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


I am the first to admit that I am a Beatles fan. And might even say that I am die hard. A recent film and recent album has me questioning the latter.

Peter Jackson's film "Get Back" and the 2022 "de-mixed" release of "Revolver" were both somewhat over the top for even a long time Beatles fan.

I had difficulty getting through both the film and the album.

Yes, it was pretty cool to get an inside look at the prep for the famous rooftop concert. But it became tedious to listen to all the "bla bla" in the studio and the endless fiddling of non Beatles songs.

Not to mention all that time "practicing" in the studio to come up with 3 or 4 songs.

And it was cool to hear the de-mixed versions of Revolver material, but 63 tracks with much relatively meaningless stuff took me 2 days to get through. 

I certainly can appreciate the attraction to the behind the scenes things.

But neither the film or the album gave me much insight into who these guys are were/are.

The film was especially disappointing.

 

 

mglik

@bdp24 You didn’t answer the question.
I’ll ask it another way:
how can playing sitar “ruin” a guitar player’s guitar-playing ability?

 

@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.

@bdp24
The fact you ask that question is evidence you know nothing about being a musician.
non sequitur, Ad Hominem, Ad Verecundiam.

Q: What could possibly support such a statement? (‘sitar ruined George as a guitarist.’)

A: I listen to Dave Edmunds, Albert Lee, Ry Cooder, Richard Thompson, and dozens of other better guitarists…
non sequitur, red herring.

The fact that you,
a) issued these responses to a good faith question (‘how did playing sitar ruin George’s guitar playing?) with a blatantly dismissive tone and a baseless attack on my credibility, and
b) of course, not once actually answered my question (‘George said he didn’t play as much guitar in his late-20s as he did in his teens/early-20s’ is obviously not an answer to the question),
is evidence of insecurity and desperation.

I’ve been a professional, multi-instrumentalist musician (lead vocals, harmony vocals, lead guitar - I’m damn good, too - bass, and piano - plus, a band leader/arranger/musical director of multiple 3.5-hour-long shows of 15+-piece ensembles of 7-piece string sections, 5-piece woodwind sections to guitars, keys, bass, percussion and 5-part vocal arrangements) for over 20 years.

Not only has playing other instruments improved my ability in previously-played instruments, it is common knowledge that playing other instruments makes one a better musician.

The difference between the charmingly-melodic-but-somewhat-clunky-and-awkward playing of George’s early years (something tells me you’re not a guitar player) and the objectively-higher-proficiency playing that defines his late-‘60s-and-up playing is unmistakable to any actual guitar player.
I’d be willing to bet that 10/10 actual guitar players familiar with the Beatles/George would say the same.
As can see, there are several reasons why I felt compelled to ask you how it was possible that playing sitar “ruined” George’s guitar playing.
As you can see, one of us has simply asked a question, and the other one’s response was a baseless, inexplicable attack on the questioner’s credibility (for some reason), a complete avoidance of the question, and a voluminous stream of illogic.
As even you @bdp24 can see, I’m WAY ahead of you.