[Hijack]That’s not Kermit, who had his most distinctive features - the ‘keyhole’ eyes and collar - before Sesame Street went on the air, and never had the high pointed head. That looks to be a Green Anything Muppet.[/Hijack]
As to Ringo - I’ve grown to appreciate him more (and John less) as I’ve gotten older, personally. He was solid, and his contribution to the band is rather unfairly understated, IMO. He might not have written many songs, but that just means he doesn’t actually have any clunkers like the others - John and Paul, especially, of course, though George has a few - did, and when he was given a song to sing, he delivered a good performance.
[QUOTE=Tengu]
[Hijack]That’s not Kermit, who had his most distinctive features - the ‘keyhole’ eyes and collar - before Sesame Street went on the air, and never had the high pointed head. That looks to be a Green Anything Muppet.[/Hijack]
[/QUOTE]
Damn, I don’t want to get into Muppet primatology and paleontology, but that has got to be a proto-kermit.
[QUOTE=j666]
That was really … clever. Three little cultural digs in one …
[/QUOTE]
Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, Shakespeare/Francis Bacon controversy … but what’s the third?
I don’t get all the praise Lennon gets over McCartney. Listen to the songs on Double Fantasy and tell me they aren’t even more cheesy than what Jeff Lynne did with Harrison a decade later.
Lennon presented himself as being more edgy, and the ironic persona he carefully groomed seemed to support that, but actually, his output as a songwriter was maybe somewhat more edgy than what McCartney produced, but not remarkably so. I still think Paul writes better melodies, catchier tunes.
If commercial success is anything to use to compare, by 1980 McCartney had managed 8 #1 songs on the Billboard singles list and Lennon had 2 - the same amount as Ringo managed to get.
[QUOTE=Nonsuch]
That’s overstating it. “Yesterday” may not have been John’s cup of tea, but he had a good enough ear to recognize a great song when he heard it. If the other Beatles had disliked it that much, they wouldn’t have recorded it, or, having recorded it, would’ve quashed its release; Paul would have then simply given it to another artist. And all four Beatles were present during the recording of “Yesterday,” though not for the string overdub recorded several days later. (“I’ve Just Seen a Face” and “I’m Down” were cut at the same session with the full band.)
[/QUOTE]
And in John Lennon’s later solo song “How Do You Sleep?”, he ridiculously states “The only thing you done was Yesterday”, giving credit to that specific song.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
And in John Lennon’s later solo song “How Do You Sleep?”, he ridiculously states “The only thing you done was Yesterday”, giving credit to that specific song.
[/QUOTE]
It was a double jab because the next line is “And since you’re gone you’re just another day,” referring to Paul’s 1971 Another Day. That song could have actually been titled “Just Another Day” because that is the phrase always used in the song.
Doubly unfair, I always felt, because Yesterday was, to me, a minor effort from Paul, just something he tossed off on the spur of the moment. I never really liked it. I know it’s the most covered song of all time and all, I just never liked it. Meanwhile, Another Day is many-faceted and a personal favorite.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
Doubly unfair, I always felt, because Yesterday was, to me, a minor effort from Paul, just something he tossed off on the spur of the moment.
[/QUOTE]
Actually he worked on “Yesterday” on and off for about a year.
[QUOTE=Krokodil]
Back in the 90s, Rolling Stone did a chart of all the major Rock bands, with lines from earlier bands that had influenced them and lines to subsequent bands that had been influenced by them. Lots of lines went into the Beatles, but oddly, none came out of them. (Wings and Badfinger were not mentioned.)
While the Beatles undoubtedly made every teenager in the western world think “I could do that!”, not many major bands cite the Beatles as an influence. (The Stones, Clapton and Fleetwood Mac, who made undeniable careers playing in Lennon and McCartney’s backyards, were more apt to cite Robert Johnson and Blind Willie McTell than their own famous countrymen.) There’s more snob appeal in citing Iggy and the Stooges or Black Sabbath as inspirations than the Liverpool moptops.
[/QUOTE]
This is a joke, right? I could list literally thousands of post-Beatles bands who claimed them as an influence explicitly, up to this day. I’ve even got the back issues of Creem and Spin for verification.
[QUOTE=Charlie Tan]
I still think Paul writes better melodies, catchier tunes.
[/QUOTE]
Paul is the champion catchy tune writer of all time.
[QUOTE=Nonsuch]
Actually he worked on “Yesterday” on and off for about a year.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Nonsuch]
And all four Beatles were present during the recording of “Yesterday,” …
[/QUOTE]
Glad to have those cleared up. Nonsuch, in your opinion, what is a good reference for accurate facts regarding the songs?
[QUOTE=Krokodil]
There’s more snob appeal in citing Iggy and the Stooges or Black Sabbath as inspirations than the Liverpool moptops. (Post 36)
[/QUOTE]
If true, I don’t think it’s snob appeal so much as Beatles is just taken as a given in any listing. And I don’t think it’s true.
[QUOTE=Nonsuch]
Actually he worked on “Yesterday” on and off for about a year.
[/QUOTE]
Well yeah. But he dreamt the melody one night, and recorded it in a version called “Scrambled Eggs” next morning. The long delay was mostly due to disagreement about the songs arrangement, not because he was still working on it.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
Not to answer for him, but I’d suggest Revolution in the Head by Ian MacDonald
[/QUOTE]
I agree–I have read MacDonald’s book several times. In it, he says that (paraphrase) that Paul was horizontal and John was vertical musically and lyrically. Paul has incredible musical talent, but (IMO) an occasional tin ear for lyrics (tends to go with sappy/shallow–he’s more interested in the melody). John liked new things and understood the portent of lyrics better (meeting Dylan helped him here). But John has said that no matter what quality his songs are, “no one is going to be whistling the tunes” or something to that effect. Paul has a huge range; he did some classical work with George Martin, IMS. I just wish he’d sleep on some of his lyrics and revise them in the morning. The “worst” list is the list I tend to remember, so that’s my bad there. I do find John more interesting because he processed almost everything he experienced through his music. I sometimes wonder what he would have done with the shooting, if he hadn’t died. Paul does not do that–or not that I can relate to.
But re my “dash of John” comment that caused the “mystery” up thread–Paul himself said that John would often advise him to not change a word or to change one. I’m sure Paul did that for John as well, but it was John who had Paul keep “the movement you need is on your shoulder” in “Hey, Jude”. Paul was going to change it–to what, god knows, but it can’t really be improved upon. I agree with you, Mark Ryle re their collaboration. But once they were out on their own, Paul did not have any feedback from John in the creation stage. That’s what I meant.
Both complemented one another and egged one another on–either via collaboration (the early years) or competitiveness. Neither was/is as good alone. And they needed George AND Ringo as well–neither of which was a slouch when it came to pop music. They suffer in comparison because of the company they found themselves in, IMO. Harrison didn’t even start to write songs until Rubber Soul (I think–I don’t keep Beatle stuff at my finger tips), by then, John and Paul had achieved a level of mastery. I’ve never understood the contempt in which Ringo is held–with 2 prima donnas and one rising star, someone had to be the nice guy. He provided a steady rhythm, not only literally, but also in their lives outside the studio/concert. He was the one who left the band and all of them rushed to get him back. He was the oil for a lot of that band, and he wasn’t a bad drummer. Who cares if he could write songs? He had some good ones in the early 70s–he’s not a songwriter, he’s a drummer (and a great conductor for Thomas the Tank, btw).
George began writing songs by the early sixties (his first was on their 2nd album, With The Beatles–Don’t Bother Me). From then on his, output just increased, including composition on A Hard Day’s Night and Help!. Perhaps a “late bloomer” by Lennon/McCartney standards, but hardly a slacker.
[QUOTE=pepperlandgirl]
George began writing songs by the early sixties (his first was on their 2nd album, With The Beatles–Don’t Bother Me). From then on his, output just increased, including composition on A Hard Day’s Night and Help!. Perhaps a “late bloomer” by Lennon/McCartney standards, but hardly a slacker.
[/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair to eleanorigby, he didn’t write a song worth remembering until Rubber Soul.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
Well, to be fair to eleanorigby, he didn’t write a song worth remembering until Rubber Soul.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not fair to George though, unless you think that all the pre-Rubber Soul albums are not really worth remembering. I think Don’t Bother Me is the fourth best song on that album, and it would have possibly been the best on Beatles for Sale.
[QUOTE=mr. jp]
That’s not fair to George though, unless you think that all the pre-Rubber Soul albums are not really worth remembering. I think Don’t Bother Me is the fourth best song on that album, and it would have possibly been the best on Beatles for Sale.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, we definitely have different tastes, then. I can easily think of at least 5 songs from each album I prefer to “Don’t Bother Me”.
[QUOTE=devilsknew]
Damn, I don’t want to get into Muppet primatology and paleontology, but that has got to be a proto-kermit.
[/QUOTE]
Kermit’s actually one of the earliest Muppets, and there really isn’t a ‘proto-Kermit’ - he looked more or less the same and was called Kermit, right from the start.
The original Kermit, from 1955, lacked only his collar and flippers. He gained them both, and started being called a frog, in the late 60s.
That bit has a Green Anything Muppet (who are sometimes used for frogs, of course), with regular eyes - notable non-eye points to distinguish him from a Kermit - the chunky fingers (Kermit’s have always been long and thin), and the high pointed head (Kermit’s head has actually gotten taller and less squishy over the years). Really, being green and having a similar voice are the end of the similarities. Ah, the Muppet Wiki has a page for the bit.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
Oh, we definitely have different tastes, then. I can easily think of at least 5 songs from each album I prefer to “Don’t Bother Me”.
[/QUOTE]
Well, all I know is that in that Beatle’s special --the one that I have the entire video cassette tape set for (I cannot remember the name of it-was aired in the late 90s), George himself said that he didn’t start writing good songs until about Rubber Soul. He goes on to say that Paul and John had got their bad songs out of their system (paraphrase again–and his point is debatable), but he was still learning how to put a song together. He goes on to mention further along that he was writing songs for several years prior to sharing them with Paul or John.
“Don’t Bother Me” is ok. I prefer the unreleased, acapella (sp?) version of “My Guitar Gently Weeps” done by George in the studio on the soundtrack of this special. That, to me, is some of his best work–the released version is inferior, IMO. I thought “Something” was the most covered song, but I could be wrong. Sinatra covered it. (ugh-sorry, can’t stand Frankie).
Looking over the Best List posited upthread, I’d change some of them to worst: “Jet” and" Band on the Run". But tastes differ. Certainly they are not horrid songs, just a bit banal and slick for my tastes. I’d almost have the lyrics incomprehensible than trite. But then, whoever looks for deep meaning in pop lyrics is barking up the wrong tree to begin with. One reason I like Flaming Pie so much is that it seems that Paul dug a bit deeper for his lyrics. I tend to pay more attention to lyrics than perhaps most people do. It’s not enough for a song to have a good melody or guitar lick or “sound”–it has to have a brain, too. Weird, I know, but I think of the music as the body and the words as the brain, so to speak.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Well, all I know is that in that Beatle’s special --the one that I have the entire video cassette tape set for (I cannot remember the name of it-was aired in the late 90s),
[/QUOTE]
One reason I like Flaming Pie so much is that it seems that Paul dug a bit deeper for his lyrics. I tend to pay more attention to lyrics than perhaps most people do. It’s not enough for a song to have a good melody or guitar lick or “sound”–it has to have a brain, too. Weird, I know, but I think of the music as the body and the words as the brain, so to speak.