Going back and forth on this. To my understanding (outside of the orchestra), John, Paul, George and Ringo are the only ones playing or singing on the song, so many would say that, yes, it’s a Beatles song.
On the other hand, as Russell Root wrote on salon.com: the song lacks the real-time collaboration that defined the Beatles’ style, despite the deliberate attempt to include all four members on the track and without Lennon and Harrison here to provide their own artistic input on the final product, “Now and Then” can never truly be a Beatles song
Perhaps another way to put it is that “Now and Then” is not a song where a band got together in one place, worked on, made adjustments and changes, and then recorded a song. Instead, it’s a mix of parts contributed by four individuals which were recorded over a span of almost fifty years that were eventually molded together to sound like a band recording a song.
If the remaining Beatles say it’s a Beatles song, that’s good enough for me. Just like “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love.” And just like if the remaining Rolling Stones say each new song they put out is a Rolling Stones song, it’s a Rolling Stones song, even if they’ve got Beatles playing on them.
Now, is “Now and Then” a good Beatles song? Ehhhhh…
The OP’s cited remarks from Salon are absolutely on target. I’d add that there’s an issue of consent. After the Beatles broke up, John resisted any kind of reunion project for the rest of his life. Sentimentality aside, it doesn’t sit well to appropriate his work for that purpose.
John only ever recorded a demo. As far as I know, we don’t know what his intention for it was.
There are plenty of examples of “genuine” Beatles songs that do not involve contributions from all four Beatles; and when they did all contribute to a song, it wasn’t necessarily always “together in one place.”
This is pretty much my point of view. It’s a “real” Beatles song, albeit one with an asterisk if you want.
I’m thinking it’s a lot like the later Beatles songs where John would show up at Abbey Road, do a bit of a song, then a few days later George and Ringo would lay down guitar and drums, then Paul would drop by and play bass and piano and guitar and glockenspiel, and noodle around with it until it was a full-fledged track.
So, to me, it’s not an authentic “Beatles In Their Prime” track, it’s more a “Beatles When They Weren’t Getting Along” track.
As noted, there were plenty of songs that did not have all four Beatles’ contributions. Heck, there are songs with only one of the Beatles on the track. There are songs in their canon that one or more of the Beatles detested and would not have included if given their way (e.g., Maxwell’s Silver Hammer).
As also noted, the OP’s premise is simply flawed. While there are lots of examples of all four Beatles present and contributing to a song, there are a bunch where they didn’t. There isn’t “one true way” that Beatles songs were created. “Now and Then” is as much a Beatles song as “Yesterday,” for example, which was written by Paul alone, and with him the lone Beatle on the track.
“Yesterday” was written and released while the Beatles were still together as a band. The others knew about it and agreed that it would be released as a Beatles song.
“Now and Then” was written as a solo work by John at least five years after the Beatles broke up. There is no indication (AFAIK) that he thought of it as anything other than a John Lennon song.
The fact that Paul and Ringo contributed to its revival and release does not make it a Beatles song, any more than any of the other post-1970 solo works with performances by one or more of the other former Beatles makes them Beatles songs.
As @Exapno_Mapcase says, they are solo songs featuring one or more of the others.
I think I’d say that it’s a John, Paul, George, and Ringo song. John, Paul, George, and Ringo are not completely synonymous with “The Beatles”, as evidenced by the fact that everyone says that The Beatles started in 1960, even though all four of the members pre-existed that.
You illustrate part of the issue, which goes to collaboration—and to some extent—intent.
Stratocaster is correct to point out that “Yesterday” was a song where only one Beatle performed. However, my guess is that while Paul was the only one to perform, there was at some point a decision made by the group as a whole—with input from producers, managers, etc.–to say “Yes we want this to be a Beatle song and this is the way we want it to be presented.”
Tragically, no such collaboration was possible for “Now And Then”, so (for me anyway) that does create some doubt as to whether it can be truly called a Beatles song, but again, that’s just one viewpoint.
My understanding is that it wasn’t “written as” anything in particular: it was a demo, an unfinished rough draft or work in progress, and at the time of Lennon’s death, he didn’t know what, if anything, he was going to do with it.
It’s not inconceivable that, if Lennon had not been killed, he and the other three would have gotten together at some point and recorded more music as The Beatles. And that, if they had done so, they might have brought their unfinished songs and ideas for songs to work on together, and that “Now and Then” might have been among them. It’s also possible that it would have been released as a John Lennon song, with or without collaboration with some or all of the others; and it’s also possible that it would have languished forever on a cassette in John’s closet.
I don’t think the others had any say in it (not suggesting anyone had any objections). George Martin thought it was such a “Paul alone” work that it should be released as a McCartney solo single. He discussed it with Epstein who strongly disagreed and wouldn’t permit it. At that point of their careers, the Beatles didn’t make such calls.
Anyway, the point being that perhaps the most famous Beatles song of all could well have never been a Beatles song. There’s not some sacred process that blesses one output but not another.
There were Beatles songs that were written before there was such a group as The Beatles (e.g., “I’ll Follow the Sun”). There were songs written that the composer hoped would be on Beatles albums that weren’t, and were subsequently released as solo work (e.g., much of All Things Must Pass).
Not saying your opinion is without merit, but to me it’s splitting hairs. All the Beatles played on it. The surviving Beatles released it as a Beatles song. For me, that’s good enough.
Traveling Wilburys featured George, whereas “Now and Again” not only had no input from George, he actively disliked it, calling it “fucking rubbish.”
Wikipedia on the first attempt, in 1994, to remaster the demo.
The project was largely shelved because of Harrison’s dislike of the song due to its low-quality recording. McCartney later stated that Harrison called Lennon’s demo recording “fucking rubbish”.[22] McCartney told Q magazine in 1997 that “George didn’t like it. The Beatles being a democracy, we didn’t do it.”[23][24] Some such as Ben Lindbergh of The Ringer later speculated that, given Harrison had said “Apart from the quality, which was worse than the other two [‘Free as a Bird’ and ‘Real Love’], I didn’t think [‘Now and Then’] was much of a song”, he might have been critical of the song itself and not merely the recording quality. When the Beatles released their version of the song in 2023, Harrison’s widow Olivia issued a press release stating: “George felt the technical issues with the demo were insurmountable and concluded that it was not possible to finish the track to a high enough standard. If he were here today, Dhani and I know he would have wholeheartedly joined Paul and Ringo in completing the recording of ‘Now and Then.’”[25]
His widow and son can retcon that clear dislike into George being unhappy with the audio quality of the demo, but I’m not buying it.
My comment was about the sound, not about George’s involvement (or lack thereof).
I think when you shoehorn several different stars into a track, and all of them have to sing, and all of them are old and/or dead, it must inevitably fall into a certain groove that involves 4-part harmony and excessive track stacking. Hence the Traveling Wilburys effect.
Since all of the Beatles (or their estates/widows) consented, it’s legally a Beatles song. One intended to help sell a Beatles album. If it was a good song, I’d happily go along with that marketing fiction. But since it is not, I will never personally consider it as part of the Beatles oeuvre.
Ah, I see. I think I listened to a few TW tracks when they first came out (did they have more than one big hit?), but I don’t remember them very clearly.
I don’t know about single hits (“Handle With Care” or “End Of The Line” maybe? At least I heard these on the radio at the time), but their first album when Roy Orbison was still alive is a stone cold classic. One of the best, maybe the best of all supergroup albums, in all its restraint and charm. Considered what talent was in this band, they could have overplayed it, but they wisely didn’t.
