|
Post by kds on Apr 10, 2020 14:10:05 GMT
It was 50 years ago today that the greatest, and most iconic band in history broke up ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-breakup-quotes/And now a full half century after their breakup, they are still the most revered and respected band of all time. They have no equal, and I doubt they ever will. Wow, 50 years...I can't tell you how many times I've wondered if The Beatles would've reunited in some form for some project had John lived. The money issue that was diversive in 1969, Yoko's increasing presence, creative differences, some lethargy, getting married/starting families, and wanting do "their own thing" had seemingly passed through the years. But would've it eventually resulted in a reunion? I honestly think some sort of reunion would've happened in the 1980s at some point. I lean towards maybe a one off at Live Aid, to go along with the Zeppelin, Who, and Sabbath reunions that day. Maybe even a Jeff Lynne produced new Beatles album at some point. It seemed the ice between John and Paul was thawing just prior to John's death (according to Paul), so it'll always be one of those great "What Ifs" in music history.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 10, 2020 14:25:40 GMT
I could see them headlining and closing Live Aid in 1985. It would've given them a legitimate reason to reunite - charity. They could've then piggy-backed on that performance with an album or a short tour. I think by 1985, John especially would've, not only adjusted to being back in the business, but maybe ready to move on from his solo work, which might've included an album or two after Double Fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 10, 2020 14:29:17 GMT
You're too kind with this "charity" as the motivation! I think they'd have been motivated by the same thing that got the likes of the Eagles to reunite in the '90s... I won't say what that motivation was, but it rhymes with "honey."
EDIT - not to say they wouldn't have reunited to benefit charitable causes or disparage them. Just to say when people start offering you absurd sums of money, even the wealthiest people get pretty interested. (Zeppelin at the O2, Eagles, Police reunion tour, and innumerable others.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 10, 2020 14:32:22 GMT
You're too kind with this "charity" as the motivation! I think they'd have been motivated by the same thing that got the likes of the Eagles to reunite in the '90s... I won't say what that motivation was, but it rhymes with "honey." To be fair, the charity event did prove to be the catalyst for several high profile reunions with Black Sabbath, The Who, Led Zeppelin, CSN, and even Pink Floyd (with Live 8). And other than CSN, none of those one off reunions resulted in massive and lucrative tours.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 10, 2020 14:36:45 GMT
I didn't realize the Zep O2 show was for charity. My mistake--thanks for correcting me on that. I just knew they were being offered ungodly sums to tour and turned those down. But I assumed that one show was for its own ungodly sum.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 10, 2020 14:42:59 GMT
You're too kind with this "charity" as the motivation! I think they'd have been motivated by the same thing that got the likes of the Eagles to reunite in the '90s... I won't say what that motivation was, but it rhymes with "honey."
EDIT - not to say they wouldn't have reunited to benefit charitable causes or disparage them. Just to say when people start offering you absurd sums of money, even the wealthiest people get pretty interested. (Zeppelin at the O2, Eagles, Police reunion tour, and innumerable others.)
Serious question, but did the artists get paid or benefit financially from Live Aid?
When you look at the individual Beatles, they were known for their social awareness, charity, and fighting for causes. John always seemed to be challenging something or someone over injustice. George, of course, did the Bangladesh concert. Paul was always open to charities. And, Ringo is always preaching peace and love. In many ways, Live Aid would've been the perfect vehicle for a Beatles' reunion. The big money would come after.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 10, 2020 14:47:43 GMT
I didn't realize the Zep O2 show was for charity. My mistake--thanks for correcting me on that. I just knew they were being offered ungodly sums to tour and turned those down. But I assumed that one show was for its own ungodly sum. I was actually referring to Zeppelin's reunion for Live Aid. I think the 02 reunion in 2007 was a celebration of the life of Atlantic Records founder Ahmet Ertegun. Zeppelin also did a one off reunion in 1988 for the 40th anniversary of Atlantic.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 10, 2020 14:49:21 GMT
Ah. I'm misunderstanding you all over the place today. Is it too early for me to log out of work and have a drink?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 10, 2020 14:54:43 GMT
Ah. I'm misunderstanding you all over the place today. Is it too early for me to log out of work and have a drink?
It can be tough to keep up with all the reunions of some of these bands. I think Zeppelin and The Who are each tied with three reunions each.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 10, 2020 15:36:02 GMT
You're too kind with this "charity" as the motivation! I think they'd have been motivated by the same thing that got the likes of the Eagles to reunite in the '90s... I won't say what that motivation was, but it rhymes with "honey."
EDIT - not to say they wouldn't have reunited to benefit charitable causes or disparage them. Just to say when people start offering you absurd sums of money, even the wealthiest people get pretty interested. (Zeppelin at the O2, Eagles, Police reunion tour, and innumerable others.)
Serious question, but did the artists get paid or benefit financially from Live Aid?
When you look at the individual Beatles, they were known for their social awareness, charity, and fighting for causes. John always seemed to be challenging something or someone over injustice. George, of course, did the Bangladesh concert. Paul was always open to charities. And, Ringo is always preaching peace and love. In many ways, Live Aid would've been the perfect vehicle for a Beatles' reunion. The big money would come after.
I don't know re Live Aid. It's always hard to know unless financial reporting is transparent on those things. Sadly, many charities are far from efficient in doling out their donations, and many result in people making quite a bit of money. (I see this in my job, actually, as we sometimes are working with charities.)
But you're definitely correct that the Beatles were all active with charities. And I don't mean to say they wouldn't have taken such an opportunity. More that one can't discount the financial potential as a serious motivator.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 17, 2020 18:17:32 GMT
I just got done watching A Hard Day's Night on TCM. I haven't seen the movie in years. I noticed that it got a 4 star rating.
Other than the soundtrack of course, I never understood the greatness behind the movie. Obviously it's a comedy but I don't think I laughed one time during the movie. I find it a disturbing movie with the crude language and almost violent pranks. It's also very insensitive and, frankly, stupid. All of the Beatles and the supporting characters come off as jerks. The movie, while nostalgic, made me very uncomfortable. Is it just me?
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 17, 2020 18:26:44 GMT
It's been far too long since I've last seen it to comment, but I've been meaning to rewatch the Beatles movies for a few years now. Hopefully, I will soon. I doubt I'll have the same reaction, but who knows? Edit: Sheriff John Stone - Unsurprisingly, though, in rewatching the Beatles DC concert recently, I cringed a bit more when John did his "clap your hands and stomp your feet" routine. Obviously, that hasn't aged well!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 17, 2020 18:45:12 GMT
I just got done watching A Hard Day's Night on TCM. I haven't seen the movie in years. I noticed that it got a 4 star rating.
Other than the soundtrack of course, I never understood the greatness behind the movie. Obviously it's a comedy but I don't think I laughed one time during the movie. I find it a disturbing movie with the crude language and almost violent pranks. It's also very insensitive and, frankly, stupid. All of the Beatles and the supporting characters come off as jerks. The movie, while nostalgic, made me very uncomfortable. Is it just me?
I really don't recall any crude language to be honest. I remember the humor being very very dry, and may have helped pave the way for Spinal Tap. Some of the Beatles' answers to interviewee questions are hilarious though. This isn't a popular opinion among Beatles fans, but I think HELP! is a funnier, and more enjoyable overall movie.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 17, 2020 19:34:21 GMT
I just got done watching A Hard Day's Night on TCM. I haven't seen the movie in years. I noticed that it got a 4 star rating.
Other than the soundtrack of course, I never understood the greatness behind the movie. Obviously it's a comedy but I don't think I laughed one time during the movie. I find it a disturbing movie with the crude language and almost violent pranks. It's also very insensitive and, frankly, stupid. All of the Beatles and the supporting characters come off as jerks. The movie, while nostalgic, made me very uncomfortable. Is it just me?
I really don't recall any crude language to be honest. I remember the humor being very very dry, and may have helped pave the way for Spinal Tap. Some of the Beatles' answers to interviewee questions are hilarious though. This isn't a popular opinion among Beatles fans, but I think HELP! is a funnier, and more enjoyable overall movie. I know I'm coming off very prudish, but again I think the movie dialogue and certain scenes were offensive. I'm sure the term "swine" is more acceptable in the U.K., but I would refrain from calling anybody a swine, and they used the term repeatedly. They used the term "orgy", then in the next scene they're showing young teen-aged kids. There were a number of old people in the movie, and The Beatles were rude to all of them. When the fictional reporters were interviewing The Beatles throughout the movie, John, Paul, George, and Ringo were constantly giving these rude answers. They came across as a bunch of rude, prima donnas. Lennon, in particular, just kept trying to be funny but I thought he looked like an immature juvenile. I just didn't find the movie funny at all, and I can't believe this is how most Beatles' fans wanted to see them portrayed.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 18, 2020 11:43:03 GMT
I really don't recall any crude language to be honest. I remember the humor being very very dry, and may have helped pave the way for Spinal Tap. Some of the Beatles' answers to interviewee questions are hilarious though. This isn't a popular opinion among Beatles fans, but I think HELP! is a funnier, and more enjoyable overall movie. I know I'm coming off very prudish, but again I think the movie dialogue and certain scenes were offensive. I'm sure the term "swine" is more acceptable in the U.K., but I would refrain from calling anybody a swine, and they used the term repeatedly. They used the term "orgy", then in the next scene they're showing young teen-aged kids. There were a number of old people in the movie, and The Beatles were rude to all of them. When the fictional reporters were interviewing The Beatles throughout the movie, John, Paul, George, and Ringo were constantly giving these rude answers. They came across as a bunch of rude, prima donnas. Lennon, in particular, just kept trying to be funny but I thought he looked like an immature juvenile. I just didn't find the movie funny at all, and I can't believe this is how most Beatles' fans wanted to see them portrayed. I guess I'll just respectfully disagree. Somehow, I missed the orgy dialog. Though, its been a very long time since I watched from start to finish.
|
|