|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 26, 2023 13:36:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Nov 26, 2023 20:18:17 GMT
I read that a couple days ago; yep, we've opened Pandora's Box.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 30, 2024 13:05:19 GMT
Today is the 55th anniversary of the Beatles' famous final live public performance, the rooftop concert of Let It Be songs. It happened on January 30, 1969.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 30, 2024 13:53:55 GMT
I'm a little surprised the rooftop concert didn't get a physical release. I know there's a digital release to coincide with the Get Back doc.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 20, 2024 15:28:05 GMT
Sam Mendes will direct four Beatles biopics, one from the point of view of each band member, all to be released in 2027. Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and the estates of George Harrison and John Lennon have authorized the project, which will be fully licensed, include the original music, etc. Mendes has directed American Beauty, The Road to Perdition, some latter-day James Bond movies, and more.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 20, 2024 16:55:51 GMT
Wow, that’s an interesting project. And the director has an impressive resume.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Feb 20, 2024 20:44:37 GMT
We're in the land of excess now.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 21, 2024 0:07:21 GMT
That's an interesting twist on the music biopic. I wonder how much overlap each movie might have though (ie. Sullivan, Shea, etc). They could also save certain plot points that center around each member (ie. the "bigger than Jesus" scandal in the John movie).
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Feb 25, 2024 21:04:22 GMT
That's an interesting twist on the music biopic. I wonder how much overlap each movie might have though (ie. Sullivan, Shea, etc). They could also save certain plot points that center around each member (ie. the "bigger than Jesus" scandal in the John movie). I know next to nothing about this story, but I'm gonna suggest, if they want success, they better release the Ringo movie first. There's not much drama there, unless you want to focus on his childhood - he was a sickly little boy. Or if it goes into the post-Beatle years, they could focus on his alcoholism and recovery. George's movie should be second because, well, he's George, the Quiet One, the one that always gets overlooked. John's movie has to be last, or next to last, because his story is the most dramatic. But I could argue that Paul's should be last - he is by far the most popular these days. Paul fans think he walks on water. He's the Brian Wilson of the Beatles. Seriously, I just can't see this being a good idea. Not a fan of biopics anyway. I spend two hours thinking "that's not really (insert name here...Elvis, Cash, Little Richard). The Buddy Holly Story worked because we have so little film footage of the man. Ray worked because Jamie Fox LOOKED like Ray Charles with the dark glasses on. I thought Love and Mercy was half a great movie. The 60's part.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 25, 2024 22:12:07 GMT
I know next to nothing about this story, but I'm gonna suggest, if they want success, they better release the Ringo movie first. I got the impression they would be released simultaneously.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 26, 2024 2:11:10 GMT
Speaking of Beatles movies, does anyone remember Backbeat? It came out in 1993, and focused on the early days of the band. Its sort of been forgotten, but I thought it was quite good.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 26, 2024 20:50:38 GMT
I'll never understand how some people - almost always celebrities - can't keep personal things just that. Personal. To me, certain things are sacred and not to be shared. It's really nobody else's business to know...for any amount of money or notoriety. And I don't care if Clapton agreed to it.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 26, 2024 20:54:14 GMT
I'll never understand how some people - almost always celebrities - can't keep personal things just that. Personal. To me, certain things are sacred and not to be shared. It's really nobody else's business to know...for any amount of money or notoriety. And I don't care if Clapton agreed to it.
Here's one of several stories on it via a direct link (the one above was acting goofy, presumably the redirect from google, etc.): abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/musicians-muse-pattie-boyd-auctions-love-letters-eric-107551944Publishing historical figures' personal letters and articles has been common for a long time, and it doesn't really bug me ... but when the people are still alive, that's pretty rude, to say the least. At some point, the personal often does become public with important figures--usually for academic purposes. But during their lifetimes, it just feels like a cheap cash grab.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 26, 2024 21:33:28 GMT
I'll never understand how some people - almost always celebrities - can't keep personal things just that. Personal. To me, certain things are sacred and not to be shared. It's really nobody else's business to know...for any amount of money or notoriety. And I don't care if Clapton agreed to it.
Here's one of several stories on it via a direct link (the one above was acting goofy, presumably the redirect from google, etc.): abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/musicians-muse-pattie-boyd-auctions-love-letters-eric-107551944Publishing historical figures' personal letters and articles has been common for a long time, and it doesn't really bug me ... but when the people are still alive, that's pretty rude, to say the least. At some point, the personal often does become public with important figures--usually for academic purposes. But during their lifetimes, it just feels like a cheap cash grab. I find it bothersome whether one of the people is alive or not. Actually, it might bother me more when one is dead and one is still living because the deceased person didn't have a say in the release of the material.
I understand the distinction or relevance of some types of letters being released, especially when historical value is attached. This would be true in the areas of politics, religion, science, the arts, and as you mentioned, when it's used for academic purposes. I also understand and am more accepting of "love letters" when they come from couples who have been married for a long time and the letters are released as a celebration of the relationship, not for sensationalism. As an example, and I don't know if they ever released something like this, but maybe if someone like Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter would've shared things Jimmy wrote to Rosalyn while in the service or out on the campaign trail or whatever. You know what I mean.
In the case of Pattie Boyd, Eric Clapton, and George Harrison, they were in the middle of infidelities, love triangles, drugs, and you're bearing your soul to someone else's wife. While I'm not judging them, I'm not so sure that's something I'd want to share in such detail. Personal letters? I don't think the public needs to read those personal letters, nevermind we're talking about songwriters who are using those feelings to write songs. Can't you just stop short and say that it was the love of this person that inspired whatever song was written and leave it at that. Pattie Boyd mentioned that she would occasionally dig those letters out of a box and attempt to read them, but was overcome by emotion and couldn't continue. I believe her, but then why would you find it...necessary...to share such a personal thing with Joe Sixpack from Palookaville. I just don't understand. Isn't that something you'd want to keep between the two of you? It's their personal bond. To me, that's something sacred and should remain as such. Just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Mar 10, 2024 18:47:50 GMT
I finally picked up Yellow Submarine Songtrack. Believe it or not, I'd never heard it! I'm a little more than halfway through and I'm absolutely loving these remixes (and remastering). The tracklist flows surprisingly well, too. What a joy to hear this music that I know so well but in a new (and improved) way. I was reminded recently when listening to The Best of George Harrison that some of the 60s stereo mixes could really use an upgrade (in the case of The Best of George Harrison, the mix of the otherwise great "If I Needed Someone" really stood out among the much better (i.e. more balanced) late 60s Beatles and solo stereo mixes included on the compilation). Ironically, despite George Martin remixing it for the 1987 CD release, he didn't really improve it much. Anyway, in addition to the better balance, I'm especially enjoying the vocals on Yellow Submarine Songtrack. I'm hearing some of the background vocals, in particular, clearer than ever. Beyond the remixes, though, it's also just an enjoyable compilation including tracks from Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, and Yellow Submarine. And I believe every Beatles track from the film is included here, except "A Day in the Life".
Edit: I've now finished listening and stand by everything I said.
|
|