This song’s lyrics wouldn’t be considered acceptable nowadays, but I’ve always liked the song. To put a positive spin on the lyrics, the song could very well have been intended as a cautionary warning about abusive boyfriends, during an era when such things were rarely openly discussed.
https://youtu.be/yzHXtxcIkg4
Jim
John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Jim I can't even begin to tell you how many of the songs that John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote together that I dearly loved. But still to this day my ultimate favorite work of John Lennon was when he had his "Plastic Ono Band". Even though many people thought that Yoko at that point had officially destroyed the Beatles>> so some of the older ROLLING STONE magazines indicated in some of their older publications.
But that one Plastic Ono Band album "70" which had two variants was a musical masterpiece. Two songs off of that album I've always loved are "Working Class Hero" and oddly enough one entitled "God". I think if it hadn't been for Lennon's legal troubles here in the USA when they attempted to deport him at the time because his "anti-war" stance against the Viet Nam war>> If it had not been for those ridiculous escapades I believe that the Plastic Ono Band could have went on to great heights on the charts. I didn't personally know anyone who I hung out with at that time who didn't like the Plastic Ono Band.
It's really odd too when I reflect on that time period. There were hundreds if not thousands of families that split up over the disagreements over the Viet Nam War. Oddly enough as it turned out most of the young people and young protestors were right in their viewpoints. And now in this time few people would argue against that viewpoint.
But that one Plastic Ono Band album "70" which had two variants was a musical masterpiece. Two songs off of that album I've always loved are "Working Class Hero" and oddly enough one entitled "God". I think if it hadn't been for Lennon's legal troubles here in the USA when they attempted to deport him at the time because his "anti-war" stance against the Viet Nam war>> If it had not been for those ridiculous escapades I believe that the Plastic Ono Band could have went on to great heights on the charts. I didn't personally know anyone who I hung out with at that time who didn't like the Plastic Ono Band.
It's really odd too when I reflect on that time period. There were hundreds if not thousands of families that split up over the disagreements over the Viet Nam War. Oddly enough as it turned out most of the young people and young protestors were right in their viewpoints. And now in this time few people would argue against that viewpoint.
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
*rambling post* :)
I do think that Yoko Ono had a part in the breakup of the Beatles, but she herself didn’t break up or “destroy” the Beatles. They were already pulling apart, personally and creatively. In recent years, Paul even stated that Yoko didn’t break up the Beatles. Now, maybe he was just being conciliatory in his old age, but why would he say it if there wasn’t truth to it? The energy that brought the Beatles together was dissolving. They were having both personal and creative clashes. They wanted to do their own things. They were evolving and growing apart. Had they stayed together into the ‘70s, the music they made together would have gotten steadily worse. They NEEDED to break up.
Many people want things to stay the same forever, and they can’t. Especially with a group like the Beatles, who packed so much creativity into, and evolved so much musically during the 8 years they were together. They literally packed decades’ worth into those years. They would have broken up even if Yoko hadn’t come into the picture. Also, don’t forget that had Yoko been the exact same weird person with the same horrible banshee singing, and everything happened in the same way; but instead of being Japanese she were an Anglo woman, she would not have been vilified to the same degree. It’s a fact. I’m sure a lot of the Yoko haters in the ‘70s blamed her for pulling a ‘Pearl Harbor’ on the Beatles. And this is coming from me, a man who doesn’t like Yoko Ono.
Slightly OT but relevant:
In a similar fashion to the Beatles breaking up, Bruce Lee was destined to die in 1973 at age 32, at the height of his popularity. Had he actually lived, Bruce Lee’s popularity and creativity would have waned, probably within a few short years. Then someone else, or another movie genre would have become more popular, and Bruce Lee would have faded into the background. He would still have been remembered and admired, but he would not have achieved the legend status that he did by dying young. Again, many diehard Bruce Lee fans think he still would have been at the forefront of superstardom if he were still alive today, but he wouldn’t have.
Back OT:
That’s the same as Beatles fans thinking the Beatles would have retained their relevance together as a band up ‘til today, if they were all still alive. Back in 1994 or so, when the “previously unreleased Beatles song,” ‘Free as a Bird’ was released, I thought it was unexceptional and a let-down. That was the final confirmation for me that the Beatles had broken up at the right time, before they started becoming irrelevant.
Jim
I do think that Yoko Ono had a part in the breakup of the Beatles, but she herself didn’t break up or “destroy” the Beatles. They were already pulling apart, personally and creatively. In recent years, Paul even stated that Yoko didn’t break up the Beatles. Now, maybe he was just being conciliatory in his old age, but why would he say it if there wasn’t truth to it? The energy that brought the Beatles together was dissolving. They were having both personal and creative clashes. They wanted to do their own things. They were evolving and growing apart. Had they stayed together into the ‘70s, the music they made together would have gotten steadily worse. They NEEDED to break up.
Many people want things to stay the same forever, and they can’t. Especially with a group like the Beatles, who packed so much creativity into, and evolved so much musically during the 8 years they were together. They literally packed decades’ worth into those years. They would have broken up even if Yoko hadn’t come into the picture. Also, don’t forget that had Yoko been the exact same weird person with the same horrible banshee singing, and everything happened in the same way; but instead of being Japanese she were an Anglo woman, she would not have been vilified to the same degree. It’s a fact. I’m sure a lot of the Yoko haters in the ‘70s blamed her for pulling a ‘Pearl Harbor’ on the Beatles. And this is coming from me, a man who doesn’t like Yoko Ono.
Slightly OT but relevant:
In a similar fashion to the Beatles breaking up, Bruce Lee was destined to die in 1973 at age 32, at the height of his popularity. Had he actually lived, Bruce Lee’s popularity and creativity would have waned, probably within a few short years. Then someone else, or another movie genre would have become more popular, and Bruce Lee would have faded into the background. He would still have been remembered and admired, but he would not have achieved the legend status that he did by dying young. Again, many diehard Bruce Lee fans think he still would have been at the forefront of superstardom if he were still alive today, but he wouldn’t have.
Back OT:
That’s the same as Beatles fans thinking the Beatles would have retained their relevance together as a band up ‘til today, if they were all still alive. Back in 1994 or so, when the “previously unreleased Beatles song,” ‘Free as a Bird’ was released, I thought it was unexceptional and a let-down. That was the final confirmation for me that the Beatles had broken up at the right time, before they started becoming irrelevant.
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
https://youtu.be/xqVe9UKfSmI
Jim
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Considering everything you said in reference to the timing of the Beatles breaking up>> And maybe indeed you're absolutely right on all points. But now that poses one huge question in regards to the British Music Invasion spearheaded it seems by Ed Sullivan. There were 5 bands his show brought to prominence. One band in that British invasion is still going strong and that being the Rolling Stones. So my obvious question is why did Mick Jagger's stuff live on whereas the Beatles were cut short?
Most people would argue that the Beatles had more talent than the Stones but yet they were cut short.
And getting back to my train of thought>> in some ways I thought the Plastic Ono Band were superior ( talent wise) as far as being able to keep up with the times. The whole scenario of the way that all played out was truly strange. It seems to me that the entire thing was and maybe still is being controlled by some corporate entity who calls the ultimate shots on what transpires in the rock music genre.
Which would explain why so many of the newer bands who don't have even half the talent that many of the older bands had but yet seem to be doing well on the sales charts. Because nothing else makes much sense.
Most people would argue that the Beatles had more talent than the Stones but yet they were cut short.
And getting back to my train of thought>> in some ways I thought the Plastic Ono Band were superior ( talent wise) as far as being able to keep up with the times. The whole scenario of the way that all played out was truly strange. It seems to me that the entire thing was and maybe still is being controlled by some corporate entity who calls the ultimate shots on what transpires in the rock music genre.
Which would explain why so many of the newer bands who don't have even half the talent that many of the older bands had but yet seem to be doing well on the sales charts. Because nothing else makes much sense.
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
I’m far less familiar with the personalities of The Rolling Stones members (other than hearing from multiple knowledgeable sources that Mick Jagger is a jerk, to put it mildly). I do know that all the Beatles members had very different personalities, interests, and focuses in their music. John Lennon got more into social activism; Paul McCartney liked his (mostly) romantic love songs, and some weirdly-worded songs; George Harrison was into his Hindu-based spirituality; and Ringo Starr was into whatever he was into. Very different interests, and each wanting to do more of their own things. They also wanted to work with different people.
TBH, I don’t see the Beatles’ breakup as anything more sinister than four extremely diverse and talented individuals who wanted something more than just working with the same old guys. George Harrison was only allowed to have a couple of his own songs included on each of the Beatles albums, and he wanted more. Lennon even stated that he really wanted to work with other musicians.
It’s similar to why some couples stay married for 50 to 70 years, and some couples stay together 20 years, and a few others barely make it a year. Sometimes it’s bad reasons; but oftentimes it’s simply because they’ve grown apart and are no longer compatible in a relationship. And which is better? Some long-time marriages are not all that rosey, either, and last so long mainly for financial security reasons, or because it’s boring but at least familiar, or whatever. We don’t know.
As far as newer bands/artists doing so well on the sales charts, I imagine if that music is what someone hears growing up, that’s what they’re going to like. I’m not going to question generational tastes, because times change. I WILL say that I will always prefer ‘60s and ‘70s (with some ‘80s)-era rock and popular music. I’ve seen a few “reaction videos”, where millennials will listen to classic ‘70s songs for the very first time by top old-school artists (such as Harry Nilsson, Freddie Mercury/Queen, and many others), and they react surprised as ****, like it’s a revelation. Many younger people nowadays have never even heard old-school rock or popular music from that era. Back when I was into acting, one of the young women in the class (who was between 25 and 30 years old) claimed she never even heard of Paul McCartney or the Beatles, when the subject was brought up once during the class. “Who is Paul Mc...Mc...McWhat? And what are Beatles? Aren’t those bugs or something?” :rolleyes:
Jim
TBH, I don’t see the Beatles’ breakup as anything more sinister than four extremely diverse and talented individuals who wanted something more than just working with the same old guys. George Harrison was only allowed to have a couple of his own songs included on each of the Beatles albums, and he wanted more. Lennon even stated that he really wanted to work with other musicians.
It’s similar to why some couples stay married for 50 to 70 years, and some couples stay together 20 years, and a few others barely make it a year. Sometimes it’s bad reasons; but oftentimes it’s simply because they’ve grown apart and are no longer compatible in a relationship. And which is better? Some long-time marriages are not all that rosey, either, and last so long mainly for financial security reasons, or because it’s boring but at least familiar, or whatever. We don’t know.
As far as newer bands/artists doing so well on the sales charts, I imagine if that music is what someone hears growing up, that’s what they’re going to like. I’m not going to question generational tastes, because times change. I WILL say that I will always prefer ‘60s and ‘70s (with some ‘80s)-era rock and popular music. I’ve seen a few “reaction videos”, where millennials will listen to classic ‘70s songs for the very first time by top old-school artists (such as Harry Nilsson, Freddie Mercury/Queen, and many others), and they react surprised as ****, like it’s a revelation. Many younger people nowadays have never even heard old-school rock or popular music from that era. Back when I was into acting, one of the young women in the class (who was between 25 and 30 years old) claimed she never even heard of Paul McCartney or the Beatles, when the subject was brought up once during the class. “Who is Paul Mc...Mc...McWhat? And what are Beatles? Aren’t those bugs or something?” :rolleyes:
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
You're most likely accurate with that account of how it all went down. But it sure seems like a real twisted irony that some hyper-arrogant bozo like Mick Jagger lasting almost till his 80s whereas the Beatles barely made it to the 1970s.
All the other British Invasion bands had strange endings it seems. Take Eric Burdon & The ANIMALS>> a group I personally would have thought to have continued for at least a solid decade with their awesome talent ( especially Burdon himself). But Eric Burdon ended up with an all black group known as "WAR" and had one immortal hit aka "Spill The Wine" which is a song I bet I play on YT at least once or twice a month and have been doing so for quite some time. He has done marginally well throughout the years but today few people younger than me know who he is.
You also had the Dave Clark 5 who had huge popularity for at least 3 to 4 years>> but today you would be hard pressed to find anyone now-a-days even knows they ever existed. At one time on the charts they were going head to head with the Beatles (1964-66) I think maybe the DC5 were just a bit too far into the TOP 40 genre. Kind the same way Herman's Hermits ended up.
But again the way the British Invasion played out was quite strange no matter how you look at it. It could be argued that the British Invasion actually continued well into the 70s with groups like Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Roxy Music and Led Zeppelin just to scratch the surface >> and even beyond to some degree.
All the other British Invasion bands had strange endings it seems. Take Eric Burdon & The ANIMALS>> a group I personally would have thought to have continued for at least a solid decade with their awesome talent ( especially Burdon himself). But Eric Burdon ended up with an all black group known as "WAR" and had one immortal hit aka "Spill The Wine" which is a song I bet I play on YT at least once or twice a month and have been doing so for quite some time. He has done marginally well throughout the years but today few people younger than me know who he is.
You also had the Dave Clark 5 who had huge popularity for at least 3 to 4 years>> but today you would be hard pressed to find anyone now-a-days even knows they ever existed. At one time on the charts they were going head to head with the Beatles (1964-66) I think maybe the DC5 were just a bit too far into the TOP 40 genre. Kind the same way Herman's Hermits ended up.
But again the way the British Invasion played out was quite strange no matter how you look at it. It could be argued that the British Invasion actually continued well into the 70s with groups like Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Roxy Music and Led Zeppelin just to scratch the surface >> and even beyond to some degree.
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
JD Spydo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 1:22 pmAll the other British Invasion bands had strange endings it seems. Take Eric Burdon & The ANIMALS>> a group I personally would have thought to have continued for at least a solid decade with their awesome talent ( especially Burdon himself). But Eric Burdon ended up with an all black group known as "WAR" and had one immortal hit aka "Spill The Wine" which is a song I bet I play on YT at least once or twice a month and have been doing so for quite some time. He has done marginally well throughout the years but today few people younger than me know who he is.
You also had the Dave Clark 5 who had huge popularity for at least 3 to 4 years>> but today you would be hard pressed to find anyone now-a-days even knows they ever existed. At one time on the charts they were going head to head with the Beatles (1964-66) I think maybe the DC5 were just a bit too far into the TOP 40 genre. Kind the same way Herman's Hermits ended up.
But again the way the British Invasion played out was quite strange no matter how you look at it. It could be argued that the British Invasion actually continued well into the 70s with groups like Deep Purple, Jethro Tull, Roxy Music and Led Zeppelin just to scratch the surface >> and even beyond to some degree.
Joe,
You’re right about all those 1960s British bands. Eric Burdon & The Animals, The Zombies, Herman’s Hermits, The Moody Blues, The Dave Clark Five, The Who, Donovan...etc., etc.
And the British Invasion did continue into the ‘70s. Only by then, it probably wasn’t an invasion anymore; British music artists had become such an established thing by then. There were also diverse talents such as Badfinger, Sweet, Queen, T-Rex, Jeff Beck, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John, Average White Band, Electric Light Orchestra, Dire Straits, The Sex Pistols, etc., etc. IMO, one of the weirder British sensations of the ‘70s was the Scottish band The Bay City Rollers. In 1975/76, they were coming out with retro-style songs that sounded almost like mid-‘60s Herman’s Hermits. Even as a kid back then, I thought it was weird they were so popular for awhile during that time period.
With the Rolling Stones, I’m not even sure that Keith Richards likes Mick Jagger. Maybe they stay together because they know the Stones are still popular. Keith is still awesome; Mick can still move and prance around all over the stage; and they still make tons of money. But comparing the Stones’ longevity to The Beatles’ relatively short time together, I look at it as quality vs quantity (time-wise). Music-wise, we all have different tastes and opinions. But I’ve heard so many people (musicians) of all ages say they were inspired to get into music by The Beatles, more than by any other band. Even some people you wouldn’t think would have been into The Beatles. I’m sure there are those who were similarly inspired by the Stones, but I haven’t heard anyone say it. My older brother was originally inspired to become a guitarist back in the ‘60s, partly because of George Harrison, although he moved on from The Beatles long ago, and Jeff Beck has been his favorite musician and inspiration since the early ‘70s.
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Jim also there is one other aspect to consider concerning the "British Invasion" of music. There were just so many underground type bands like Budgie, The Groundhogs, Gun, Pentangle, Fairport Convention, Roxy Music, Brian Eno, King Crimson and I could go on for quite a while with that list. It is amazing when you consider all the talent that USA musicians also had. The Beatles literally killed what Elvis Presley was doing on the charts.
Also there were several and I mean literally dozens of bands that garnered huge popularity over in Europe but never got off the ground here in the USA.
I really believe that what the Beatles and John Lennon started set forth a huge onslaught of so many British and other European musicians there was never anything quite like it ever in the USA. Timing was everything and really worked in their favor. I think the fans here in the USA were just getting burnt out on the musicians we had here in the USA and all of this new genre of music and their timing was near perfect.
Also there were several and I mean literally dozens of bands that garnered huge popularity over in Europe but never got off the ground here in the USA.
I really believe that what the Beatles and John Lennon started set forth a huge onslaught of so many British and other European musicians there was never anything quite like it ever in the USA. Timing was everything and really worked in their favor. I think the fans here in the USA were just getting burnt out on the musicians we had here in the USA and all of this new genre of music and their timing was near perfect.
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
https://youtu.be/Tb9L3iAUhc0
Jim
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Of all the Beatle's albums I had the two that I like the most and I like about equally were #1 the White Double Album and Abbey Road. I truly think that was when the Beatles ( and Lennon with the Beatles) were at their pinnacle.
I believe when Phil Spector got involved on the business end is when things started going downward. Isn't it ironic that he ended up in prison on a murder charge. For years I've thought that Phil Spector is the "Don King" of the music business :rolleyes:
I believe when Phil Spector got involved on the business end is when things started going downward. Isn't it ironic that he ended up in prison on a murder charge. For years I've thought that Phil Spector is the "Don King" of the music business :rolleyes:
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
JD Spydo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:35 pmOf all the Beatle's albums I had the two that I like the most and I like about equally were #1 the White Double Album and Abbey Road. I truly think that was when the Beatles ( and Lennon with the Beatles) were at their pinnacle.
I believe when Phil Spector got involved on the business end is when things started going downward. Isn't it ironic that he ended up in prison on a murder charge. For years I've thought that Phil Spector is the "Don King" of the music business :rolleyes:
Apparently, Phil Spector was a ‘genius’ in his field, but the murder he committed wasn’t the first time he waved a gun threateningly around other people. He was known to threaten people with guns from way back. He did it to The Ramones, Sonny Bono, Deborah Harry, Ronnie Spector (who was his wife, formerly of The Ronettes); and even John Lennon himself, among others. Phil Spector is a nutcase.
My favorite Beatles albums are The White Album and Rubber Soul. But I also liked the other early ones as well. I don’t care that some of their early songs sound like “bubblegum” music; they were great. I never cared for Yellow Submarine, because aside from maybe three good songs, it was mostly filler.
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Personally, I’ve always liked the Beatles’ cover version of this song more than the original by Barrett Strong. I’ve always felt that the Beatles were among the few artists who could do cover songs that generally sounded better than the original artists, especially if they were sung by John Lennon (although George Harrison also did some great covers).
https://youtu.be/CeWjEYhk7Xo
Jim
https://youtu.be/CeWjEYhk7Xo
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Yeah it's amazing that Phil Spector had not done something horrible long before he murdered that lady Lana Clarkson. And then like an idiot he confessed to his driver. Who knows maybe he's even killed other people that we don't even know about. The truth is much stranger than fiction.James Y wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:12 pmJD Spydo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:35 pmOf all the Beatle's albums I had the two that I like the most and I like about equally were #1 the White Double Album and Abbey Road. I truly think that was when the Beatles ( and Lennon with the Beatles) were at their pinnacle.
I believe when Phil Spector got involved on the business end is when things started going downward. Isn't it ironic that he ended up in prison on a murder charge. For years I've thought that Phil Spector is the "Don King" of the music business :rolleyes:
Apparently, Phil Spector was a ‘genius’ in his field, but the murder he committed wasn’t the first time he waved a gun threateningly around other people. He was known to threaten people with guns from way back. He did it to The Ramones, Sonny Bono, Deborah Harry, Ronnie Spector (who was his wife, formerly of The Ronettes); and even John Lennon himself, among others. Phil Spector is a nutcase.
My favorite Beatles albums are The White Album and Rubber Soul. But I also liked the other early ones as well. I don’t care that some of their early songs sound like “bubblegum” music; they were great. I never cared for Yellow Submarine, because aside from maybe three good songs, it was mostly filler.
Jim
I remember Phil Spector doing that opening scene of the classic movie "Easy Rider" when he was playing that elite drug kingpin at the beginning of the Movie. There is something extraordinarily weird about that guy. But he isn't the only genius who turned into a nut case. I was told a funny story about the first week he arrived at Corcoran Prison in CA. It was told that Charles Manson tried to contact him :eek: Who was one of his fellow inmates there.
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
JD Spydo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 29, 2020 9:50 pmYeah it's amazing that Phil Spector had not done something horrible long before he murdered that lady Lana Clarkson. And then like an idiot he confessed to his driver. Who knows maybe he's even killed other people that we don't even know about. The truth is much stranger than fiction.James Y wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:12 pmJD Spydo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 1:35 pmOf all the Beatle's albums I had the two that I like the most and I like about equally were #1 the White Double Album and Abbey Road. I truly think that was when the Beatles ( and Lennon with the Beatles) were at their pinnacle.
I believe when Phil Spector got involved on the business end is when things started going downward. Isn't it ironic that he ended up in prison on a murder charge. For years I've thought that Phil Spector is the "Don King" of the music business :rolleyes:
Apparently, Phil Spector was a ‘genius’ in his field, but the murder he committed wasn’t the first time he waved a gun threateningly around other people. He was known to threaten people with guns from way back. He did it to The Ramones, Sonny Bono, Deborah Harry, Ronnie Spector (who was his wife, formerly of The Ronettes); and even John Lennon himself, among others. Phil Spector is a nutcase.
My favorite Beatles albums are The White Album and Rubber Soul. But I also liked the other early ones as well. I don’t care that some of their early songs sound like “bubblegum” music; they were great. I never cared for Yellow Submarine, because aside from maybe three good songs, it was mostly filler.
Jim
I remember Phil Spector doing that opening scene of the classic movie "Easy Rider" when he was playing that elite drug kingpin at the beginning of the Movie. There is something extraordinarily weird about that guy. But he isn't the only genius who turned into a nut case. I was told a funny story about the first week he arrived at Corcoran Prison in CA. It was told that Charles Manson tried to contact him :eek: Who was one of his fellow inmates there.
Maybe Manson was still hoping to get a music industry connection. :rolleyes:
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
The 1961 song Angel Baby, by Rosie & the Originals, was one of John Lennon’s favorite songs. Rosie Hamlin wrote it when she was only 14 years old, and it was recorded when she was only 15 years old. It was her one big hit.
https://youtu.be/bu2dAQ3xb8s
John Lennon recorded this cover of Angel Baby in 1973. If you listen very carefully, at the very beginning, Lennon can be heard saying that it’s one of his all-time favorite songs, and he pays tribute to Rosie Hamlin:
https://youtu.be/gDc59avstPA
John Lennon did a great cover. Although Angel Baby sounds simple, it’s a very difficult song to sing properly. However, I will say that I prefer Rosie Hamlin’s original version to John Lennon’s cover.
Jim
https://youtu.be/bu2dAQ3xb8s
John Lennon recorded this cover of Angel Baby in 1973. If you listen very carefully, at the very beginning, Lennon can be heard saying that it’s one of his all-time favorite songs, and he pays tribute to Rosie Hamlin:
https://youtu.be/gDc59avstPA
John Lennon did a great cover. Although Angel Baby sounds simple, it’s a very difficult song to sing properly. However, I will say that I prefer Rosie Hamlin’s original version to John Lennon’s cover.
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Among my favorites of the less commonly-heard Beatles songs. It’s another example of how Lennon and McCartney had such great harmonies:
https://youtu.be/vTsbYbN8VVI
Jim
https://youtu.be/vTsbYbN8VVI
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
Phil Spector died two days ago, reportedly of complications from Covid. I don’t think he deserves to have his own tribute thread. It’s ironic that we were just discussing him a few posts back in this thread, less than a month ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55697979
Jim
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55697979
Jim
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
I've been doing a lot of thinking on this one>> that is Phil Spector's business and personal relationship to Lennon and the Beatles. He produced their final Album "Let It Be" and he also had several other business dealings with them as well. It was said at one time that he helped bring the Beatles to the USA market. Which turned out to be a monster gold mine for them.James Y wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:29 amPhil Spector died two days ago, reportedly of complications from Covid. I don’t think he deserves to have his own tribute thread. It’s ironic that we were just discussing him a few posts back in this thread, less than a month ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55697979
Jim
Spector was one of those guys that everything he touched seem to turn to gold. He was also an innovator in the music field and was brilliant on business end as well. In his personal life I had heard for years that he was a terrible, obsessive control freak. And that might have been a big part of his downward spiral. Why on GOD's blue planet he would kill Lana Clarkson is one I'll never figure out :confused:
He had ways of connecting to people and making very profitable connections at that. But his connections to the Beatles and in particular John Lennon was always kind of mystery.
Re: John Lennon 40th Anniversary
JD Spydo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:50 amI've been doing a lot of thinking on this one>> that is Phil Spector's business and personal relationship to Lennon and the Beatles. He produced their final Album "Let It Be" and he also had several other business dealings with them as well. It was said at one time that he helped bring the Beatles to the USA market. Which turned out to be a monster gold mine for them.James Y wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 10:29 amPhil Spector died two days ago, reportedly of complications from Covid. I don’t think he deserves to have his own tribute thread. It’s ironic that we were just discussing him a few posts back in this thread, less than a month ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55697979
Jim
Spector was one of those guys that everything he touched seem to turn to gold. He was also an innovator in the music field and was brilliant on business end as well. In his personal life I had heard for years that he was a terrible, obsessive control freak. And that might have been a big part of his downward spiral. Why on GOD's blue planet he would kill Lana Clarkson is one I'll never figure out :confused:
He had ways of connecting to people and making very profitable connections at that. But his connections to the Beatles and in particular John Lennon was always kind of mystery.
Joe,
No doubt that Phil Spector understood the music business. Many years ago, I read somewhere that Paul McCartney was NOT happy at all with what Spector did with his song ‘The Long and Winding Road’, on the ‘Let It Be’ album. Reportedly, Paul had wanted it to be a quiet, simpler, more intimate song, mostly centered on Paul and his piano. IIRC, Paul hadn’t wanted Spector’s “Wall of Sound” orchestral background with the ‘angel voices’ singing. And although my opinion of Phil Spector as a human being is very, very low, IMO, there is no doubt that what he did with that song made it a lot better than Paul’s original, preferred version of it.
Jim