some of the lyrics are probably best suited to the background of the guitar that defines Helter Skelter. Lyrics are dark at times. I think the song fits perfectly on any album, as much as it might have been 'painful' for a couple of the others to perform. A great 'album' track. Just my view.
Actually, I dont really mind "....Hammer" that much. It seemed a commentary on violence going on in the world. If the Beatles said it, it had to be important. And I took it that way. I was reflecting more on John's intense dislike of it, and that maybe Paul could have worked a little harder on "Junk" for the album instead, to sooth John a bit. One recent thing I have learned....with the reissure/deluxe treatment of "Abbey Road" is that Paul does, indeed, sing backup on "Come Together!" We were told for years that John did it himself...to spite Paul. I always thought......"That is Paul's voice....." So that pleases me.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote: One recent thing I have learned....with the reissure/deluxe treatment of "Abbey Road" is that Paul does, indeed, sing backup on "Come Together!" We were told for years that John did it himself...to spite Paul. I always thought......"That is Paul's voice....." So that pleases me.
I'm surprised that there have been doubts from some quarters about Paul singing with John. There's even a photo on the 'internet' somewhere of John and Paul recording the vocals together.
-
-
Looks like the new movie and reissues won't be released until the fall.
-
Disney Sets Release Date For Peter Jackson’s Beatles Documentary
-
Yes! Yes! Yes! (that was in honor of Paul's dad!)
-
Beatles To Unveil Unheard Treasure Trove, 50 Years After ‘Let It Be’
-
So happy to hear about this... Heard there was something in the order of 50 hours or more of tapes, so for the original version to be handpicked in a way that maybe someone thought would sell more... Glad to hear we will see the friendship and love as well. A Treasure Chest of golden BeaTles memories.
-
love2travel wrote:
So happy to hear about this... Heard there was something in the order of 50 hours or more of tapes, so for the original version to be handpicked in a way that maybe someone thought would sell more... Glad to hear we will see the friendship and love as well. A Treasure Chest of golden BeaTles memories.
You heard Paul talk about this in the Howard Stern interview, didn't you? Can't wait to see the exchange between him and John that he talked about!
-
Much as I'm looking forward to the new version of the 'Let It Be' film, I'm hoping that its not going totally in the opposite direction and that we are presented with a sanitised version of what actually happened. George didn't just walk out out just on a whim. But having viewed the Get Back Chronicles bootleg dvd series, there is no doubt that the Beatles were a lot happier during the Apple studio sessions than they were in the Twickenham film studio setting. I just hope the new film will be fairly balanced and not (like the Beatles Anthology series) a whitewash designed to show the Beatles in the best possible light.
-
Kestrel wrote:
Much as I'm looking forward to the new version of the 'Let It Be' film, I'm hoping that its not going totally in the opposite direction and that we are presented with a sanitised version of what actually happened. George didn't just walk out out just on a whim. But having viewed the Get Back Chronicles bootleg dvd series, there is no doubt that the Beatles were a lot happier during the Apple studio sessions than they were in the Twickenham film studio setting. I just hope the new film will be fairly balanced and not (like the Beatles Anthology series) a whitewash designed to show the Beatles in the best possible light.
The Get Back Chronicles bootleg DVDs were great! Whatever direction the new film goes, it will be very interesting to see fresh footage.
-
oobu24 wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Much as I'm looking forward to the new version of the 'Let It Be' film, I'm hoping that its not going totally in the opposite direction and that we are presented with a sanitised version of what actually happened. George didn't just walk out out just on a whim. But having viewed the Get Back Chronicles bootleg dvd series, there is no doubt that the Beatles were a lot happier during the Apple studio sessions than they were in the Twickenham film studio setting. I just hope the new film will be fairly balanced and not (like the Beatles Anthology series) a whitewash designed to show the Beatles in the best possible light.
The Get Back Chronicles bootleg DVDs were great! Whatever direction the new film goes, it will be very interesting to see fresh footage.
I agree! I wonder if they'll put in that bit where Paul & John pretend to be really pissed at the engineer because he wasn't recording and one of them (Paul?) says "We're f___ing stars!"
-
Kestrel wrote:
Much as I'm looking forward to the new version of the 'Let It Be' film, I'm hoping that its not going totally in the opposite direction and that we are presented with a sanitised version of what actually happened. George didn't just walk out out just on a whim. But having viewed the Get Back Chronicles bootleg dvd series, there is no doubt that the Beatles were a lot happier during the Apple studio sessions than they were in the Twickenham film studio setting. I just hope the new film will be fairly balanced and not (like the Beatles Anthology series) a whitewash designed to show the Beatles in the best possible light.
You know they're probably going to avoid all the "warts." And as far as The Beatles Anthology goes, it was never going to show/tell any of the seedy side of the Hamburg days and what went on during their tours in 1963-1966. Have to read Mark Lewisohn's book(s) for that!
-
oobu24 wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
But having viewed the Get Back Chronicles bootleg dvd series, there is no doubt that the Beatles were a lot happier during the Apple studio sessions than they were in the Twickenham film studio setting.
The Get Back Chronicles bootleg DVDs were great! Whatever direction the new film goes, it will be very interesting to see fresh footage.
A few years ago someone pinched all the tapes (demos, alterative takes etc) to a Radiohead album,tried to screw the band for money,and forced the band to officially release everything themselves, I think about 17 hours of material.
Now, if the same was to happen with this new film, Apple/ Disney might end up issuing all 58 hours of footage.
-
Nancy R wrote:
You know they're probably going to avoid all the "warts." And as far as The Beatles Anthology goes, it was never going to show/tell any of the seedy side of the Hamburg days and what went on during their tours in 1963-1966. Have to read Mark Lewisohn's book(s) for that!
As far as a Mark Lewisohn book on the 1963-1966 tours is concerned, do you think anyone will still be alive to read it?
I just hope the film will be fair, accurate and objective. That's not too much to ask.