I finished up Parts 2 & 3 of Get Back, Peter Jackson's epic Beatles documentary, a couple of days ago. I have less to say this time around since I already said a lot about Part 1, but here goes anyway:
- Lennon comes across quite differently than he did in Part 1. I don't know if this was the result of editing or of Lennon just being in a better mood, but he's much more engaged during the later stages of the session and just generally in a friendlier mood.
- Conversely, George Harrison comes off worse. That's a bid odd since it was in Part 1 that he stormed off, but throughout the rest of the session his mood is mercurial, and quite often grim and argumentative.
- Yes, Heather Eastman was adorable.
- I did not know that McCartney's original idea was for "Get Back" to be a political song condemning Enoch Powell and his band of anti-immigrant zealots. Interesting!
- Every genius has a debacle or three, but watching McCartney's obsession with the execrable "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" was hard to stomach. It was sort of like Picasso painting a bullfighter on black velvet and then spending weeks insisting that it would be great if he just changed that brushstroke over there and this bit of color here.
- The personality conflict between McCartney and Harrison is famous, so it's fascinating to hear McCartney—in a secretly recorded conversation—telling Lennon that Harrison's songs had improved to a point that they were as good as anything they themselves wrote, and it was high time to acknowledge that. Lennon appeared to be noncommittal about this.
- It's also famous that Harrison had long been exasperated by McCartney's constant stream of suggestions about how to improve his songs. I get that. At the same time, I kinda feel that when you get criticism from a guy who might be the greatest songwriter of the century, maybe you should just bury your frustration and take it.
And a final note on Part 1. I've read a lot of commenters going on and on about seeing the moment when McCartney first started picking out the melody that would eventually become "Get Back." And sure, from a historical standpoint it's interesting to see it. But to call it a rare private look at an "act of creation" is kind of silly. Nearly all acts of artistic creation come out of nowhere, after all. There's nothing special about this particular one.
For what it's worth, I thought the most interesting "moment" was the one where Lennon first mentioned that he was going to go see this guy Allen Klein. This is arguably the moment that led inexorably to the band's breakup.
I’ll take The Stones any day...
I will take the Kinks in this redraft of 60s rock n' pop bands.
HEAR! HEAR! TO THE BONE!
Love the Kinks, but I'd still have to rate the Beatles higher in overall musical accomplishment. Was glad Ray Davies got a knighthood.
Fortunately, we can take both. Don't have to choose between Miles Davis and Thelonius Monk either.
I love some of the beatles songs
But MORE than that I love the explosion of music that happened after they had arrived on the scene. I do not consider myself creative in a musical sense, so I admire those that have that sense.
They took music, and an industry and influenced them both for 2 decades, either directly with their songs or others that found their own niche through the beatles influence
"Nearly all acts of artistic creation come out of nowhere, after all. "
This is completely wrong. Artists who wait for artistic creation to come out of nowhere produce almost nothing. As a photographer, Kevin, and a good one, you know this. You don't randomly point your camera and hope for a good shot. You apply your experience to maximize the chance that the shot you are going to take is a good one. And you take lots of pictures to improve your chances even more. Then you use your experience to sift out the very best shots. The results are terrific, but they sure as hell didn't come out of nowhere.
As an amateur who teaches songwriting, I can tell you the same thing applies here. The more songs I write, the higher the percentage of songs that are good, and the higher the chance that one of them will be really good. Just like you, Kevin, I have a process to connect with that creative muscle, and using the process produces better results. This is not to say that a song won't hit me out of the blue,; that happens occasionally. But mostly, the act of creation is hard work.
I’d like to get back to where comments work reliably. So this is a test to see if these are where they once belonged…
You have every right to like or dislike any song you wish, such as "Maxwell's Silver Hammer". However, you are wrong.
Kevin's 100% correct. That tune doesn't even work as musical kitsch. It's ear torture.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but it is definitely a throwaway. Black humor was in vogue at the time, but Maxwell is too heavy-handed, literally and figuratively.
Of course "Enoch" wanted to flood Britannia with "friend's" from the middle east. Maybe banker Powell can help spur his blood brother.
My older teen brother annoyed me by playing Beatles 8track all night and listening to it on his headphones. It kept me awake. So I still hate their music. Some sort of brainwashing I guess. That awful strawberry crap song. Ugh. 😂
And my gosh they are all so freaking ugly. Nasty hairy ugly. If we saw them today we’d think they were crazy homeless dudes and run. 🤮
I’m sure it’s fine music, but I was traumatized by it as a little kid so… sorry.
The endstage Beatles look like harbingers of endstage Aaron Rodgers.
I guess this makes Jordan Love Yoko.
Considering that the alternative was Myron Floren on Lawrence Welk? Or maybe Cissy and Bobbie?
I'm glad the beatles came along
If I remember correctly, John and Yoko had a mercifully brief flirtation with heroin at that time, which might account for Johns lassitude on day one. Thankfully, they seemed to drop that idea quickly
I'm also relying on memory here, but I believe George's marriage to Patti Boyd was collapsing at that point, so some of his emotional volatility might be due to that
John & Yoko's heroin use went on & off for at least year.
No one knows what goes on behind closed doors, but I don't know that George's marriage was collapsing in January 1969. He wrote "Something" about Pattie for the next album. They split in 1974.
The cause of George's dissatisfaction is right there in the film. And it's also something he talked about frankly in later years. He was stuck at the "little brother gets one or two songs per album" position and saw no reason to stay there.
There's a moment in The Beatles Anthology where Paul is talking about how the first three came together. Paul notes that George is eight months younger and George chimes with some thing like "the biggest eight months in history."
There is a scene where George is talking to John and Yoko and says he'd like to do a solo album to get out all the songs he has backlogged and then they could still come back and be the Beatles. Yoko is really supportive, other reviewers have said she obviously had an ulterior motive since she wanted her and John to do an album too, but I say so what, that was the whole point they could have all done that.
As Kevin notes the real final event that led to the break-up was Allen Klein. I think if he hadn't come along there could have been an alternate timeline where John and Yoko do The Plastic Ono Band, George does All Things Must Pass and Paul does McCartney, then they get together again and do another group album, and kept doing that pattern. Basically they'd be Like Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
I hear all this talk about the Beatles being the greatest rock and roll band in history. I'm not even on board with their being a R&R band. They're closer to Gilbert & Sullivan - especially in the second half of their run - than R&R. Being drawn to edgier fare, I was not a fan. But by the same token, I admired their music; how could you not? It was like nothing else out there and unmistakably their own. Just not my cup of tea.
But I am looking forward to seeing Jackson's documentary. The only problem I have with that is that I religiously anti-Apple. Oops.
They were stylistically eclectic, is what they were. And, while their "second half" undoubtedly did include quite a lot of purely "pop" songs (as opposed to more identifiably "rock" tunes), there was plenty of the latter, too. Including "Get Back" , "Come Together", "Birthday" and quite a few others.
Why don't we do it in the road is a banger.
Yep. Plenty of others, too. Back in the USSR. While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Revolution...
"I've read a lot of commenters going on and on about seeing the moment when McCartney first started picking out the melody that would eventually become "Get Back." And sure, from a historical standpoint it's interesting to see it. But to call it a rare private look at an "act of creation" is kind of silly. Nearly all acts of artistic creation come out of nowhere, after all. There's nothing special about this particular one."
I think the point was we get to see it.
Exactly. Don't know why that's not obvious.
A couple caveats: I have not seen the documentary yet and of course musical taste is personal. That said for those of you who prefer the Stones or some other iconic rock and roll band of the period or later, you are both right and wrong. The Stones stayed in their wheelhouse, a rock and roll band . There are a handful of Stones songs where I feel, hey, if that's all they ever did it would be ok. Good work fellas. Gimme Shelter comes to mind. But with the Beatles I can think of 50 songs like that and many of them are astoundingly different from each other. They stopped being just a rock and roll band and became much more in their brief run of just 6 or 7 years. Less than 6 months after the Kennedy assassination they arrived in the US. Perhaps I am just a nostalgic boomer but man were they fun and felt like just what the world needed. John and George, gone too soon, thanks. Ringo, thanks. Paul ( I agree with Kevin, one of the most gifted songwriters of the 20th century), thanks.
These things are inherently subjective, of course. My own take on the Beatles is that what stands out about them more than any pop act before or since is the sheer volume of catchy, hummable songs. It was a jaw-dropping tidal wave of creative output. I don't think the quality of what they put out matched the average quality, complexity, sophistication and sheer musical richness of what followed in the 70s, though (think John/Taupin, Steely Dan, Fleetwood Mac, The Eagles, Pink Floyd, James Taylor, etc). But these later acts, of course, stood on the shoulders of the giants from Liverpool. And, occasionally what the Beatles produced wasn't merely catchy but truly sublime (eg, Day in the Life). But it was rarely overly complex. (Not that simplicity in music can't often be quite beautiful, of course; for my ears, though, it's simply not quite as satisfying or enjoyable).
I have nothing against any of the musicians you mentioned but I disagree with you on a couple counts. First, calling a great melody "hummable" suggests that this is not such a big deal. But really, it is a big deal. Most people, even talented musicians, can't write one that stays with you for longer than a commercial jingle . Of all the fine musicians you listed none of them wrote melodies as compelling as the Beatles. "Yesterday" comes to mind. Second, I think the Beatles are not so simple as you suggest. They used a wide variety of harmonies and are more rhythmically diverse than is often noted. Take "We Can Work it Out" . The song switches to 3/4 waltz time in the middle and then goes right back to 4/4 ("so, I will ask you once again", 123,123) and all the while using a pump organ as a key instrument. Or take Eleanor Rigby, again deceptively simple because it is so hummable but it switches from an Aeolian mode to Dorian mode and back. McCartney's ear in particular was really sophisticated even if he didn't have the theoretical background. Or take Lennon's "Because" which was based on his hearing The Moonlight Sonata and then inverting it.
But as you said, in the end it is very subjective. Music is for me the most compelling and moving art form. To quote Nietzsche (something I rarely do) "Without music life would be a mistake". (ok, Lighten up Frederic). I was 9 when the Fab Four arrived here so their journey to Abbey Road recorded before I turned 16 is inextricably tied to a formative period in my life. I listen to a lot of music these days, quite a lot of classical music and much less pop but I have not tired of the Beatles yet.
First, calling a great melody "hummable" suggests that this is not such a big deal. But really, it is a big deal...
Sure it's a big deal. Writing catchy songs is a rare talent, and it's why the few people on earth who can do it consistently became incredibly wealthy.
But, again, these things are inherently subjective, and I personally find the combination of hummability and richness/complexity that came later (in the 70s) to be, on the whole, more satisfying than what the Beatles produced (at least on average).
Of all the fine musicians you listed none of them wrote melodies as compelling as the Beatles. "Yesterday" comes to mind.
A nice, pleasant, song, to be sure. But can't hold a candle to something like "Tiny Dancer" or this little gem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3ywicffOj4&ab_channel=FleetwoodMac
To me, ninety percent of it boils down to the fact that John Lennon and Paul McCartney just happened to be two of the most talented songwriters of their time. It was the originality of the songs that made the Beatles what they were.
OTOH, Jagger and Richards were no slouches either, and the Stones would never have been what they were without those songs.
There are lots of great rock bands, but not so many with really great original material.
Some random thoughts after seeing all three episodes:
- Absolutely agree with smallteams comments on watching the creative process of songwriting by perhaps the greatest songwriter of the century.
- Paul and John dancing together in the control room listening to a playback is priceless. That plus the musical comradery in parts 2 and 3 as they prepare for the rooftop show are worth the price of admission.
- Billy Preston's contributions seemed to be an essential catalyst for group to complete the material needed for the rooftop show.
- I think George just came back to keep the peace and kept his powder dry for later projects (like Abby Road and All things must Pass). Note that none of his songs were played on the rooftop but his guitar contributions, especially the solo on Dig a Pony and the chord progression for "I Me My" were wonderful.
- Not sure how they used 2 Fender Twin Reverbs in that small Apple studio (very loud, clean amps with tons of headroom), but the guitar tone improved on the roof when they could open up those amps without their ears bleeding.
For sure! Twin Reverbs are seriously loud. I was likewise intrigued by the very modest vocal mics, Paul’s fantastic bass tone and the fact that Ringo played with a tea towel on the snare, even live.
"Nearly all acts of artistic creation come out of nowhere, after all. There's nothing special about this particular one."
Except that, you know, it was captured on film--and the ultimate result was a tune that probably millions of fans can sing or at least hum to this day.
Some ordinary things are quite extraordinary, even uncanny, when you focus on them. Artistic creation is one. I think that's what's behind the sense of gratefulness that many are feeling for this moment having been captured.
"I kinda feel that when you get criticism from a guy who might be the greatest songwriter of the century, maybe you should just bury your frustration and take it."
It's usually pointless to argue about personal tastes, but personal taste aside, a questionable, if not, silly contention.
First, I liked the Beatles, but I think their fame rests more on their unparalleled popularity, rather than any unequaled quality. Popularity is a poor measure of talent or success. Look around you. There is other music from that era that I'm a lot more likely to want to listen to than most Beatles songs, but that is just personal preference.
As to the greatest song writer of the 20th century -- ridiculous. First, hou have to eliminate all the songwriters who didn't work in rock and roll and other forms of mass appeal popular music. Cole Porter. The Gershwins. And so on. But then McCartney runs smack into Bob Dylan. Can anyone realistically contend that McCartney is a greater songwriter than Dylan? Putting aside his Nobel Prize (a bad joke and a poor choice for literature), Dylan covered a vastly wider range of styles than McCartney and his output has to be far greater. I don't think much of Dylan as a person, but there are many of his songs from the Beatle's era that are as good or better than anything McCartney wrote. And what did McCartney write after the Beatles that is considered an all-time classic. "Band on the Run?" "Maybe I'm Amazed." Yeah, personal taste. Meh.
I also think Paul Simon is/was a better songwriter than McCartney. Again, popularity is a poor measure of talent. But this question always gets answered in the context or rock/popular music, which leaves out quite a few great songwriters.
In the end, I suspect that the great songwriter Paul McCartney is really just half of a great songwriting duo Lennon/McCartney and had he not been a part of the Beatles, McCartney would rank much lower as a songwriter. But he was a part of the Beatles, so he gets credit where credit is due. And he ends up behind Dylan, subjectively and objectively, whether considered alone or with Lennon.