A Mark In Time
General Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: JF on October 26, 2023, 05:59:47 PM
-
Beatles' "now and then" song wil be broadcasted at 3 PM on novembre 2nd
all infos here : https://textes-blog-rock-n-roll.fr/la-derniere-chanson-des-beatles-sortira-le-2-novembre/
-
Yes, exciting stuff, I can't wait. :) But does that mean Carnival of Light won't be released? :think
-
need to buy those new compilations!!
thnx for the hint JF!
-
Yes, exciting stuff, I can't wait. :) But does that mean Carnival of Light won't be released? :think
Do you really consider this as a song? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5p6z8QAVYU
-
need to buy those new compilations!!
thnx for the hint JF!
I don't have them either, this could be a great oportunity to buy them, as seems it has more songs than the original editions.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDNo377tpGs
I agree with the negative points shared by this reviewer. While getting the new Beatles song is great, no doubt about it, the lazy approach to it is really sad.
The cover art is lame and lazy. Why bother? Just take the same guy who made McCartney's solo albums and make a random cover for THE LAST BEATLES SONG.
The idea of combining it with 2 other "last songs" is also good. Overall I think they did their absolute best to steer as many people as possible away from this LP.
-
I just can't justify giving The Beatles more money for the same old stuff that I've bought multiple times over the years. I'll listen on Spotify. Maybe I'll buy the single, but as has been noted, the artwork is about as interesting as DTRW.
-
Yes, exciting stuff, I can't wait. :) But does that mean Carnival of Light won't be released? :think
Do you really consider this as a song? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5p6z8QAVYU
It's still a Beatles song that has not been officialy released.
-
Yes, exciting stuff, I can't wait. :) But does that mean Carnival of Light won't be released? :think
Do you really consider this as a song? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5p6z8QAVYU
It's still a Beatles song that has not been officialy released.
One wonder why ;D :lol
-
I just listened to "Now and Then" and I really enjoyed it! I would be great if a similar thing could be done to "Summer's Coming My Way".
-
I feel sad that the last Beatles song ends on a minor chord. I would end on a "happier" note, they could've reused the bridge for that. But just like with the cover art, we get what we get, man. Overall a great job! AI rules.
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
Regarding "Summer's Coming My Way" I was meaning that something similar maybe could be done to make Mark's voice clearer as happened with John Lennon, but not to call it a DS song. I just wish I could decipher the lyrics better.
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
Regarding "Summer's Coming My Way" I was meaning that something similar maybe could be done to make Mark's voice clearer as happened with John Lennon, but not to call it a DS song. I just wish I could decipher the lyrics better.
I know, I wasn't referring to your comments. Actually I agree with you.
There are some IA that could do that, but never tried.
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
It is what it is, at the end of the day it’s a marketing thing to sell albums, but it’s a nice song and I’m glad we have it, same with the 90s singles.
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
disagree about the comparison
DS was 90% MK with sidemen playing with him
The Beatles were 4 strong personnalities composing songs, sometimes together, sometimes alone.
so compare Beatles and DS is pointless imho
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
disagree about the comparison
DS was 90% MK with sidemen playing with him
The Beatles were 4 strong personnalities composing songs, sometimes together, sometimes alone.
so compare Beatles and DS is pointless imho
Maybe bad example but still the point is that this song are not The Beatles doing music together, are Paul and Ringo playing along a recording of George Harrison, overdubing a John Lennon unreleased solo song, not written for the band.
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
It is what it is, at the end of the day it’s a marketing thing to sell albums, but it’s a nice song and I’m glad we have it, same with the 90s singles.
I mean, it's not un unreleased The Beatles song in the end, that I'm sure there are a lot to choose from as you can listen to a lot of unreleased songs in the "Get Back" documentary, songs created by the band working together as they used to do. It's an unreleased Lennon solo song!
-
I'm not very sure if taking a John Lennon unreleased song and overdub the rest of the band over it could be called a Beatles songs further than "the remaining Beatles with John Lennon".
If John, Alan and Guy take an unreleased demo of MK and overdub their parts, would you call it a Dire Straits song? It wasn't created to be a DS song anyway...
disagree about the comparison
DS was 90% MK with sidemen playing with him
The Beatles were 4 strong personnalities composing songs, sometimes together, sometimes alone.
so compare Beatles and DS is pointless imho
Maybe bad example but still the point is that this song are not The Beatles doing music together, are Paul and Ringo playing along a recording of George Harrison, overdubing a John Lennon unreleased solo song, not written for the band.
The Beatles, especially McCartney, are famous for being overly romantic and cheesy, so no surprise it's basically Paul's song. I think generally speaking "resurrecting" old bands for whatever reason is pure comedy, even if it's The Beatles. The Beatles are no more since 1970, everything else is somebody's imagination...
Real Love and Free As A Bird are way stronger songs than Now And Then though. I wish the last one would be either of the first two.
-
my thoughts :
https://textes-blog-rock-n-roll.fr/la-derniere-chanson-des-beatles-en-mode-melancolique/
-
my thoughts :
https://textes-blog-rock-n-roll.fr/la-derniere-chanson-des-beatles-en-mode-melancolique/
Thanks! I'll read it. Another idea I had — they could've arranged it in 4-piece, just like they started, that would tie it well as well. So many ideas anyway.
-
When the Beatles were together there was not solo career.
So the term "solo song" or "Beatles song" can't apply.
The three of them just wrote songs and put them on the collective album.
So being a John Lennon song is not the problem.
The problem is that John is dead and everything done has been without his consent.
One more time, the production team took his song and twisted it.
-
When the Beatles were together there was not solo career.
So the term "solo song" or "Beatles song" can't apply.
The three of them just wrote songs and put them on the collective album.
So being a John Lennon song is not the problem.
The problem is that John is dead and everything done has been without his consent.
One more time, the production team took his song and twisted it.
Yeah, this once again makes the whole idea of the term "band" ridiculous. They wrote The Beatles songs mostly on their own anyway, there were hardly any true 50/50 Lennon-McCartney songs unless it's literally two songs merged together like A Day In The Life. The main idea is always coming from an individual person.
The band is a brand, using a brand without an actual band means only one thing — a money grab. You can romanticise it till the cows come home, and create cheesy music videos with John Lennon looking at Paul McCartney, but it's most certainly NOT a new Beatles song.
-
They were a band in the sense that if John or Ringo or George came with a song written by any of them alone, they worked it together and arrange it together and recorded it together as a band. And that songs were written by the individuals to get arranged and recorded by the band.
When they had their solo careers they wrote songs for themselves not for the band.
So this song is a Lennon solo song in which the other members added their things as they wanted without interaction as a band, logically as Lennon was death at the start and George at the end. But the song wasn't written for the Beatles. The songs they wrote individually when they were a band, yes, those were written for the band.
-
during the first half of their career, until circa 1965, John and Paul wrote and composed together
many songs fomr this era are "50/50" paul and John, for exemple each writin a verse, or one for the chorus, the other one for the verses, etc...
indeed, in the second half (65-70) they did compose and write alone
the french site "yeelow-sub.net" tried to summarize which percent was written by each Beatle in each song
-
WTF is this music video tho...
-
I really liked the music video. So funny that it didn’t take itself too seriously, with John goofing around.
Peace and love. :)
-
I really liked the music video. So funny that it didn’t take itself too seriously, with John goofing around.
Peace and love. :)
I think they went a little bit overboard with goofiness, to the point that I and a lot of other people thought they hired Stevie Riks to do the impressions. The cheesiness of it is also a bit too much to my taste, this John Lennon looking at the band and green-screen singing duo truly is cringe overload.
The director said he wanted to find a balance between a goofy, serious and sad video, and I think he failed at doing so. To think of it, they failed in everything they possibly could — the cover art is atrocious, the music video is too goofy, and the song is overly produced and compressed. Sad final.
-
I really liked the music video. So funny that it didn’t take itself too seriously, with John goofing around.
Peace and love. :)
I think they went a little bit overboard with goofiness, to the point that I and a lot of other people thought they hired Stevie Riks to do the impressions. The cheesiness of it is also a bit too much to my taste, this John Lennon looking at the band and green-screen singing duo truly is cringe overload.
The director said he wanted to find a balance between a goofy, serious and sad video, and I think he failed at doing so. To think of it, they failed in everything they possibly could — the cover art is atrocious, the music video is too goofy, and the song is overly produced and compressed. Sad final.
This is why you need a band... You need John or George to say something is rubbish when it's rubbish, without fear of being fired or imposing emotional damage to a music legend. Saying yes to everything. Cutting whole parts from the song, choosing lazy album covers, etc...
Just imagine, you have all the money in the world, all the time in the world, and you can pick any director alive to direct your music video, it's your latest go at the biggest band in the world. And all you come up with is this... Mind-blowingly sad.
-
I like the song, and appreciate the modern way of using John's voice, but the single cover artwork clearly took someone about 5 minutes to think about, which is a weird thing, because The Beatles were always know for their visuals aswell as their music!!!
I guess this A.I. approach could be used to extract Mark's voice and guitar from the audience recording of Two Skinny Kids.
-
Opinions are like...
I was underwhelmed by the cover art, but thinking about it, it would have been easy to do a late 60s psychadelic thing and keep it "on brand". Instead, they have done something completely different.
The Beatles, defying expectations after 60 years. Love it.
-
Opinions are like...
I was underwhelmed by the cover art, but thinking about it, it would have been easy to do a late 60s psychadelic thing and keep it "on brand". Instead, they have done something completely different.
The Beatles, defying expectations after 60 years. Love it.
The problem is The Beatles are so huge you can justify and find good explanations for anything they do, it could be just a black square and everybody would find new meanings in it, could be anything. Is it a good thing? Probably. But when your cover art looks like a temporary placeholder picture music stores would make, I think you've got a problem.
They could've used AI to generate the image (or maybe it was AI, after all), they could've asked fans, and they could've reimagined one of the older covers, but let's just stick 3 words with lazy shadows, it will do. No band name, no pleasure to scale it to LP size (Bigger words? WOW!), absolutely f-ing lazy. Even a solid colour would work better, but they already did it in 1968!
The worst part is the absence of a huge part of the song — it simply sounds better complete. They composed a new part and Paul (!) played the solo inspired (!!!) by George Harrison, basically imitating his style. Innovative, huh? I mean what a lazy approach is this? How is this a Beatles song?
Complete madness.
-
It's a Beatles single because it's been released by The Beatles. And the best thing about it is, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You are absolutely free to believe that the world stopped turning in 1970 :)
-
It's a Beatles single because it's been released by The Beatles. And the best thing about it is, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You are absolutely free to believe that the world stopped turning in 1970 :)
We will discuss this when in the future, John, Alan and Guy overdub a MK solo unreleased song and sell it like DS
I'm pretty sure what most of you would say.
-
It's a Beatles single because it's been released by The Beatles. And the best thing about it is, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You are absolutely free to believe that the world stopped turning in 1970 :)
We will discuss this when in the future, John, Alan and Guy overdub a MK solo unreleased song and sell it like DS
I'm pretty sure what most of you would say.
Yes, I'm sorry, but if something's f-upped up, something's f-upped up, you can't hide it. Argue how long you want, but it will not make the cover art good, it will not make the song full and less overproduced, and won't change the fact it was a completely unnecessary thing to do in the first place.
Weirdly enough, I still enjoy it because it's The Beatles and we need to accept this anyway. It just could've been done a million times better, and that's what bothers me. And don't listen to me, I think many people agree about all the points mentioned before. The only people who like the cover are the people who don't care.
Same with everything else. If you don't care about The Beatles, poor cover art, stupid cheesy music videos, or cash-grabbing on a huge brand, then good for you.
-
It's a Beatles single because it's been released by The Beatles. And the best thing about it is, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You are absolutely free to believe that the world stopped turning in 1970 :)
We will discuss this when in the future, John, Alan and Guy overdub a MK solo unreleased song and sell it like DS
I'm pretty sure what most of you would say.
Yes, I'm sorry, but if something's f-upped up, something's f-upped up, you can't hide it. Argue how long you want, but it will not make the cover art good, it will not make the song full and less overproduced, and won't change the fact it was a completely unnecessary thing to do in the first place.
Weirdly enough, I still enjoy it because it's The Beatles and we need to accept this anyway. It just could've been done a million times better, and that's what bothers me. And don't listen to me, I think many people agree about all the points mentioned before. The only people who like the cover are the people who don't care.
Same with everything else. If you don't care about The Beatles, poor cover art, stupid cheesy music videos, or cash-grabbing on a huge brand, then good for you.
I think you are 100% wrong.
:)
-
It's a Beatles single because it's been released by The Beatles. And the best thing about it is, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You are absolutely free to believe that the world stopped turning in 1970 :)
We will discuss this when in the future, John, Alan and Guy overdub a MK solo unreleased song and sell it like DS
I'm pretty sure what most of you would say.
If the worst happened and MK was no longer with us I would love for this to happen.
-
It's a Beatles single because it's been released by The Beatles. And the best thing about it is, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You are absolutely free to believe that the world stopped turning in 1970 :)
We will discuss this when in the future, John, Alan and Guy overdub a MK solo unreleased song and sell it like DS
I'm pretty sure what most of you would say.
Yes, I'm sorry, but if something's f-upped up, something's f-upped up, you can't hide it. Argue how long you want, but it will not make the cover art good, it will not make the song full and less overproduced, and won't change the fact it was a completely unnecessary thing to do in the first place.
Weirdly enough, I still enjoy it because it's The Beatles and we need to accept this anyway. It just could've been done a million times better, and that's what bothers me. And don't listen to me, I think many people agree about all the points mentioned before. The only people who like the cover are the people who don't care.
Same with everything else. If you don't care about The Beatles, poor cover art, stupid cheesy music videos, or cash-grabbing on a huge brand, then good for you.
I think you are 100% wrong.
:)
"Fuh you"
— Paul McCartney
-
Ha ha!
-
I agree with Dusty
to me it IS a Beatles song. You can hear all four members in it, and even strings arranged by George Martin's son... it has all classic ingredients you have in a traditionnal Beatles song
Yes I would have prefer that the slide guitar been played by George, but at least Paul did a very good job, and it does sound like George. A friend of mine, a real Beatles fan, tought it was George playing
-
I don't know where takes his slide playing influence from, but I have always heard George Harrison in his playing.
-
I don't know where takes his slide playing influence from, but I have always heard George Harrison in his playing.
in the Peter Jackson Documentary, Paul says he played his slide solo in George's slide playing style, like a kind of tribute to his friend
https://youtu.be/APJAQoSCwuA
-
I don't know where takes his slide playing influence from, but I have always heard George Harrison in his playing.
in the Peter Jackson Documentary, Paul says he played his slide solo in George's slide playing style, like a kind of tribute to his friend
https://youtu.be/APJAQoSCwuA
Pity George never played actual solos for this song, as I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people listening think it's actually George's playing, another strange decision in my book. You can play in George's style, you can write in John's style, or play in Mark's style, but “Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
You need somebody to explain it's a tribute and not an actual recording of George. Why? Because they released it under The Beatles' name! Should Paul play this solo on his solo album (excuse the pun), nobody would be confused. You should not do any new music with dead band members.
-
Regarding whether it was morally right to use a "solo" song and turn that into a Beatles song: Yoko gave the song to Paul because it was in a box John had marked "to Paul".
Make of that what you will 🙂
It is a good song, but it was an odd choice to leave out John's bridge.
-
Somehow I doubt Mark has any boxes marked "to Alan (and poor old fakers trying to dance in my old shoes)".
;D
-
Regarding whether it was morally right to use a "solo" song and turn that into a Beatles song: Yoko gave the song to Paul because it was in a box John had marked "to Paul".
Make of that what you will 🙂
It is a good song, but it was an odd choice to leave out John's bridge.
Yes, of course
Lol