What does it take to be a die hard Beatles fan?

Rick Beato’s examination of a song off Rubber Soul may help those who aren’t die hard Beatles fans understand why others are.

https://www.youtube.com/live/4CBa-whiUrQ?feature=share

@whart: Bill, I find your summary of the solo writing of Lennon and McCartney right in line with my opinion. Let’s see if you too get attacked for not considering The Beatles above all criticism.

I saw The Beatles live in ’65 (at The Cow Palace in S. San Francisco), and was underwhelmed. I actually was more impressed with the opening act, Sounds Incorporated, a UK band with a horn section. Very exciting!

The Beatles live on the rooftop? Sorry, they just don’t sound very good. To me, at any rate. Of course by the time I saw that performance, I had already seen The Band live (and Procol Harum. And The Kinks. And Albert King. And Jeff Beck. And dozens more.). Absolutely no contest. ;-)

@stuartk: I became an instant fan of Clapton upon hearing Eric Clapton & The Powerhouse on the 1966 Elektra Records album entitled What’s Shakin’, the first time I had seen his name (I and those I knew didn’t yet know Clapton is heard on about half the songs on The Yardbirds For Your Love album, which we all loved. Neither his name nor picture appear on that album). What’s Shakin’ is a various artists compilation album featuring The Lovin’ Spoonful (front cover of the LP) and The Paul Butterfield Blues Band (back cover), Clapton & The Powerhouse contributing three songs, including a 2:32 length studio recording of "Crossroads" (I prefer this version to the live Cream one).

I then followed Clapton into John Mayall’s band, Clapton’s guitar playing on Mayall’s debut stunning me. Before I knew it, Clapton had formed Cream, of whom I was a huge fan. I loved the first and second Cream albums, seeing them live on their first two U.S. tours. But as I have chronicled a few times (apparently to the chagrin of rpeluso ;-), that all changed in the Summer of ’69. Unbeknownst to me, the same happened to Clapton. His from hearing Music From Big Pink, which was way over my head in 1968. But by Summer ’69 I got it, and my musical taste underwent a radical change. I wasn’t much of a fan of Psychedelic music, which is why I found amusing how Atlantic Records President Ahmet Ertegun characterized Cream’s Disraeli Gear album when it was submitted to him: Psychedelic horsesh*t. ;-)

You can hear the change in Clapton’s playing in "Badge" (good song), the last Cream song I bothered listening to. Clapton disbanded Cream, and went off in his new direction, which was to my ears more musical. Up to that point a Blues purist, he opened up to other influences, including what can be called Country Blues. The Band didn’t fulfill Clapton’s ambition to be a member of that ensemble, but Delaney & Bonnie gave him a job as a sideman.

Clapton derailed his career a few times (post-Derek & The Dominos), but has kept at his craft his entire (so far) life. George Harrison for the most part didn’t. After being in The Beatles, that is completely understandable.

If this post strikes one as being done to make myself appear any certain way, oh well.

The most interesting part of the movie to me is hearing George say that the best band he’s ever heard was that of Ray Charles. Levon Helm was of the same opinion.

@stuartk’s mention of George’s gardening is apt. George talked about not practicing guitar anymore after a certain point (i.e. when he picked up the sitar, from where came my comment about his interest in and focus on that obnoxious-sounding instrument---imo---ruining his guitar playing), and of not being motivated to keep progressing like his pal Eric was (not everyone agrees with that assessment of Clapton). Harrison’s guitar playing in The Beatles is a model of musical taste, of playing for the song. As I said, his solo in "Nowhere Man" is a very favorite of mine. That style of guitar playing unfortunately became passe in the latter half of the 60’s, ironically because of the rise in Rock music of the style in which Clapton himself played: Blues above all else.

But after The Beatles? George was indeed more interesting in gardening than anything else, including music. At least he went out well, The Traveling Wilbury’s being delightful. Actually, in his latter years it was ukulele George was playing, not guitar.

Ya know, Lennon was not shy of expressing his opinion of Harrison’s singing, which was rather brutal. I’d rather listen to George’s post-Beatles singing than Lennon’s, and yes I realize that is a minority opinion. In his defense, at least George didn’t call his wife "mother". Now THAT is pathetic.

@tylermunns: The fact you ask that question is evidence you know nothing about being a musician. In interviews Harrison candidly admitted he had not continued in his pursuit of guitar playing after picking up the sitar, as I already said stating he had not picking up a guitar for a number of years (’67-’69?).

When he went on tour in the mid-70’s, George hired Robben Ford (whom I saw and heard numerous times while he was living in San Jose, before he moved down to L.A.) to play guitar, George himself concerning himself with embarrassing stage "theatrics" (videos available for painful viewing), perhaps in an effort to distract from his dreadful vocals. I don’t take pleasure in dissing George; he was always my favorite Beatle. As far as I’m concerned, The Traveling Wilburys was the best post-Beatles work any of them did.

And then there was was John Lennon, who subjected us to his "Primal Scream" therapy recordings (how anyone can listen to his first album is beyond me), crying about his mommy abandoning him. Oh for God’s sake John, have you no shame?

And McCartney, whom, freed from John’s acerbic input, was set free to sing his sappy, corny, British Music Hall ditties (which infect the Sgt. Pepper and White albums). Plus, he had his wife Linda "singing" in his band (have you heard the live recordings of Wings?!). Did Paul feel obligated to do so, as John had Yoko Ono "singing" in his band? By the way, when John needed a backup band, whom did he hire? Elephant’s Memory, a truly pathetic group. From The Beatles to Elephant’s Memory, quite a downgrade in bands.

At least Ringo had the good sense to head to Nashville (for his Beaucoups Of Blues album), to record Country music with the cream of that cities studio musicians (most of whom had already been heard in Dylan’s fantastic mid-60’s recordings). And when Ringo recorded his 1973 self-titled album, he enlisted members of The Band, about whom I need not heap praise (everyone already knows Eric Clapton dissolved Cream after hearing Music From Big Pink, thereafter traveling to West Saugerties in hopes of The Band asking him to join. Uh, no thanks Eric, we already have Robbie Robertson).

As even you @tylermunns can see, I’m WAY ahead of you. Now stop wasting my time.

Q: What could possible support such a statement?

A: A listen to Dave Edmunds, Albert Lee, Ry Cooder, Richard Thompson, and dozens of other better guitarists. Prior to Sgt. Pepper Harrison was a favorite of mine, his solo in "Nowhere Man" is in my all-time top 10 (even though it is very similar to James Burton’s in Ricky Nelson’s "Young World", another favorite of mine). He was never again that good, and in numerous interviews talked about not even picking up a guitar for years.

Unlike some, I don’t mind others having an opinion divergent from mine. It’s all about what we listen for in music. Why should we expect to agree on everything? For some reason I admit to not understanding, people become very defensive when it comes to The damn Beatles.

And with that final comment (made in violation of my vow to rpeluso), I bid you all adieu. I have obviously overstayed my welcome. ;-)

Speaking of the non-Beatles songs they play in the studio rehearsals for the rooftop performance:

In his YouTube review of the movie, Rick Beato (whom I really like) marvels at how many songs The Beatles know (referring to the "oldies" they attempt to play). Well, they sort of remember those non-Beatle songs, but they certainly don’t perform them very well in those studio recordings. I know they were just "fooling around", but still. Their performances of those songs imo provide ample evidence that my assertion The Beatles were not a very good band---strictly in terms of being "a band"---is plainly obvious. You may disagree.

It was their songs that made them great, not their abilities as a band. IMO, of course. Most Rock bands are better at being a band than they are at songwriting. With The Beatles (no pun intended ;-) the opposite is true.

@jasonbourne71: The copy of Magical Mystery Tour you want is the German pressing on either HOR ZU or Apple (unless you actually like "mono reprocessed for stereo" sound of the Capitol LP). They are the only true stereo LP pressings of that "thrown together" non-album album. I have the German Apple LP, and as it was originally released in England: a gatefold cover housing two 7" discs, which contain only the music on side 1 of the LP.

I too saw the group on Ed Sullivan, then went to see them at The Cow Palace in S. San Francisco. And was disappointed. Not a very good live band, honest. ;-)

Though I am rather critical of The Beatles (and even more so their solo work), I truly and deeply love Rubber Soul and Revolver, two of my all-time favorite albums.

I expect to finally meet Mazzy at the hi-fi show in Seattle next month, but may keep the fact that I saw The Beatles live to myself. I don't want to spoil his weekend. ;-)

I forced myself to watch all nine hours of that boring, boring movie. And the music heard merely reaffirms my opinion of the Let It Be album: Dreadful, absolutely unlistenable. They peaked with the Revolver album.

That damn sitar ruined George as a guitarist, Ringo’s drumming got very sluggish as time went on, and John & Paul increasingly wrote apart not together (they really needed each other, the whole being vastly greater than the sum of it's parts). Their breakup was imo long overdue.