It just goes to show how minds and memories work. We think of our memories as if they were a video playing back.. and we know they are nothing of the sort.. No one has to be lying or being deceptive.. That's how the individuals perceived and remembered events and as time passed they colour even further.. Its great that tapes exist that give us a more objective look at what really went on
One other thing is that I believe that John enjoyed back then knocking almost everything that was Beatles. I think that he felt that the performance “art” that he was influenced by Yoko was serious art, so knocking Beatles music was a way of elevating his new-found art. He later came around to change a lot of those views.
Yes, he did everything to destroy what he viewed a the "Beatles myth" but this was to boost his career and profile with regard to his work with Yoko. He could have had both without trashing one. He was taking a page out of the Allan Klein playbook.
If Mark Lewisohn hadn't been so through in his writing we never would have become privy to the true picture of what really went on within this group's history. Believe it or not I just purchased Tune In Volume 1 and I'm amazed at the detail. Thank you for for your channel and its depth as well; shine on...
The 60s and the Beatles magic in the 60s, will never be created again. All this is marketing and sales, for me, as a fan, it brings back memories of a world that was connected, and John Paul George and Ringo were the focal point...
As part of my reflections on the Get Back documentary, I re-listening to the Pop Goes the 60s Let It Be/Get Back related topics that are posted. Doing that I am rediscovering some interesting points that are putting Get Back/Let It Be in context. Agree with you and the whitewashing comments of 8 day a week, and apple. The Get Back material is putting a new perspective. As usual thanks Matt for excellent material!
I have to re-watch my own videos to remember what I said! Yes, it all connects and I'm finding that once these connections are made, the understanding of the whole picture comes much easier. Thanks for the comment, Marty!
One year later and we're still waiting, although we can be grateful that its release is imminent. Just caught your channel and have been curating your catalog. I enjoy your style - objective, insightful with fun analysis.
My personal belief is the comments in 1970, as well as the tone of Let it Be (both the movie and the Spector album), were an attempt to "demonize" Paul by Allen Klein. There is so much coming out these days, recorded from those times and not from anger at the time or fading memories from today, that tells a different story from what we heard and imagined for 50 years. Thank you to you and to Mark. Looking forward to Peter's documentary.
@@popgoesthe60s52 yes, between Klein and Jann Wenner, it's amazing how Paul has stayed the course. So glad he has lived long enough to begin to see the record being corrected.
@@heathwood3471 Doesn't matter. If the album was looked at by the four as an "obligation", it wouldn't have turned out as great as it did. Also, they really didn't think it would be their last one.
@TheRWE12 - I've never heard of "Let it Back". You were probably thinking of their final released album, "Get Be". At least, that's what it was called in my universe. Perhaps you're from an alternate universe?
Thanks SO MUCH Matt! I'm LOVING your channel...your observations, reasoning, insight - it's all right on with me. I've been a big Beatles fan since back in the '60s...used to take all the money I made mowing yards - about .50 a yard if I recall, to the local record shop to buy anything I could find Beatles. Even bought the German version of 'I Want To Hold Your Hand'...aside from a couple Glen Campbell records every penny went to Beatles 45s and LPs. So I've been a fan and following them for a long time and thought I was kinda sorta knowledgable - but I'm learning so much from you and your work. Thanks a bunch!
Thanks for this. Very reassuring. One thing about the Howard film: I felt it accomplished what it set out to do and to expose millions to the thrill we all felt at the time.
Greatest band in the world with growing pains, exhaustion and boredom. In hindsight they should have produced four solo albums in early 69 and regrouped a year later.
i think this guy is a bit hyper obsessed with this topic. Within a few months, they went from a band fighting, to a band no longer functioning as a band, to guys showing up laying down tracks to the estranged business relationship, moving on and so on.
keeping a couple together over 10 years is hard enough. just imagine a band. i had a band that lasted 21 years, keeping one member about 20 years too long. It only ended due my getting a sweet job offer 700 kilometres away. after that i went into production, eventually building a studio in the basement of my home. i produced up and comers mostly, plus solo work. Then the band bug got me again for one reason. In spite of the pitfalls, when everyone locks into the groove, and all is kicking off....there's just no ther feeling i can equate to it...so this oap is back at it, even being disabled, the passion for music never dies.
To me it’s just giving a more balanced view. It can’t change what we have seen before because that stuff happened . It just shows that manipulation was around in those days as well and the director decided to show the negativity. During anyone’s time together you would see both sides. I don’t mind seeing the positive side because it’s also true. If people are worried it will change there view on it then they are very fragile.
Every once in a while the Get Back film pops up on UA-cam and I always watch it. It has its low points but I always feel it ends on a positive note. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Peter Jackson film. The film transfers look amazing. PLAY LOUD
I always thought the Beatles viewed the film with the feelings they had towards each other in 1970 and not early 1969. And carried that feeling when talking about it in the later years.
I have to say that how people see Let It Be (if they have. It is probably the least seen movie they ever did) depends on how John has spoken about it. I saw it again recently. With the exception of the row with George, which was well edited, it's the movie the band wanted to make: a film about them rehearsing for a gig. In fact, I'm sure they had many rows over years during rehearsals and recordings.
I have kind of a different view of the original LET IT BE film. I am 67 and the original film came out my last year of high school. I went to see it in theaters twice that year it was released. I loved it! I never got this "band breaking up, downer vibe" so often described when they bring up this film. Apart from the George -Paul ROW, which was brief , which I looked at as a slice of reality, I really did not see much discord or bad vibes in the movie. To me it was all very cool, informative to see behind the scenes , whic had NEVER BEEN seen before of the Beatles getting songs together and in many places absolutely joyous! The rooftop, the jams particularly you got this exhileration from watching them. The only thing I can say is when I saw it with a few friends the second viewing that year everybody disliked YOKO's presence, I was willing to give her a chance but a lot of folks had the WTF attitude about her being in virtually every shot with John. Looking forward to the Jackson film !
Fascinating! These video clips confirm that memory is colored by so much more than a dry chronology of events. George Martin recalls a process of endless struggle while the session tapes reveal a dynamic of fairly productive teamwork. Martin's memory may have been charged by the accumulative effect of conflict that predated the sessions.... Really looking forward to the Peter Jackson film!
At the time of the Let It Be/Get Back sessions all The Beatles were using a lot of drugs, even heroin and cocaine. Leaving aside whatever else there is to say about drugs, be it positive or negative, one thing that is certainly true is that they make your perspective on things a lot more subjective, and a lot less objective. When we see old film clips or hear old tapes, that's an objective viewpoint ( how it's edited is another matter ), but obviously, we can't be inside the Beatles heads to see how it seemed to them. So it's quite feasible that their individual recollections of those sessions are quite different to the (apparent ) reality.
I’m not taking the position of defending drug use (I think consenting adults should probably be allowed to do anything they want that doesn’t hurt others but that’s an entirely different discussion), but I found something you said interesting. It’s impossible for your or anyone’s perception to be objective. The fact that you perceived something, and obviously report what you perceived (though this can be that internal dialogue as well as sharing it outside of yourself), you’ve lost objectivity. Any opinions are subjective. If you hear someone’s report they may strive for objectivity but it’s an impossible standard (at least when there were still proper journalists). So basically even hearing all the 1st hand accounts by the subjects (in this case the Beatles themselves or whomever) you’re still hearing their subjective views at the time. There is a record by the Beatles called Let it Be - that’s an objective statement. You can get more specific but as soon as you consider feelings, opinions, and the like you’re in the realm of the subjective. Maybe this isn’t you, and I don’t want to impose or imply I understand your personal intent. In general people use this misrepresentation of “objectivity” to say a movie or record or some art piece is objectively “great” or “well made”. Subjectivity is not a negative thing. You could describe how you perceived a sunset and it may make no sense to someone else. If it’s run through the filter of our minds, basically, it’s no longer purely objective. I hope people start to understand the difference, because I believe (so my subjective opinion (redundant statement I know but you see my point)) people use that feeling of “this is an objective opinion” to be jerks and gate keepers (the later statement doesn’t apply to your comment at all but is merely where I seee other take this “belief” on their understanding of objectivity.. nothing about your statement was negative at all; and further I hope you don’t see what I’m saying here as negative). If I have one intention in writing this is to reach anyone one who does believe they have the ability of objectivity to consider what these words still mean... it’s not yet a “literally - definition 2” situation, but could be if we don’t stop it, lol. Cheers
At the writing of this comment the movie has been out awhile. It was fantastic, a bit lengthy but worthwhile. I don’t think it was overly upbeat but much better in tone than the original.
So I love blackberries... but often Blackberries are picked very unripe , hard and sour because ripe blackberries mold. When you buy a basket sometimes the whole box is ehhh... but Ill eat one , two, three baskets for one great blackberry, Yum! So worth it! The Roof top is delicious!
Since I discovered your channel some weeks ago, I have been haphazardly been working my way through your videos. I think we are in agreement that from the beginning up through the Hunter Davies" authorized biography, that the Beatles were very conscious of the narrative they chose to present to the outside world. My question for you is why would John Lennon, George Harrison, and George Martin choose to present their various narratives of the January 1969. I infer from reading some interviews after Pepper that there was some friction and pushback from the band against George Martin over the amount of credit George Martin should receive for their studio years successes along with his earlier cashing in with his orchestral interpretations of the Lennon-McCartney songbook. John and George certainly were motivated to escape the confines of the Beatles by then. The Ringo split that he was eager to play live is interesting because he was certainly in the John and George orbit both in his embrace of Allen Klein and his appearances on John Lennon's early solo work. It is certainly interesting to see how each of them have their own biases and axes to grind not to mention faulty memories. We're looking at you, Geoff Emrick. One of the problems with leaning so heavily on the Nagra tapes to infer upon the health of the band's relationships is that the other sessions lack similar documentation. Perhaps the row that led to Harrison playing bass on She Said, She Said was par for the course. FWIW, I do not think so, but we really lack enough data points for an accurate comparison of their working relationships. I am also curious what your opinion is concerning the inner Beatles circle concerning what they considered a huge betrayal with the publication of Peter Brown's biography. I want to thank you (and to curse you also) for reawakening my Beatles obsession. I apologize for the length of this data dump, and I hope that you appreciate that I take your work seriously. I also find your other content interesting and informative. You put in a lot of though into your pieces, and I appreciate your dogged quest to avoid leaning on clichés and tired myths. I also appreciate the varied album covers on the top row. You have quite an eclectic collection. I also noticed that one of your thumbnails for the Rolling Stone Greatest Guitarist Lists you are holding an acoustic. So I'm curious, what is that guitar's story and what kind of music do you like to play? All the best,
Thank you for the comments and questions, Brian. The biases the ex-Beatles and their inner circle are many. The biggest story in pop culture history lends itself to the biggest agendas. Careers were made or broken with an affiliation with the Beatles. This is a condensed view, but where John is concerned, his retelling of the Beatles story in the 1970s gets negative the moment he hooks up with Yoko (i.e. his assessment of the White Album: “We broke up then”). George Martin was not the producer of record for Let It Be, and was only present at those sessions for a few days, so his retelling of the sessions must be viewed with proper perspective. As for George, the fight between he and John was probably the most hair-raising event of that time, and since it reportedly had to do with Yoko’s presence, it may have had a lasting effect on their friendship. I believe the Let It Be project simply became the “whipping boy” and main focus for the reasons given why the band broke up. Obviously, there is lot’s to go into, but you make an important observation in that if we had “nagra reels” for every album, I would wager they would all sound the same. The Beatles inner circle accounts are also fraught with agenda. You allude to the Emerick vs. George Harrison bitching, etc. Even George Martin quit talking to his long term friend Mark Lewisohn when the story of how the Beatles got signed tarnished the George Martin version of said story. It takes proper historiography methods, which are scientific, to sift out the bullshit we’ve been handed for over 50 years. As for my guitar playing, I’m an amateur player and play for myself mainly. I wish I had more time to practice! I have more videos coming that are dedicated to scrutinizing the tired Beatle narratives so stay tuned!
It's funny how the four unrelated pictures on the right of the article @about 0:23 altogether look very similar to the "Let It Be" album cover. Wonder if that was intentional.
To me, the bleak part of Let It Be was the Twickenham portion. The place was a draughty aircraft hanger-like facility that was dark and not conducive to creativity and good music making. Now, if they argued and bickered off mike and off camera, we'll never know but the Nagra reels and the 56 hours of footage that wasn't used for the original film will dispel the idea that it was all just a horrible experience with no upside.
Yeah... plus, I think we always have to watch that Twickenham footage with the understanding that having the camera on you for that long makes it not a relaxed atmosphere.
For years and years I have been arguing for a re-edit of the Let it Be footage. The Let it Be film failed on many levels. JL is having a ball on the rooftop. Come On! I can't wait to see the real thing.
Yes! All the body language between John and Paul on the rooftop was a reminder of the early days. They were an actual playing band again, and having a good time doing it. And George seemed to be enjoying himself too.
I love the line about how editing can revision history. To echo another comment below about the subjectivity of the Beatles at the time and how we need to keep that in mind when evaluating how positive or negative January of ‘69 was, one of the two fellows from the Completely Beatles podcast once commented that in one way, the Beatles’ opinion on things should be taken with a grain of salt precisely because they were there. They were stuck in the middle of it and subjectively biased, let alone the effects of drugs consumed by them.
That's a good observation - the Beatles have turned out to be some of the most unreliable sources for their own history due to their personal biases and subjectivity. Some fans simple cannot grasp this.
I agree I was disappointed with the Eight Days A Week documentary. I’m also finding a lot of people being critical of the new Let it Be movie coming out later for being too positive. I’m just excited to see more Beatles material myself. Let it Be is one of my favorite albums and I think is a little underrated compared to Abbey Roads and Sgt. Pepper.
Jason Berger I’m surprised at how people can say the new Peter Jackson Get Back movie is too positive without even seeing it. The Disney name also doesn’t help. Rational and reasonable viewers should be able to balance both and decide for themselves. It will be interesting to both see the new cut and hear reactions.
WWWWwwwweellllll, in the interest of fairness, I think Lewisohn may have been a bit of a literalist as regards George Martin's quote that "take 62 may have been it, but take 47..." That was Martin's humor. I think he was exaggerating to be funny. Remember, their humor's brilliance was that it was so subtle. Another example is after The Beatles did several (like maybe a dozen) takes of George's "All Things Must Pass," Paul gets in a little dig by playing a piano ditty, and then starts singing, "Over and over again!" over and over again. But my all-time favorite example of subtle Beatles humor was during that press conference in '64, when they were asked, "You all sing, but how come you never all sing together?" To which George answers completely straight-faced (and in fact, nobody laughed), "well, we usually start together."
Matt, I just wanted to thank you for making me aware of marl Lewisohn's "Tune In." To say that that it is fabulous would be damning it with faint praise. I've loved family histories since sitting on my grandad's knee, so the beginning was a delight - and an eye-opening insight to how much the Irish influence changed the culture. I'd buy a sociological history of Liverpool by Lewisohn if he ever wrote one. By going deeper into the upbringings of 'the boys,' I picked up a better sense of why each one behaved as he did. By describing the loutish, petty criminal activities of the core three, Lewisohn made me think that their complaints about money had a certain amount of karma kicking back in. But lewisohn also made clear there was a bond between them which allowed each individual the brotherly help needed to get them through times of doubt. And Lewisohn shows that the Beatles' overnight success took a lot of time and effort. How many groups can last that long without any tangible rewards? Now I know why everyone is howling for part 2.
Hey Wylie, yes as we wait for Vol II, I am re-reading Vol I. Each volume takes about 10 years and though that would mean that vol 2 should be out in 2023, which ain't gonna happen so I'm hoping for a Christmas release in 2024. Strangely enough, there is a small legion of Tune in critics that suggests Lewisohn has a pro-Lennon and anti-McCartney bias. Did you pick up on that at all?
Matt, Thanks for a quick response! As I said, none of the 'core three' comes away without major blemishes. I found it a bit appalling that George 'Taxman' Harrison could buy a new guitar for 90 pounds, only pay 70 of the total, and blithely forget about his debt. While McCartney is called out for what I would deem behaving superficially, Lennon is the one who walked with an amp from the art school, destroyed a borrowed guitar, ... without being held accountable. And as self-proclaimed leader, John was happy to tell people what to do, but seldom shouldering his own responsibilities. To turn over the firings of Ken and Pete to managers who did not want them fired showed John (and his redoubtable cohorts) to be gutless. This is what bothered me most about the early days. Stealing, to me at least, shows a certain disrespect, but the failure to be honest enough to fire someone is somewhat loathsome to me. (Not that I am claiming to be faultless mind you). Despite following the Beatles since '64, I do not have a favorite Beatle, so (I like to) think that I judged 'the boys' by Lewisohn's writings. All three were selfish (self-centered my be a more apt term) to one degree or another - which I think that Lewisohn portrays as a potential strength in oreder to succeed - I don't think any impartial observer could say that Lewisohn was biased for or against any of the three. Readers partial to one Beatle or another will, no doubt, take offense at any asperion cast on their favorite. But Ringo (or Richie or Ritchie) came through as a person anyone would like. But all four were also charming and caring which Lewisohn portrayed quite well in his description of the younger girls relations with individual Beatles. Due to not very good eyesight, I listened to this onAudible, so there were no Footnotes nor photos. I imagine that I missed quite a bit there. (And I still don't see episodes 99 & 100 available. Your episodes are too good to miss!) @@popgoesthe60s52
@@wyliesmith4244 Hey Wylie! Thanks for the rundown. I am noticing the uber-McCartney fans (some of which are podcasters) getting butt hurt over miniscule instances that make Paul "look bad" and of course being uber-McCartney fans, they blame the writer. More to come on this topic. Episode #100 was supposed to be the full review of my and Lord Heaton's review of Sometime in NY. I ended up showing that episode much later and probably forgot to deal with an episode #100.
One thing about Paul that I meant to mention was the way that he emphasized the age gap between himself and George. Maybe a few Paul fans were upset with this, but the joke is that Paul, himself, perpetuated the age difference question. He is on camera (in Anthology if memory serves) that he was a year and a half older than George. Untrue. It's more like eight months. I'll let the psychologists out there decide what Paul's faulty math means.@@popgoesthe60s52
John once said that if you miss the Beatles all you have to do is take an equal number of songs from their solo albums and voila you have yourself a Beatles album meaning that's what was happening from the White album on.
@@elchichosantana6410 I think Lennon meant that right after the breakup, you could take a song from Plastic Ono Band, McCartney, All things must Pass and compile a new Beatles album because the songs on these albums were “Beatles era” songs. They were the songs that would’ve appeared on a new Beatles album had that album materialized in 1970/1971.
Yes, and yes: just release the secret argument tapes. Within a few months, they went from a band fighting, to a band no longer functioning as a band, to guys showing up laying down tracks to the estranged business relationship, moving on and so on.
Hey Matt...interesting you did this a year ago and we still have six months to wait! I hope we get a balanced picture....yes they didn't argue too much but I'm sure there were negative undertones eg presence of yoko which I hope is not swept under the carpet
I do hope for something balanced that fairly represents that month. Lots going on, and I hope we get a better view of Yoko interacting with the proceedings. The Nagra reels are quite revealing, so that will be a good way to test. Thanks again, John!
Matt, over the weekend I watched almost 3 hours of film clips from the Get Back sessions posted by someone on UA-cam. Frankly I was shocked at how much the guys seemed to be enjoying practicing and recording the songs that eventually ended up on the Let It Be album. Granted there was a difference between the Twickenham footage and the Apple Studio footage but not really much. Heck, the guys even seemed to enjoy playing behind the screeching of Yoko on a couple of occasions. This footage contained none of the sullen George or the miserable and bored John we have all heard about. If anything, John seemed to been enjoying himself more than any of the others. The only people who seemed bored were Ringo and George Martin. You mentioned in one of your earlier videos that there was a big controversy over a live performance but even though George says on these films that he was against it, it didn’t seem like it was all that big a deal to him. What Ringo said in your clip is in the footage I viewed. I am beginning to think that we were all sold an erroneous account of those days by the ex-Beatles and the original film’s editors.
Yes, this Film/Album was everyone's "whippin' boy" in the aftermath of the breakup. Lazy rock journalists have enlarged the idea that this period was "miserable" to the point that it was (an still in some circles) accepted as undisputed fact. Those who still push this narrative will look more and more foolish as the realities of this period are revealed. Thanks for the comment!
I'm certainly looking forward to the new film since I've seen outtakes that show them having more fun than the movie showed. However, I don't see how Lewisohn can say there were no arguments and I'm not even talking about the Paul/George thing that it's the movie and which I think is overblown when it comes to an argument. We know that John and George had a physical altercation with George quitting the band ("See you 'round the clubs"). So there were certainly tense moments during the month as one would expect for that time in their career. The one thing that I've heard about the Jackson film is that it will show the complete Rooftop Concert. That's 42 minutes out of a 120-minute movie dedicated to just the rooftop. I don't mind having new shots of the rooftop in the new movie, but the whole concert should be a bonus for the Blu Ray which would leave more time in the movie for footage of the recording sessions...
Yeah, the no arguments comment is too strong because I do hear tension, if not arguments. As for the John/George fight I don't think any of that was recorded. I assume that incident happened out of camera view. Here Paul also looks like the bad guy in the film when it is believed that George "quit" due to the row with John over Yoko.
It wasn't filmed as Lindsay-Hogg saw it coming and ordered the cameras off. However, I believe you can hear it on the A/B rolls or at least part of it before the cameras go off and then you hear George leave. The funny thing about the Paul/George argument is how it has been overblown over the years. You'd think they threw punches the way it's talked about. In the history of band fights in rock 'n' roll that you can compare it to, it's pretty peaceful....
@@billdufour1630 Yes, other band's behaviors have been way worse than the Beatles. It appears more clarity is coming as actual historians replace the Beatle fiction writers.
Actually he says they weren’t arguing “all the time”. But I agree that the way he phrases it sounds like they never argued. Clearly they were arguing off camera during meetings and lunch etc
Honestly, the best, most authentic documentary about The Beatles is still the documentary called The Complete Beatles from 1982. It's short, it doesn't over sentimentalise the story and it doesn't promise anything over than the story in a chronological order. Sometimes less is more. By the sounds of it, Peter Jackson's film is going to give us a different perspective than the original film, I don't think we can expect anything more. I recently watched the original film and honestly, apart from the short argument between Paul and George, I still find the film to generally be an uplifting experience which culminates in the great rooftop performance
I love The Compleat Beatles. I taped it in the 80s and watched it many times. Yes the Peter Jackson film will probably follow with revisiting "why did they break up" which could use some better answers! Thanks for the comment, Anthony.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thanks Matt. I'm really enjoying your channel since discovering it earlier this month. I too remember recording The Complete Beatles on VCR back in the day. Hope you enjoy the Peter Jackson movie. I agree with your comments about "Eight Days A Week". I saw it in the cinema and it was great to see the footage of The Beatles on the big screen with excellent sound, but it was a bit saccharine once watched a few times more. Since Neil Aspinall died, Apple has lost it's soul. Good luck, thanks for all your hard work.
So ... were John, George & Mr. Martin lying? No. Often times it can feel worse than it seems but the truth is both are right, as in most things. If they feel it was painful... it was. It's relative. Imagine the sessions before Let It Be. Also, they were doing something different than they have ever done before so it's no surprise George Martin was less happy. P.S.: I love "Eight Days a Week" for what it is, don't discount because things because they aren't what they were never intended to be. I thought they might have more new information than they did but they didn't and I still enjoyed it.
my sentiment is IF the bad blood from that argument was that serious and damaging..I just don't see how the four guys would..or could've come back together again for Abbey Road..or even the rooftop performance. So yeah...i'm also hoping for a much genuinely more positive overall vibe to get from Peter Jackson's take...and I cannot wait for it.
I like your comment on eight days a week.. there was nothing in it that we didn’t know... yes the girls screaming.. Ringo had to look at their bums.. and all the other stuff we’ve heard.. what bothered me as well is people continually asked the same questions they’ve been asking since 1964... I wanted to know stuff like.. who created the set list.. was there songs you would have like to have inserted.. did ever have an equipment malfunction.. break a string .. amp breakdown... did you ever want to slow it down and have a proper show.. not the same rhetoric.. was it loud.. could you hear yourselves...
I may do a review of the Eight Days A Week film that would challenge a bit of what you suggest. People are up in arms at the prospect of "white washing" the upcoming Peter Jackson 'Get Back' but Eight Days a Week got a total pass! Most Beatle fans just repeat narratives that have been driven into their skulls. I aim to upset that apple cart!
@@popgoesthe60s52 totally agree.. I find your videos enlightening and the 2 parter on All things must pass was epic... I personally believe IMHO... that MLH... took that one argument between Paul and George and built a theme around it... he took every sad bored mundane film clip and put it together... not all but a lot... but my biggest biggest pet peeve of the entire let it be movie.. is the godforsaken street scenes.. you got The Beatles playing a live concert and they’re showing street scene... thanks for that solo on I Dig a Pony George.., but I was too busy watching MLH film a guy with the worst combover in history while you played.... so I’m hoping none of that is in the film...
Nice little precis of Mark's Dutch podcast. Like you, I am really really looking forward to Peter Jackson's version. My hope is that one of the packages they release includes the original film. I went to my local cinema in the '70's and was able to see it in context. I really want to get a DVD version of it just for completeness. BUT, like you, since Neil Aspinall's death, Apple have definitely become an arm of P.McC Esquire and I worry that all things will be skewed in the opposite direction from Michael Lindsay-Hogg's cut. It seems to me that all the recent CD re-masterings seem to strangely have the lower end frequencies bought so much more to the fore. Not at all like my mono vinyl issues where the sonic range seems to be a little better balanced and, from what I understand, all 4 signed off on the final mixes.
Apple is in no way an arm of P.McC. He is merely one of 4 entities that control what gets released. Unfortunately Apple behaves like an out of touch corporate entity, so whatever biases come out, it will be a corporate spin. A DVD re-release of the 1970 Let It Be film was prepared for release in 2002 (which by the way, doesn't make Paul look very good) was purportedly nixed by the George Harrison camp, not McCartney.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Hmmm... of those 4 entities 2 are represented by their spouses and it would be interesting to see how much input they had with Giles whilst the anniversary editions were being mixed. I suspect that the cute ones voice was considerably louder. As for the DVD version of Let It Be, yup I was aware of that but The Beatles website doesn't list it for sale and I'm not going to fork out £60.00 for a copy from a random second hand dealer hence my hope for it to be included with the new one. Stay safe. PS: Isn't it great to be a Beatle fan and have these spirited discussions.. :)
Its fascinating looking back at The Beatles in 1969.As far as I'm concerned the Let It Be film was technically poor. Most of it was too dark and the sound quality was never what it could have been. Why should band rehearsals be fun in the first place? Its hard work. The Beatles were obviously getting tired of being Beatles. So Peter Jackson may have found some film of them enjoying some of the sessions as they should. Fact is they lost their discipline as a unit, and split up as a consequence.
If John and George remembered the "Let it Be" recordings were unhappy times, just of what it must have been prior to those sessions. They must have been giggling all the time. But none of our memories are truly accurate.
truth will be hard to find out... we will never know it for sure i was asking myself the same question ; if the beatles were so "happy" according to Peter Jackson and Lewisohn point of view, why did the michael lindsey hogg original movie show this dark side of the group in the first place. i kinda think intuitively that as goes the saying ; there's no smoke without fire to me, they are rewriting history for commercial purposes. that"s too bad because the real fans, are more interested in knowing the truth. but the truth is ugly and does not sell.
Thanks for chiming in, Theo. The truth is hard to nail exactly, but I would add that the "truth" about the Beatles, or a more balanced telling of the history, DOES sell. It is certainly a new perspective and there is a hunger among Beatle fans for it. Jackson and Lewisohn didn't say they were "so happy" during Let It Be, just that they were surprised that it wasn't predominately negative - a real surprise to many of us. To have two sides gets us closer to the truth instead of just showing one side. As for your question re: why Lindsay Hogg's film is so dark, one explanation is that the Beatles instructed him to do "warts and all film " which may account for a lot of the fun stuff not being used originally. I appreciate the comment.
Hi Mark, if you can get a copy of Hunter Davies 1968 book on the Beatles,the first edition that is, which I read on it's release. You will be able to correct a mistake on dates of birth, which you made.
Even if it is a bit joy-washed, it's okay. The audience for this film will mostly be people who have also watched the original Let it Be, and if you've watched both you kind of get a more realistic inside. It will be great for this film to be much more balanced, but I think they might be striving to see that side that everyone undermined. Decades of reports only depicting the awful side, and even the Beatles themselves saying this early on after the breakup- it might be good just to be mostly the good times, even if it's not particularly true: you can then pair it nicely with everything else. Though, I trust Peter Jackson will do a great job- he's a good man and a good filmmaker, and I'm pretty sure he's quite dedicated to telling the historical truths of The Beatles.
I hope there is balance within the Jackson film or he will be accused of 'whitewashing.' I think he is aware of this so we may get something quite special. Thanks for the comment!
Interesting analysis! I recall when 'Let it be naked' came out as a CD that people were suggesting Paul McCartney was getting personal revenge on Phil Spector and that it was a vanity project.
McCartney has said that after recording ended he was not involved and left the production and finishing off the Spector - when he heard the finished album specifically his songs - he was pissed off to say the least hearing Spector's heavy handed production With Naked he wanted the songs to sound how he thought it should have sounded and it was signed off by the others and Yoko. Apparently Spector was the worse for wear by that time !
I think it was a vanity project than simply being an artist that wanted his song(s) to be the way he originally intended (as well as the album as he felt it was originally intended) and had the chance to correct things. :)
the get back /let it be sessions , have been around on loads of boots , since the 70s onwards, [i remember sweet apple trax /the black album , etc , [the n the mid late 80s loads more boots in exceleent quality , also the day by day series, [most hardc ore fans , have certainly heard , some or a lot of the sessions [[i think obviously it got better after they lefyt twickenham
I think all the Beatles may have been battling boredom going in to LET IT BE. That's why no one had any cohesive direction on it. It's funny how Lewisohn skates around the "bootleg" issue here. Didn't anyone ever put two and two together and realize that the big wealth of Beatle boots happened...I don't know....AS he was doing research at EMI for his book???? I'm not saying he DID them, but he certainly didn't always lock the vault door, OR hide his keys to it very well.
First love your videos. Just wanted to say that Mark listened to the studio interaction with the band but there is the Hogg footage that paints a different story. Especially with Yoko's interference by being in the studio etc. I doubt any of this will make the new film version but it is here for you to see and hear. Once again love your videos! Please do one on the band The SEEDS! ua-cam.com/video/r0mpbX4SaY0/v-deo.html
Thank you, John. I've got all that audio around the lunch table and will elaborate on this scene in my next video. There is no video of that as far as I know, so that video was pieced together to look like there was accompanying video. This is consistent to how Lewisohn describes it as "no arguments, etc." This is an honest conversation on accessing George after he had left. Obviously this has finally become an up front issue that, by the way George contributed to, so there is a lot to unravel that goes back to the teenage years. Some people put all the blame at this time but there is way more to it than that. So you like the Seeds! Yes - they are on my list but my list is quite long, so stayed tuned!
@@popgoesthe60s52 thanks for the reply and I am obsessed with your channel so keep them coming cos I’m caught up! Was curious on your thoughts on the channel I linked. Very interesting and the footage he has of Let it Be I doubt will ever make the reissue or Paul’s itchy dick comment! Shame! Thanks again.
Someone said that thee it takes 50 years or longer for the truth or the full story to come out of a famous person(s) life. So it may still be some time before we ever know all the real story of the Beatles. Often you never find out until people die because then secrets can be told without hurting that person or without fear of reprisal. For example, the real truth about the Beatles touring days reportly involved lots of debauchery that was well hidden to protect their image. Will those stories ever come out? Personally, I don't care but that's just one example.
Glyn John’s said he could never understand the reputation Let it be had cause it was the most fun he’d ever had in a studio. It’s really intriguing why they chose to edit the movie in its original form which projects a fairly dreary picture, Lennon hardly even speaks, it looks cold, dark and the Beatles hardly engage with each other at all. I always felt they looked really bored throughout.
Will this mean we won’t be seeing things like the clip of John giving an interview stoned out of his mind (I’m assuming heroin) on the set of Let It Be? Because if that’s the case then Peter Jackson is cherry picking scenes to gloss it all up a bit. I agree with you, give it to us straight, we can handle it. And yes you’re right about the absence of Neil Aspinall, I’m sensing a feeling that certain people are trying to “Disney-Fy” The Beatles. Just saying, but of course I’m very excited to see this movie.
I will be going in depth to that interview with John and Yoko during these sessions. It will be interesting what Jackson uses. I assume he will use some footage that has already been released - the rooftop stuff being the most obvious. There are interesting bits of dialog that show their work methods and sometimes shows disagreement, road blocks, and indecision. My guess is that if there is good video/audio of any of this, some will be shown. I can tell you after listening to 97.5 hours that there isn't really any fighting or much drama. A lot is plain boring.
Wasn't Billy Preston playing with them at these sessions? Weren't they nicer because of his presence? I mean, they could have supressed their disagreements, and so you don't hear them on the tapes, but those disagreements could still have been there.
Matt, could you tell us a little bit about yourself? Who are you, what work do you do, do you make these videos all by yourself, do you get payed to make these videos, what's your background, are you a musician yourself, etc.
I don't know about the arguing. Maybe this new film will dispel that. But whatever the case, there is no doubt that Let it be was their weakest album. The recording left quite a bit to be desired, as well as the mix. Whether that was due to tensions within the band or the location, or the wives, or all of the above, is hard to say. Perhaps the most defining factor was precisely the absence of George Martin.
Abbey Rd and White Album Super Deluxe Apple Box Sets glossed over all discord within the band - - was fine writer Kevin Howlett told not to go there, or did he know instinctively? - - with the implication that reports of discord were mythical and these Apple accounts with outtakes and expensive replica accessories offer 'definitive' accounts. 'Let It Be' Super Deluxe set will be more of the same. More honest Super deluxe sets would have included, say, a replica chocolate digestive biscuit with one bite missing corresponding to the bite radius of Yoko Ono. I see 'Let It Be' as a masterpiece feature documentary, refreshingly honest with no marketing spin, and the deadbeat atmosphere of those morning Twickenham sessions make the rooftop concert all the more jubilant by contrast - - a narrative arc rising from the ashes, naturally, just as it happened, not as positive hype. The negative element could have been moreso, had the big row in the canteen happened on camera instead. I'd love to see more street shots of Londoners reacting to that rooftop music. What you see in 'Let It Be' is the aftermath of the British New Wave 1959-64 which then trickled on down the rest of the Sixties: all real locations and natural interiors (the studio transparently seen AS a studio) and downbeat realism and northern working-class regionalism. Northern realism had moved to London and the working class had become millionaires, but 'Let It Be' is as posthumous a legacy of the British New Wave as it is a posthumous epitaph (on release) to The Beatles, and as filmmaking it's a solid notch above 'King Kong'.
If you base your narrative solely on evidence, in this case sound recordings, you miss two things: 1. What happened when they were not recorded (maybe those arguments were taking place then); 2. How they f e l t (even though they were cooperating in the studio). One more thing: there m u s t have been tension and arguments, because they broke up.
They certainly broke up. But the question would then be is _why_ they broke up. I find that people reverse the cause-effect process with the Let It Be era. Since they know in hindsight that the events of Let It Be preceded the break up by eight months or so, they attach more importance to Let It Be that the evidence would support. The Beatles are the main culprits for summing up the breakup by making the Let It Be project the whippin' boy. Arguments probably took place in private, but they argued during every album, and band argue all the time re: the creative process. You mention a good point as to how they felt, which may not equal what they say in the moment. Thanks for your comment!
As an old Beatle fan, what is the point in the ''New'' Get Back. I agree they should have taken a long break and reformed to continue.It would have countered the utter rubbish of some of the music in the Seventies.
Most Beatle fans prefer harmony between players. The old narrative of "all of Let It Be was fighting and arguing" is finally being challenged with evidence and people are excited to see it. More to come!
9:33 - I think Mark misses half of the point. When John Lennon and George Harrison describe Get Back sessions as miserable they are largely referring to Twickenham. It was a cold temperatured terrible sounding place to be trying to get a good sound, compare the enthusiasm between Twick and Apple. Compare the seriousness in working on the songs. When the music is sounding good the mood and atmosphere is good. Now with George Martin. Compare what he says about Get Back to what he says about starting Abbey Road. He was not technically the producer of Get Back sessions Glyn Johns was and Johns and Hogg also both had said George Martin wasn't always there during the Apple sessions to even be able to say he said those things. If you even listen to the audio, you don't even hear Martin much as compared to Johns.
George Martin is probably most negative about the 2 albums he wasn't present for much of the time: The White Album and Let It Be. I think he speaks with some bias on both.
Ron Howard was an awful choice to make a movie about the Beatles on tour and I agree that movie was a huge missed opportunity. I was so disappointed leaving the cinema. But then Apple protects a certain image.
So forward to 2023. Mark has Ai tools to help him now in transcribing, summarising etc etc. Ai can know write the whole thing for him! So many Ai tools for writers now! It’s almost a bit of a mystery now and theories are rampant as to why no release. One of the theories is compelling but it still could be years before that comes about.
Are you actually suggesting using ai to complete Lewisohn's work? Trusting algorithmic software to create history? I have no interest in that anymore that I have in using "ai" to make new Beatle music. I have been in contact with Lewisohn and my guess is for vol 2 to be out next year.
There's something missing in this analysis. Its an assumption that 96 hours of film can tell us how positive or negative the group interaction was. It can, but only to a degree. We don't know what happened off camera. The preview for the film shows a lot of clowning around. Fun, but makes me wonder how balanced it will be. Seems to be a need to dispel a gloomy Let It Be film. I'd rather the focus be on the group playing music. The interpersonal ups and downs added to provide a little context. If its a film mainly about personalities, I will be disappointed.
I'm wondering if John's heroin use will be mentioned. It obviously affected his participation to some degree, and can be seen in the interview he and Yoko did at Twickenham with the CBC. He was high and barfy...
@@popgoesthe60s52 that's good. it may be an ugly subject; but the truth is- it changes the way people think & their priorities, so it had an impact on The Beatles
I have a copy of the original Let It Be movie. Every time I have watched the movie, I come away depressed. Oh, I enjoy the roof top concert where we see the Beatles first best destiny, performing music, but much of the movie leading up to this point shows the deterioration of the Beatles. I think, I am a little sceptical about remaking the movie. My biggest fear is that it's going to be a total whitewash of what was going on in those days, and glaze over some of the things we know for a fact happened during the shooting of the movie. What I would like to see is the Beatles creative process of their songs. How they worked out the arrangements, incites to their ideas, and not just arguing for argument's sake. If I remember correctly, that was what this movie was supposed to show us.
Seeing them in the control room following the roof, i am inclined to disagree. i think they played with the idea of recording with the limitation of recording 100% live. Mayhaps they wanted to get another LP out that would line up with the public expectation of their sound.
Matt, In all respect, The Beatles could no longer leave their troubles at the door because of John's unreasonable insistence on having his pariah/mum Yoko Ono in the studio! It was obvious they were both smacked out on Heroin. John was a shell of his former self. Lennon was disheveled, skinny and sometimes looked like he hadn't bathed! Peter Jackson cannot hide the misery of that project! The only positive moment was when George brought in Billy Preston whom they rarely filmed whilst performing with The Beatles! I believe George Harrison quit on January 10,1969 because John had Yoko speak for him at Beatles meetings! It was now John, Paul, Yoko, George and Ringo! John was such an ass always joking while being the cause of so much misery! He was behaving like a tyrannical sadist! John surely must have been aware, after George temporarily quit, of the misery he was inflicting having his jackass Yoko around. To this day, I can't believe Paul consented to recording "The Ballad Of John.And Yoko" and participate in a photo session, much more George, for the Capitol Singles Sleeve! I guess George went along with the idea because his "Old Brown Shoe" was on the "B" Side! I'm sure you'd agree that "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" should have been a "Plastic Ono Band Single.
LET IT BE turned into a movie about a break up I personally like seeing and hearing that it wasn't all terrible and torture. Eight Day's a Week was great nothing wrong with covering the happy side THE BEATLES enjoyed being together IF YOU DON'T GET TO ARGUE with YOUR BEST FRIENDS NOW AND THEN WTF. So what. people dwell on the problems and differences and challenges Journalists always do THE interviews I've heard over the years are always about finding dirt and division. Am I the only one aware of these things?
I think Peter Jackson is smart enough, and cares deeply enough about the music and his own reputation, to be very well aware if he presents too rosier picture he will get totally roasted for it. For me, I really wouldn't care if he actually did do a whitewash job, this past year has been such a shit-show for the entire planet, we are all in desperate need of as much positivity as anyone can dish up to us. I desperately want a distraction from this current world and to feel better for just an hour or two, I'd wallow in a cosy nostalgia all day given half the chance.
I think you are right, Jackson is aware of the criticism. Having run this channel for a year and a half, there will always be the fringe beatlemaniac that will be offended by something, so I expect Jackson to get some heat no matter what he does but I think cooler heads will prevail. Thanks for the comment!
I will only accept your comment once you've listened to all 97.5 hours of the Get Back Sessions! The old tired narrative of the Let It Be period (which itself is horribly revisionist) is being exposed by me and others. Check out my "All Things Must Pass Was Not Rejected" video and you'll hear the actual sessions progress which tells a totally different story than what the biographies have told us. ua-cam.com/video/m--gIaUEZtA/v-deo.html. Thanks for watching.
Gee, Ringo.... and it took you 50 years to talk about how happy "Let It Be" was instead of the misery-fest that the 1970 film is? Why? I can only imagine you kept your mouth shut so that people would buy more records. I wonder what other stuff The Beatles, Inc, has kept from the fans so that they can milk the flawed legends for decades. I wonder if I'm going to be 80 before they finally release "Carnival Of Light". Will we have to wait until every Beatle is dead?
Carnival of Light would be a disappointment according to Mark Lewisohn, so I'm ok with never getting that one. Good point about Ringo. None of them went against the old, tired narrative that apparently was not accurate.
It just goes to show how minds and memories work. We think of our memories as if they were a video playing back.. and we know they are nothing of the sort.. No one has to be lying or being deceptive.. That's how the individuals perceived and remembered events and as time passed they colour even further.. Its great that tapes exist that give us a more objective look at what really went on
Nice vid. I can listen to people assessing and theorising about the Beatles' history for hours so long as it's thoughtfully done.
One other thing is that I believe that John enjoyed back then knocking almost everything that was Beatles. I think that he felt that the performance “art” that he was influenced by Yoko was serious art, so knocking Beatles music was a way of elevating his new-found art. He later came around to change a lot of those views.
Yes, he did everything to destroy what he viewed a the "Beatles myth" but this was to boost his career and profile with regard to his work with Yoko. He could have had both without trashing one. He was taking a page out of the Allan Klein playbook.
If Mark Lewisohn hadn't been so through in his writing we never would have become privy to the true picture of what really went on within this group's history. Believe it or not I just purchased Tune In Volume 1 and I'm amazed at the detail. Thank you for for your channel and its depth as well; shine on...
The 60s and the Beatles magic in the 60s, will never be created again. All this is marketing and sales, for me, as a fan, it brings back memories of a world that was connected, and John Paul George and Ringo were the focal point...
As part of my reflections on the Get Back documentary, I re-listening to the Pop Goes the 60s Let It Be/Get Back related topics that are posted. Doing that I am rediscovering some interesting points that are putting Get Back/Let It Be in context. Agree with you and the whitewashing comments of 8 day a week, and apple. The Get Back material is putting a new perspective. As usual thanks Matt for excellent material!
I have to re-watch my own videos to remember what I said! Yes, it all connects and I'm finding that once these connections are made, the understanding of the whole picture comes much easier. Thanks for the comment, Marty!
One year later and we're still waiting, although we can be grateful that its release is imminent. Just caught your channel and have been curating your catalog. I enjoy your style - objective, insightful with fun analysis.
Mark, thank you for the Get Back/Let I Be sessions that you've done. It's good to hear about the Peter Jackson proposed film.
My personal belief is the comments in 1970, as well as the tone of Let it Be (both the movie and the Spector album), were an attempt to "demonize" Paul by Allen Klein. There is so much coming out these days, recorded from those times and not from anger at the time or fading memories from today, that tells a different story from what we heard and imagined for 50 years. Thank you to you and to Mark. Looking forward to Peter's documentary.
I agree with you regarding Klein. The let Paul carry the weight of the breakup almost by himself. Thanks for the comment, Mark.
@@popgoesthe60s52 yes, between Klein and Jann Wenner, it's amazing how Paul has stayed the course. So glad he has lived long enough to begin to see the record being corrected.
Excited to hear this has transitioned to a 6 hour, 3 part, docu-series released on Disney+ November 25,26, and 27.
Super excited to see this finally!
The fact that the Beatles did Abbey Road is proof enough that Let it Be was not as bad as thought.
Well put. It's not possible to make music like that if the players hate or don't respect one another.
Good point.
Abbey Road was somewhat of an obligation re. Their updated 1967 EMI contract, remaining collectively or individually until 1976.
@@heathwood3471 Doesn't matter. If the album was looked at by the four as an "obligation", it wouldn't have turned out as great as it did. Also, they really didn't think it would be their last one.
@TheRWE12 - I've never heard of "Let it Back".
You were probably thinking of their final released album, "Get Be". At least, that's what it was called in my universe. Perhaps you're from an alternate universe?
Thanks SO MUCH Matt! I'm LOVING your channel...your observations, reasoning, insight - it's all right on with me.
I've been a big Beatles fan since back in the '60s...used to take all the money I made mowing yards - about .50 a yard if I recall, to the local record shop to buy anything I could find Beatles. Even bought the German version of 'I Want To Hold Your Hand'...aside from a couple Glen Campbell records every penny went to Beatles 45s and LPs. So I've been a fan and following them for a long time and thought I was kinda sorta knowledgable - but I'm learning so much from you and your work.
Thanks a bunch!
Thank you Larry - more to come!
Thanks for this. Very reassuring. One thing about the Howard film: I felt it accomplished what it set out to do and to expose millions to the thrill we all felt at the time.
Greatest band in the world with growing pains, exhaustion and boredom. In hindsight they should have produced four solo albums in early 69 and regrouped a year later.
i think this guy is a bit hyper obsessed with this topic. Within a few months, they went from a band fighting, to a band no longer functioning as a band, to guys showing up laying down tracks to the estranged business relationship, moving on and so on.
Lĺllllĺĺ
Alan Kline…
keeping a couple together over 10 years is hard enough. just imagine a band. i had a band that lasted 21 years, keeping one member about 20 years too long. It only ended due my getting a sweet job offer 700 kilometres away. after that i went into production, eventually building a studio in the basement of my home. i produced up and comers mostly, plus solo work.
Then the band bug got me again for one reason. In spite of the pitfalls, when everyone locks into the groove, and all is kicking off....there's just no ther feeling i can equate to it...so this oap is back at it, even being disabled, the passion for music never dies.
To me it’s just giving a more balanced view. It can’t change what we have seen before because that stuff happened . It just shows that manipulation was around in those days as well and the director decided to show the negativity. During anyone’s time together you would see both sides. I don’t mind seeing the positive side because it’s also true. If people are worried it will change there view on it then they are very fragile.
Every once in a while the Get Back film pops up on UA-cam and I always watch it. It has its low points but I always feel it ends on a positive note. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Peter Jackson film. The film transfers look amazing. PLAY LOUD
I always thought the Beatles viewed the film with the feelings they had towards each other in 1970 and not early 1969. And carried that feeling when talking about it in the later years.
I have to say that how people see Let It Be (if they have. It is probably the least seen movie they ever did) depends on how John has spoken about it. I saw it again recently. With the exception of the row with George, which was well edited, it's the movie the band wanted to make: a film about them rehearsing for a gig. In fact, I'm sure they had many rows over years during rehearsals and recordings.
I have kind of a different view of the original LET IT BE film. I am 67 and the original film came out my last year of high school. I went to see it in theaters twice that year it was released. I loved it! I never got this "band breaking up, downer vibe" so often described when they bring up this film. Apart from the George -Paul ROW, which was brief , which I looked at as a slice of reality, I really did not see much discord or bad vibes in the movie. To me it was all very cool, informative to see behind the scenes , whic had NEVER BEEN seen before of the Beatles getting songs together and in many places absolutely joyous! The rooftop, the jams particularly you got this exhileration from watching them. The only thing I can say is when I saw it with a few friends the second viewing that year everybody disliked YOKO's presence, I was willing to give her a chance but a lot of folks had the WTF attitude about her being in virtually every shot with John.
Looking forward to the Jackson film !
Thank you for sharing - great comment.
Fascinating! These video clips confirm that memory is colored by so much more than a dry chronology of events. George Martin recalls a process of endless struggle while the session tapes reveal a dynamic of fairly productive teamwork. Martin's memory may have been charged by the accumulative effect of conflict that predated the sessions.... Really looking forward to the Peter Jackson film!
At the time of the Let It Be/Get Back sessions all The Beatles were using a lot of drugs, even heroin and cocaine. Leaving aside whatever else there is to say about drugs, be it positive or negative, one thing that is certainly true is that they make your perspective on things a lot more subjective, and a lot less objective. When we see old film clips or hear old tapes, that's an objective viewpoint ( how it's edited is another matter ), but obviously, we can't be inside the Beatles heads to see how it seemed to them. So it's quite feasible that their individual recollections of those sessions are quite different to the (apparent ) reality.
I’m not taking the position of defending drug use (I think consenting adults should probably be allowed to do anything they want that doesn’t hurt others but that’s an entirely different discussion), but I found something you said interesting. It’s impossible for your or anyone’s perception to be objective. The fact that you perceived something, and obviously report what you perceived (though this can be that internal dialogue as well as sharing it outside of yourself), you’ve lost objectivity. Any opinions are subjective. If you hear someone’s report they may strive for objectivity but it’s an impossible standard (at least when there were still proper journalists).
So basically even hearing all the 1st hand accounts by the subjects (in this case the Beatles themselves or whomever) you’re still hearing their subjective views at the time. There is a record by the Beatles called Let it Be - that’s an objective statement. You can get more specific but as soon as you consider feelings, opinions, and the like you’re in the realm of the subjective.
Maybe this isn’t you, and I don’t want to impose or imply I understand your personal intent. In general people use this misrepresentation of “objectivity” to say a movie or record or some art piece is objectively “great” or “well made”. Subjectivity is not a negative thing. You could describe how you perceived a sunset and it may make no sense to someone else. If it’s run through the filter of our minds, basically, it’s no longer purely objective. I hope people start to understand the difference, because I believe (so my subjective opinion (redundant statement I know but you see my point)) people use that feeling of “this is an objective opinion” to be jerks and gate keepers (the later statement doesn’t apply to your comment at all but is merely where I seee other take this “belief” on their understanding of objectivity.. nothing about your statement was negative at all; and further I hope you don’t see what I’m saying here as negative). If I have one intention in writing this is to reach anyone one who does believe they have the ability of objectivity to consider what these words still mean... it’s not yet a “literally - definition 2” situation, but could be if we don’t stop it, lol.
Cheers
Excellent presentation.
Really enjoy your videos, love ❤️ from Scotland 🏴………
Welcome, David from Scotland!
I can’t wait! 🙂👍
At the writing of this comment the movie has been out awhile. It was fantastic, a bit lengthy but worthwhile. I don’t think it was overly upbeat but much better in tone than the original.
So I love blackberries... but often Blackberries are picked very unripe , hard and sour because ripe blackberries mold. When you buy a basket sometimes the whole box is ehhh... but Ill eat one , two, three baskets for one great blackberry, Yum! So worth it! The Roof top is delicious!
Since I discovered your channel some weeks ago, I have been haphazardly been working my way through your videos. I think we are in agreement that from the beginning up through the Hunter Davies" authorized biography, that the Beatles were very conscious of the narrative they chose to present to the outside world. My question for you is why would John Lennon, George Harrison, and George Martin choose to present their various narratives of the January 1969. I infer from reading some interviews after Pepper that there was some friction and pushback from the band against George Martin over the amount of credit George Martin should receive for their studio years successes along with his earlier cashing in with his orchestral interpretations of the Lennon-McCartney songbook. John and George certainly were motivated to escape the confines of the Beatles by then. The Ringo split that he was eager to play live is interesting because he was certainly in the John and George orbit both in his embrace of Allen Klein and his appearances on John Lennon's early solo work. It is certainly interesting to see how each of them have their own biases and axes to grind not to mention faulty memories. We're looking at you, Geoff Emrick. One of the problems with leaning so heavily on the Nagra tapes to infer upon the health of the band's relationships is that the other sessions lack similar documentation. Perhaps the row that led to Harrison playing bass on She Said, She Said was par for the course. FWIW, I do not think so, but we really lack enough data points for an accurate comparison of their working relationships. I am also curious what your opinion is concerning the inner Beatles circle concerning what they considered a huge betrayal with the publication of Peter Brown's biography.
I want to thank you (and to curse you also) for reawakening my Beatles obsession. I apologize for the length of this data dump, and I hope that you appreciate that I take your work seriously. I also find your other content interesting and informative. You put in a lot of though into your pieces, and I appreciate your dogged quest to avoid leaning on clichés and tired myths. I also appreciate the varied album covers on the top row. You have quite an eclectic collection. I also noticed that one of your thumbnails for the Rolling Stone Greatest Guitarist Lists you are holding an acoustic. So I'm curious, what is that guitar's story and what kind of music do you like to play?
All the best,
Thank you for the comments and questions, Brian. The biases the ex-Beatles and their inner circle are many. The biggest story in pop culture history lends itself to the biggest agendas. Careers were made or broken with an affiliation with the Beatles. This is a condensed view, but where John is concerned, his retelling of the Beatles story in the 1970s gets negative the moment he hooks up with Yoko (i.e. his assessment of the White Album: “We broke up then”). George Martin was not the producer of record for Let It Be, and was only present at those sessions for a few days, so his retelling of the sessions must be viewed with proper perspective. As for George, the fight between he and John was probably the most hair-raising event of that time, and since it reportedly had to do with Yoko’s presence, it may have had a lasting effect on their friendship. I believe the Let It Be project simply became the “whipping boy” and main focus for the reasons given why the band broke up. Obviously, there is lot’s to go into, but you make an important observation in that if we had “nagra reels” for every album, I would wager they would all sound the same.
The Beatles inner circle accounts are also fraught with agenda. You allude to the Emerick vs. George Harrison bitching, etc. Even George Martin quit talking to his long term friend Mark Lewisohn when the story of how the Beatles got signed tarnished the George Martin version of said story. It takes proper historiography methods, which are scientific, to sift out the bullshit we’ve been handed for over 50 years.
As for my guitar playing, I’m an amateur player and play for myself mainly. I wish I had more time to practice! I have more videos coming that are dedicated to scrutinizing the tired Beatle narratives so stay tuned!
It's funny how the four unrelated pictures on the right of the article @about 0:23 altogether look very similar to the "Let It Be" album cover. Wonder if that was intentional.
I saw the movie Let It Be in 1970 when it first came out, and I felt very sad.
@Laura Daly have you now seen Peter Jackson's docuseries? Update, please! Has it left you feeling happier than the 1970 movie?
Love your commentaries.
Thank you, Larry - more to come!
To me, the bleak part of Let It Be was the Twickenham portion. The place was a draughty aircraft hanger-like facility that was dark and not conducive to creativity and good music making. Now, if they argued and bickered off mike and off camera, we'll never know but the Nagra reels and the 56 hours of footage that wasn't used for the original film will dispel the idea that it was all just a horrible experience with no upside.
Yeah... plus, I think we always have to watch that Twickenham footage with the understanding that having the camera on you for that long makes it not a relaxed atmosphere.
For years and years I have been arguing for a re-edit of the Let it Be footage. The Let it Be film failed on many levels. JL is having a ball on the rooftop. Come On! I can't wait to see the real thing.
Yes! All the body language between John and Paul on the rooftop was a reminder of the early days. They were an actual playing band again, and having a good time doing it. And George seemed to be enjoying himself too.
Yes. Once they started playing together they got back to who they were. 😊
I love the line about how editing can revision history. To echo another comment below about the subjectivity of the Beatles at the time and how we need to keep that in mind when evaluating how positive or negative January of ‘69 was, one of the two fellows from the Completely Beatles podcast once commented that in one way, the Beatles’ opinion on things should be taken with a grain of salt precisely because they were there. They were stuck in the middle of it and subjectively biased, let alone the effects of drugs consumed by them.
That's a good observation - the Beatles have turned out to be some of the most unreliable sources for their own history due to their personal biases and subjectivity. Some fans simple cannot grasp this.
I agree I was disappointed with the Eight Days A Week documentary. I’m also finding a lot of people being critical of the new Let it Be movie coming out later for being too positive. I’m just excited to see more Beatles material myself. Let it Be is one of my favorite albums and I think is a little underrated compared to Abbey Roads and Sgt. Pepper.
Jason Berger I’m surprised at how people can say the new Peter Jackson Get Back movie is too positive without even seeing it. The Disney name also doesn’t help. Rational and reasonable viewers should be able to balance both and decide for themselves. It will be interesting to both see the new cut and hear reactions.
It’s a load of crap
I can’t wait to see the movie
WWWWwwwweellllll, in the interest of fairness, I think Lewisohn may have been a bit of a literalist as regards George Martin's quote that "take 62 may have been it, but take 47..." That was Martin's humor. I think he was exaggerating to be funny. Remember, their humor's brilliance was that it was so subtle. Another example is after The Beatles did several (like maybe a dozen) takes of George's "All Things Must Pass," Paul gets in a little dig by playing a piano ditty, and then starts singing, "Over and over again!" over and over again. But my all-time favorite example of subtle Beatles humor was during that press conference in '64, when they were asked, "You all sing, but how come you never all sing together?" To which George answers completely straight-faced (and in fact, nobody laughed), "well, we usually start together."
many miss all their in-humour, the rest of us miss a lot.
Matt, I just wanted to thank you for making me aware of marl Lewisohn's "Tune In." To say that that it is fabulous would be damning it with faint praise. I've loved family histories since sitting on my grandad's knee, so the beginning was a delight - and an eye-opening insight to how much the Irish influence changed the culture. I'd buy a sociological history of Liverpool by Lewisohn if he ever wrote one.
By going deeper into the upbringings of 'the boys,' I picked up a better sense of why each one behaved as he did. By describing the loutish, petty criminal activities of the core three, Lewisohn made me think that their complaints about money had a certain amount of karma kicking back in. But lewisohn also made clear there was a bond between them which allowed each individual the brotherly help needed to get them through times of doubt. And Lewisohn shows that the Beatles' overnight success took a lot of time and effort. How many groups can last that long without any tangible rewards?
Now I know why everyone is howling for part 2.
Hey Wylie, yes as we wait for Vol II, I am re-reading Vol I. Each volume takes about 10 years and though that would mean that vol 2 should be out in 2023, which ain't gonna happen so I'm hoping for a Christmas release in 2024. Strangely enough, there is a small legion of Tune in critics that suggests Lewisohn has a pro-Lennon and anti-McCartney bias. Did you pick up on that at all?
Matt, Thanks for a quick response! As I said, none of the 'core three' comes away without major blemishes. I found it a bit appalling that George 'Taxman' Harrison could buy a new guitar for 90 pounds, only pay 70 of the total, and blithely forget about his debt. While McCartney is called out for what I would deem behaving superficially, Lennon is the one who walked with an amp from the art school, destroyed a borrowed guitar, ... without being held accountable. And as self-proclaimed leader, John was happy to tell people what to do, but seldom shouldering his own responsibilities. To turn over the firings of Ken and Pete to managers who did not want them fired showed John (and his redoubtable cohorts) to be gutless. This is what bothered me most about the early days. Stealing, to me at least, shows a certain disrespect, but the failure to be honest enough to fire someone is somewhat loathsome to me. (Not that I am claiming to be faultless mind you). Despite following the Beatles since '64, I do not have a favorite Beatle, so (I like to) think that I judged 'the boys' by Lewisohn's writings. All three were selfish (self-centered my be a more apt term) to one degree or another - which I think that Lewisohn portrays as a potential strength in oreder to succeed - I don't think any impartial observer could say that Lewisohn was biased for or against any of the three. Readers partial to one Beatle or another will, no doubt, take offense at any asperion cast on their favorite. But Ringo (or Richie or Ritchie) came through as a person anyone would like. But all four were also charming and caring which Lewisohn portrayed quite well in his description of the younger girls relations with individual Beatles.
Due to not very good eyesight, I listened to this onAudible, so there were no Footnotes nor photos. I imagine that I missed quite a bit there. (And I still don't see episodes 99 & 100 available. Your episodes are too good to miss!)
@@popgoesthe60s52
@@wyliesmith4244 Hey Wylie! Thanks for the rundown. I am noticing the uber-McCartney fans (some of which are podcasters) getting butt hurt over miniscule instances that make Paul "look bad" and of course being uber-McCartney fans, they blame the writer. More to come on this topic. Episode #100 was supposed to be the full review of my and Lord Heaton's review of Sometime in NY. I ended up showing that episode much later and probably forgot to deal with an episode #100.
One thing about Paul that I meant to mention was the way that he emphasized the age gap between himself and George. Maybe a few Paul fans were upset with this, but the joke is that Paul, himself, perpetuated the age difference question. He is on camera (in Anthology if memory serves) that he was a year and a half older than George. Untrue. It's more like eight months. I'll let the psychologists out there decide what Paul's faulty math means.@@popgoesthe60s52
John once said that if you miss the Beatles all you have to do is take an equal number of songs from their solo albums and voila you have yourself a Beatles album meaning that's what was happening from the White album on.
But the problem was from 75 to 1979 there was no John Lennon album.
@@elchichosantana6410 I think Lennon meant that right after the breakup, you could take a song from Plastic Ono Band, McCartney, All things must Pass and compile a new Beatles album because the songs on these albums were “Beatles era” songs. They were the songs that would’ve appeared on a new Beatles album had that album materialized in 1970/1971.
Yes, and yes: just release the secret argument tapes. Within a few months, they went from a band fighting, to a band no longer functioning as a band, to guys showing up laying down tracks to the estranged business relationship, moving on and so on.
Hey Matt...interesting you did this a year ago and we still have six months to wait! I hope we get a balanced picture....yes they didn't argue too much but I'm sure there were negative undertones eg presence of yoko which I hope is not swept under the carpet
I do hope for something balanced that fairly represents that month. Lots going on, and I hope we get a better view of Yoko interacting with the proceedings. The Nagra reels are quite revealing, so that will be a good way to test. Thanks again, John!
Matt, over the weekend I watched almost 3 hours of film clips from the Get Back sessions posted by someone on UA-cam. Frankly I was shocked at how much the guys seemed to be enjoying practicing and recording the songs that eventually ended up on the Let It Be album. Granted there was a difference between the Twickenham footage and the Apple Studio footage but not really much. Heck, the guys even seemed to enjoy playing behind the screeching of Yoko on a couple of occasions.
This footage contained none of the sullen George or the miserable and bored John we have all heard about. If anything, John seemed to been enjoying himself more than any of the others. The only people who seemed bored were Ringo and George Martin.
You mentioned in one of your earlier videos that there was a big controversy over a live performance but even though George says on these films that he was against it, it didn’t seem like it was all that big a deal to him. What Ringo said in your clip is in the footage I viewed.
I am beginning to think that we were all sold an erroneous account of those days by the ex-Beatles and the original film’s editors.
Yes, this Film/Album was everyone's "whippin' boy" in the aftermath of the breakup. Lazy rock journalists have enlarged the idea that this period was "miserable" to the point that it was (an still in some circles) accepted as undisputed fact. Those who still push this narrative will look more and more foolish as the realities of this period are revealed. Thanks for the comment!
good stuff
I'm certainly looking forward to the new film since I've seen outtakes that show them having more fun than the movie showed. However, I don't see how Lewisohn can say there were no arguments and I'm not even talking about the Paul/George thing that it's the movie and which I think is overblown when it comes to an argument. We know that John and George had a physical altercation with George quitting the band ("See you 'round the clubs"). So there were certainly tense moments during the month as one would expect for that time in their career. The one thing that I've heard about the Jackson film is that it will show the complete Rooftop Concert. That's 42 minutes out of a 120-minute movie dedicated to just the rooftop. I don't mind having new shots of the rooftop in the new movie, but the whole concert should be a bonus for the Blu Ray which would leave more time in the movie for footage of the recording sessions...
Yeah, the no arguments comment is too strong because I do hear tension, if not arguments. As for the John/George fight I don't think any of that was recorded. I assume that incident happened out of camera view. Here Paul also looks like the bad guy in the film when it is believed that George "quit" due to the row with John over Yoko.
It wasn't filmed as Lindsay-Hogg saw it coming and ordered the cameras off. However, I believe you can hear it on the A/B rolls or at least part of it before the cameras go off and then you hear George leave. The funny thing about the Paul/George argument is how it has been overblown over the years. You'd think they threw punches the way it's talked about. In the history of band fights in rock 'n' roll that you can compare it to, it's pretty peaceful....
@@billdufour1630 Yes, other band's behaviors have been way worse than the Beatles. It appears more clarity is coming as actual historians replace the Beatle fiction writers.
Actually he says they weren’t arguing “all the time”. But I agree that the way he phrases it sounds like they never argued. Clearly they were arguing off camera during meetings and lunch etc
Really enjoy your videos call pain going through your back catalogue. Just curious what is your drink of choice, that sits to your right?
I change it up from time to time, but the cocktail is general whisky-coke.
Long Live Ringo ⭐️
Honestly, the best, most authentic documentary about The Beatles is still the documentary called The Complete Beatles from 1982. It's short, it doesn't over sentimentalise the story and it doesn't promise anything over than the story in a chronological order. Sometimes less is more. By the sounds of it, Peter Jackson's film is going to give us a different perspective than the original film, I don't think we can expect anything more. I recently watched the original film and honestly, apart from the short argument between Paul and George, I still find the film to generally be an uplifting experience which culminates in the great rooftop performance
I love The Compleat Beatles. I taped it in the 80s and watched it many times. Yes the Peter Jackson film will probably follow with revisiting "why did they break up" which could use some better answers! Thanks for the comment, Anthony.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Thanks Matt. I'm really enjoying your channel since discovering it earlier this month. I too remember recording The Complete Beatles on VCR back in the day. Hope you enjoy the Peter Jackson movie. I agree with your comments about "Eight Days A Week". I saw it in the cinema and it was great to see the footage of The Beatles on the big screen with excellent sound, but it was a bit saccharine once watched a few times more. Since Neil Aspinall died, Apple has lost it's soul. Good luck, thanks for all your hard work.
So ... were John, George & Mr. Martin lying? No. Often times it can feel worse than it seems but the truth is both are right, as in most things. If they feel it was painful... it was. It's relative. Imagine the sessions before Let It Be. Also, they were doing something different than they have ever done before so it's no surprise George Martin was less happy. P.S.: I love "Eight Days a Week" for what it is, don't discount because things because they aren't what they were never intended to be. I thought they might have more new information than they did but they didn't and I still enjoyed it.
Let's see those sessions as they really were.
my sentiment is IF the bad blood from that argument was that serious and damaging..I just don't see how the four guys would..or could've come back together again for Abbey Road..or even the rooftop performance.
So yeah...i'm also hoping for a much genuinely more positive overall vibe to get from Peter Jackson's take...and I cannot wait for it.
I've seen the depressing side it's been presented in a one sided way. There was fun too.
I like your comment on eight days a week.. there was nothing in it that we didn’t know... yes the girls screaming.. Ringo had to look at their bums.. and all the other stuff we’ve heard.. what bothered me as well is people continually asked the same questions they’ve been asking since 1964... I wanted to know stuff like.. who created the set list.. was there songs you would have like to have inserted.. did ever have an equipment malfunction.. break a string .. amp breakdown... did you ever want to slow it down and have a proper show.. not the same rhetoric.. was it loud.. could you hear yourselves...
I may do a review of the Eight Days A Week film that would challenge a bit of what you suggest. People are up in arms at the prospect of "white washing" the upcoming Peter Jackson 'Get Back' but Eight Days a Week got a total pass! Most Beatle fans just repeat narratives that have been driven into their skulls. I aim to upset that apple cart!
@@popgoesthe60s52 totally agree.. I find your videos enlightening and the 2 parter on All things must pass was epic... I personally believe IMHO... that MLH... took that one argument between Paul and George and built a theme around it... he took every sad bored mundane film clip and put it together... not all but a lot... but my biggest biggest pet peeve of the entire let it be movie.. is the godforsaken street scenes.. you got The Beatles playing a live concert and they’re showing street scene... thanks for that solo on I Dig a Pony George.., but I was too busy watching MLH film a guy with the worst combover in history while you played.... so I’m hoping none of that is in the film...
Nice little precis of Mark's Dutch podcast. Like you, I am really really looking forward to Peter Jackson's version. My hope is that one of the packages they release includes the original film. I went to my local cinema in the '70's and was able to see it in context. I really want to get a DVD version of it just for completeness.
BUT, like you, since Neil Aspinall's death, Apple have definitely become an arm of P.McC Esquire and I worry that all things will be skewed in the opposite direction from Michael Lindsay-Hogg's cut. It seems to me that all the recent CD re-masterings seem to strangely have the lower end frequencies bought so much more to the fore. Not at all like my mono vinyl issues where the sonic range seems to be a little better balanced and, from what I understand, all 4 signed off on the final mixes.
Apple is in no way an arm of P.McC. He is merely one of 4 entities that control what gets released. Unfortunately Apple behaves like an out of touch corporate entity, so whatever biases come out, it will be a corporate spin. A DVD re-release of the 1970 Let It Be film was prepared for release in 2002 (which by the way, doesn't make Paul look very good) was purportedly nixed by the George Harrison camp, not McCartney.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Hmmm... of those 4 entities 2 are represented by their spouses and it would be interesting to see how much input they had with Giles whilst the anniversary editions were being mixed. I suspect that the cute ones voice was considerably louder. As for the DVD version of Let It Be, yup I was aware of that but The Beatles website doesn't list it for sale and I'm not going to fork out £60.00 for a copy from a random second hand dealer hence my hope for it to be included with the new one. Stay safe. PS: Isn't it great to be a Beatle fan and have these spirited discussions.. :)
Matt, I can't believe they're going to include George Harrison quitting on January 10,1969 and George and Paul's infamous exchange.
Its fascinating looking back at The Beatles in 1969.As far as I'm concerned the Let It Be film was technically poor. Most of it was too dark and the sound quality was never what it could have been. Why should band rehearsals be fun in the first place? Its hard work. The Beatles were obviously getting tired of being Beatles. So Peter Jackson may have found some film of them enjoying some of the sessions as they should. Fact is they lost their discipline as a unit, and split up as a consequence.
Or you could argue they were never disciplined as a unit - that's what made them great!
If John and George remembered the "Let it Be" recordings were unhappy times, just of what it must have been prior to those sessions. They must have been giggling all the time.
But none of our memories are truly accurate.
truth will be hard to find out... we will never know it for sure
i was asking myself the same question ; if the beatles were so "happy" according to Peter Jackson and Lewisohn point of view, why did the michael lindsey hogg original movie show this dark side of the group in the first place.
i kinda think intuitively that as goes the saying ; there's no smoke without fire
to me, they are rewriting history for commercial purposes. that"s too bad because the real fans, are more interested in knowing the truth.
but the truth is ugly and does not sell.
Thanks for chiming in, Theo. The truth is hard to nail exactly, but I would add that the "truth" about the Beatles, or a more balanced telling of the history, DOES sell. It is certainly a new perspective and there is a hunger among Beatle fans for it. Jackson and Lewisohn didn't say they were "so happy" during Let It Be, just that they were surprised that it wasn't predominately negative - a real surprise to many of us. To have two sides gets us closer to the truth instead of just showing one side. As for your question re: why Lindsay Hogg's film is so dark, one explanation is that the Beatles instructed him to do "warts and all film " which may account for a lot of the fun stuff not being used originally. I appreciate the comment.
The only problem is that it may manipulate the footage to make it overly ‘happy’ whereas it should just create a balanced picture.
Lewisohn has yet to finish VOLUME 2 of All These Years
Hi Mark, if you can get a copy of Hunter Davies 1968 book on the Beatles,the first edition that is, which I read on it's release. You will be able to correct a mistake on dates of birth, which you made.
Even if it is a bit joy-washed, it's okay. The audience for this film will mostly be people who have also watched the original Let it Be, and if you've watched both you kind of get a more realistic inside. It will be great for this film to be much more balanced, but I think they might be striving to see that side that everyone undermined. Decades of reports only depicting the awful side, and even the Beatles themselves saying this early on after the breakup- it might be good just to be mostly the good times, even if it's not particularly true: you can then pair it nicely with everything else.
Though, I trust Peter Jackson will do a great job- he's a good man and a good filmmaker, and I'm pretty sure he's quite dedicated to telling the historical truths of The Beatles.
I hope there is balance within the Jackson film or he will be accused of 'whitewashing.' I think he is aware of this so we may get something quite special. Thanks for the comment!
Interesting analysis! I recall when 'Let it be naked' came out as a CD that people were suggesting Paul McCartney was getting personal revenge on Phil Spector and that it was a vanity project.
McCartney has said that after recording ended he was not involved and left the production and finishing off the Spector - when he heard the finished album specifically his songs - he was pissed off to say the least hearing Spector's heavy handed production With Naked he wanted the songs to sound how he thought it should have sounded and it was signed off by the others and Yoko. Apparently Spector was the worse for wear by that time !
It wasn't just Paul who's been "de-Spectorizing" that time. I think George had wanted to remix All Things Must Pass before he died.
I think it was a vanity project than simply being an artist that wanted his song(s) to be the way he originally intended (as well as the album as he felt it was originally intended) and had the chance to correct things. :)
the get back /let it be sessions , have been around on loads of boots , since the 70s onwards, [i remember sweet apple trax /the black album , etc , [the n the mid late 80s loads more boots in exceleent quality , also the day by day series, [most hardc ore fans , have certainly heard , some or a lot of the sessions [[i think obviously it got better after they lefyt twickenham
I think all the Beatles may have been battling boredom going in to LET IT BE. That's why no one had any cohesive direction on it. It's funny how Lewisohn skates around the "bootleg" issue here. Didn't anyone ever put two and two together and realize that the big wealth of Beatle boots happened...I don't know....AS he was doing research at EMI for his book???? I'm not saying he DID them, but he certainly didn't always lock the vault door, OR hide his keys to it very well.
What happened to the winter of discontent that used to be on UA-cam if anyone knows?
First love your videos. Just wanted to say that Mark listened to the studio interaction with the band but there is the Hogg footage that paints a different story. Especially with Yoko's interference by being in the studio etc. I doubt any of this will make the new film version but it is here for you to see and hear. Once again love your videos! Please do one on the band The SEEDS!
ua-cam.com/video/r0mpbX4SaY0/v-deo.html
Thank you, John. I've got all that audio around the lunch table and will elaborate on this scene in my next video. There is no video of that as far as I know, so that video was pieced together to look like there was accompanying video. This is consistent to how Lewisohn describes it as "no arguments, etc." This is an honest conversation on accessing George after he had left. Obviously this has finally become an up front issue that, by the way George contributed to, so there is a lot to unravel that goes back to the teenage years. Some people put all the blame at this time but there is way more to it than that. So you like the Seeds! Yes - they are on my list but my list is quite long, so stayed tuned!
@@popgoesthe60s52 thanks for the reply and I am obsessed with your channel so keep them coming cos I’m caught up! Was curious on your thoughts on the channel I linked. Very interesting and the footage he has of Let it Be I doubt will ever make the reissue or Paul’s itchy dick comment! Shame! Thanks again.
Someone said that thee it takes 50 years or longer for the truth or the full story to come out of a famous person(s) life. So it may still be some time before we ever know all the real story of the Beatles. Often you never find out until people die because then secrets can be told without hurting that person or without fear of reprisal. For example, the real truth about the Beatles touring days reportly involved lots of debauchery that was well hidden to protect their image. Will those stories ever come out? Personally, I don't care but that's just one example.
Glyn John’s said he could never understand the reputation Let it be had cause it was the most fun he’d ever had in a studio. It’s really intriguing why they chose to edit the movie in its original form which projects a fairly dreary picture, Lennon hardly even speaks, it looks cold, dark and the Beatles hardly engage with each other at all. I always felt they looked really bored throughout.
Will this mean we won’t be seeing things like the clip of John giving an interview stoned out of his mind (I’m assuming heroin) on the set of Let It Be? Because if that’s the case then Peter Jackson is cherry picking scenes to gloss it all up a bit. I agree with you, give it to us straight, we can handle it. And yes you’re right about the absence of Neil Aspinall, I’m sensing a feeling that certain people are trying to “Disney-Fy” The Beatles. Just saying, but of course I’m very excited to see this movie.
I will be going in depth to that interview with John and Yoko during these sessions. It will be interesting what Jackson uses. I assume he will use some footage that has already been released - the rooftop stuff being the most obvious. There are interesting bits of dialog that show their work methods and sometimes shows disagreement, road blocks, and indecision. My guess is that if there is good video/audio of any of this, some will be shown. I can tell you after listening to 97.5 hours that there isn't really any fighting or much drama. A lot is plain boring.
Wasn't Billy Preston playing with them at these sessions? Weren't they nicer because of his presence?
I mean, they could have supressed their disagreements, and so you don't hear them on the tapes, but those disagreements could still have been there.
Just seen the Peter Jackson's documentary on The Disney Channel. I could sense , John Lennon wanted out of The Beatles.
elaborate, please.
Why don't they just release it! I got "Let it be" on blu-ray!
Matt, could you tell us a little bit about yourself? Who are you, what work do you do, do you make these videos all by yourself, do you get payed to make these videos, what's your background, are you a musician yourself, etc.
Do you think the release date will change if the pandemic is still like it is?
I think the release may be some sort of pay per view thing instead of a theater release but I guess we'll have to wait and se.
I don't know about the arguing. Maybe this new film will dispel that. But whatever the case, there is no doubt that Let it be was their weakest album. The recording left quite a bit to be desired, as well as the mix. Whether that was due to tensions within the band or the location, or the wives, or all of the above, is hard to say. Perhaps the most defining factor was precisely the absence of George Martin.
Abbey Rd and White Album Super Deluxe Apple Box Sets glossed over all discord within the band - - was fine writer Kevin Howlett told not to go there, or did he know instinctively? - - with the implication that reports of discord were mythical and these Apple accounts with outtakes and expensive replica accessories offer 'definitive' accounts. 'Let It Be' Super Deluxe set will be more of the same. More honest Super deluxe sets would have included, say, a replica chocolate digestive biscuit with one bite missing corresponding to the bite radius of Yoko Ono. I see 'Let It Be' as a masterpiece feature documentary, refreshingly honest with no marketing spin, and the deadbeat atmosphere of those morning Twickenham sessions make the rooftop concert all the more jubilant by contrast - - a narrative arc rising from the ashes, naturally, just as it happened, not as positive hype. The negative element could have been moreso, had the big row in the canteen happened on camera instead. I'd love to see more street shots of Londoners reacting to that rooftop music. What you see in 'Let It Be' is the aftermath of the British New Wave 1959-64 which then trickled on down the rest of the Sixties: all real locations and natural interiors (the studio transparently seen AS a studio) and downbeat realism and northern working-class regionalism. Northern realism had moved to London and the working class had become millionaires, but 'Let It Be' is as posthumous a legacy of the British New Wave as it is a posthumous epitaph (on release) to The Beatles, and as filmmaking it's a solid notch above 'King Kong'.
If you base your narrative solely on evidence, in this case sound recordings, you miss two things:
1. What happened when they were not recorded (maybe those arguments were taking place then);
2. How they f e l t (even though they were cooperating in the studio).
One more thing: there m u s t have been tension and arguments, because they broke up.
They certainly broke up. But the question would then be is _why_ they broke up. I find that people reverse the cause-effect process with the Let It Be era. Since they know in hindsight that the events of Let It Be preceded the break up by eight months or so, they attach more importance to Let It Be that the evidence would support. The Beatles are the main culprits for summing up the breakup by making the Let It Be project the whippin' boy. Arguments probably took place in private, but they argued during every album, and band argue all the time re: the creative process. You mention a good point as to how they felt, which may not equal what they say in the moment. Thanks for your comment!
As an old Beatle fan, what is the point in the ''New'' Get Back. I agree they should have taken a long break and reformed to continue.It would have countered the utter rubbish of some of the music in the Seventies.
Most Beatle fans prefer harmony between players. The old narrative of "all of Let It Be was fighting and arguing" is finally being challenged with evidence and people are excited to see it. More to come!
9:33 - I think Mark misses half of the point. When John Lennon and George Harrison describe Get Back sessions as miserable they are largely referring to Twickenham. It was a cold temperatured terrible sounding place to be trying to get a good sound, compare the enthusiasm between Twick and Apple. Compare the seriousness in working on the songs. When the music is sounding good the mood and atmosphere is good. Now with George Martin. Compare what he says about Get Back to what he says about starting Abbey Road. He was not technically the producer of Get Back sessions Glyn Johns was and Johns and Hogg also both had said George Martin wasn't always there during the Apple sessions to even be able to say he said those things. If you even listen to the audio, you don't even hear Martin much as compared to Johns.
George Martin is probably most negative about the 2 albums he wasn't present for much of the time: The White Album and Let It Be. I think he speaks with some bias on both.
Ron Howard was an awful choice to make a movie about the Beatles on tour and I agree that movie was a huge missed opportunity. I was so disappointed leaving the cinema. But then Apple protects a certain image.
So forward to 2023. Mark has Ai tools to help him now in transcribing, summarising etc etc. Ai can know write the whole thing for him! So many Ai tools for writers now! It’s almost a bit of a mystery now and theories are rampant as to why no release. One of the theories is compelling but it still could be years before that comes about.
Are you actually suggesting using ai to complete Lewisohn's work? Trusting algorithmic software to create history? I have no interest in that anymore that I have in using "ai" to make new Beatle music. I have been in contact with Lewisohn and my guess is for vol 2 to be out next year.
There's something missing in this analysis. Its an assumption that 96 hours of film can tell us how positive or negative the group interaction was. It can, but only to a degree. We don't know what happened off camera. The preview for the film shows a lot of clowning around. Fun, but makes me wonder how balanced it will be. Seems to be a need to dispel a gloomy Let It Be film. I'd rather the focus be on the group playing music. The interpersonal ups and downs added to provide a little context. If its a film mainly about personalities, I will be disappointed.
I'm wondering if John's heroin use will be mentioned. It obviously affected his participation to some degree, and can be seen in the interview he and Yoko did at Twickenham with the CBC. He was high and barfy...
I plan to go more into the heroin issue in an upcoming video. Thanks for the comment, Drew!
@@popgoesthe60s52 that's good. it may be an ugly subject; but the truth is- it changes the way people think & their priorities, so it had an impact on The Beatles
I have a copy of the original Let It Be movie. Every time I have watched the movie, I come away depressed.
Oh, I enjoy the roof top concert where we see the Beatles first best destiny, performing music, but much of the movie leading up to this point shows the deterioration of the Beatles.
I think, I am a little sceptical about remaking the movie. My biggest fear is that it's going to be a total whitewash of what was going on in those days, and glaze over some of the things we know for a fact happened during the shooting of the movie.
What I would like to see is the Beatles creative process of their songs. How they worked out the arrangements, incites to their ideas, and not just arguing for argument's sake. If I remember correctly, that was what this movie was supposed to show us.
Let it Be was so bad that The Beatles wanted one more chance to make a great lp to finish it off.
Seeing them in the control room following the roof, i am inclined to disagree. i think they played with the idea of recording with the limitation of recording 100% live. Mayhaps they wanted to get another LP out that would line up with the public expectation of their sound.
Matt, In all respect, The Beatles could no longer leave their troubles at the door because of John's unreasonable insistence on having his pariah/mum Yoko Ono in the studio!
It was obvious they were both smacked out on Heroin.
John was a shell of his former self. Lennon was disheveled, skinny and sometimes looked like he hadn't bathed!
Peter Jackson cannot hide the misery of that project!
The only positive moment was when George brought in Billy Preston whom they rarely filmed whilst performing with The Beatles!
I believe George Harrison quit on January 10,1969 because John had Yoko speak for him at Beatles meetings!
It was now John, Paul, Yoko, George and Ringo!
John was such an ass always joking while being the cause of so much misery!
He was behaving like a tyrannical sadist!
John surely must have been aware, after George temporarily quit, of the misery he was inflicting having his jackass Yoko around.
To this day, I can't believe Paul consented to recording "The Ballad Of John.And Yoko" and participate in a photo session, much more George, for the Capitol Singles Sleeve!
I guess George went along with the idea because his "Old Brown Shoe" was on the "B" Side!
I'm sure you'd agree that "The Ballad Of John And Yoko" should have been a "Plastic Ono Band Single.
Those legs above your head, what record is that?
That album is called _Cha Cha Cha Cha_ by Chiapas Marimbas from 1959. Black fishnets. How can one resist?
@@popgoesthe60s52 Yes, how can one ;) Thanks!
Gotta say, that cover caught my eye too!
What's wrong with popcorn?
Never would there be a Mess, If Of Paul Lived.
They've always said Macca tries to rewrite history. This may be his final attempt at doing so
LET IT BE turned into a movie about a break up I personally like seeing and hearing that it wasn't all terrible and torture. Eight Day's a Week was great nothing wrong with covering the happy side THE BEATLES enjoyed being together IF YOU DON'T GET TO ARGUE with YOUR BEST FRIENDS NOW AND THEN WTF. So what. people dwell on the problems and differences and challenges Journalists always do THE interviews I've heard over the years are always about finding dirt and division. Am I the only one aware of these things?
Thank you, Scotty - dirt and divisions still sells.
No arguments? So George quit cuz the good times were intolerable? See you round the clubs!
I think Peter Jackson is smart enough, and cares deeply enough about the music and his own reputation, to be very well aware if he presents too rosier picture he will get totally roasted for it. For me, I really wouldn't care if he actually did do a whitewash job, this past year has been such a shit-show for the entire planet, we are all in desperate need of as much positivity as anyone can dish up to us. I desperately want a distraction from this current world and to feel better for just an hour or two, I'd wallow in a cosy nostalgia all day given half the chance.
I think you are right, Jackson is aware of the criticism. Having run this channel for a year and a half, there will always be the fringe beatlemaniac that will be offended by something, so I expect Jackson to get some heat no matter what he does but I think cooler heads will prevail. Thanks for the comment!
It’s called revisionist history!
I will only accept your comment once you've listened to all 97.5 hours of the Get Back Sessions! The old tired narrative of the Let It Be period (which itself is horribly revisionist) is being exposed by me and others. Check out my "All Things Must Pass Was Not Rejected" video and you'll hear the actual sessions progress which tells a totally different story than what the biographies have told us. ua-cam.com/video/m--gIaUEZtA/v-deo.html. Thanks for watching.
Rum & Coke ?
Whisky & coke.
@@popgoesthe60s52 Good call. Got Whiskey and water going now.
Gee, Ringo.... and it took you 50 years to talk about how happy "Let It Be" was instead of the misery-fest that the 1970 film is? Why? I can only imagine you kept your mouth shut so that people would buy more records. I wonder what other stuff The Beatles, Inc, has kept from the fans so that they can milk the flawed legends for decades. I wonder if I'm going to be 80 before they finally release "Carnival Of Light". Will we have to wait until every Beatle is dead?
Carnival of Light would be a disappointment according to Mark Lewisohn, so I'm ok with never getting that one. Good point about Ringo. None of them went against the old, tired narrative that apparently was not accurate.
More McCartney revisionism.
If you listen to all 97.5 hours of the Get Back / Let it Be sessions you may feel differently. That's what happened to me after listening to it all.