Beatles GET BACK Directors Cut coming soon.

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
.... 4) Yoko really had nothing to do with it. I mean, at several point Linda is there, Maureen is there, the McCartney kids are running around and screaming. Quite honestly, when Yoko was asked anything, she actually had some very intelligent and poignant ideas for the group.
I was shocked at how many unnecessary people were in the studio at any given time while the tapes were rolling. It seemed very unprofessional to me. It would also be detrimental to working out any differences of opinion. Having an audience when you argue often leads to a nastier tone as neither want to be seen as "weaker" or "the loser" in the eyes of the "audience".
 
I've only seen the original film. Before George 'left' at this time, Ringo had 'left' a bit before this project (might have been after, my timeline is messed up probably). As someone mentioned earlier, there was unrest in the group before Let It Be. Thinking back from interviews and such, they were all a bit tired of being 'Beatles' and the perceived (and real) demands that were placed upon them all. Think about it - from 64 through 66 they were constantly doing public performances, recording, and doing promotional stuff with rarely a day off. Calling it quits, as far as touring goes, after Candlestick was a natural response to the constant pressures that were placed upon them. With the new found freedom this brought, they all indulged themselves in stuff they, as individuals, wanted to do. Quite honestly, I get what they were wanting at the time.

I always thought it was too bad that they weren't (or didn't) allow themselves solo projects as later became acceptable with other groups. So what if one member wanted to put out an album on their own. That didn't mean that was the 'end of the band' as it was seen at the time for them (and by them most likely). I think that would have changed things immensely.

Also, had the sound reinforcement industry that exists today been there at the time, maybe the touring would not have completely stopped. It could have been a few live shows a year, maybe less. One of the biggest complaints I heard from all of them was 'they couldn't hear themselves' on stage due to the 'mania'. They felt they were becoming poor musicians in a live setting due to that situation. That had to be immensely frustrating for them.

I remember seeing them in Chicago in 66. Dang if the girls didn't scream the whole time they were on stage. Yeah, I had seen it in the reports on them at the time, but just didn't think it would be a constant thing throughout the whole show. In fact, at one point before the show actually started, someone came down the stairs from the upper floor to the stage - one could just see the very top of their head. Screams immediately broke out and the individual high tailed it back up the stairs. I don't know if it was Mal going down to the stage to check something or what. It didn't make any difference to the crowd. Out of everything they did at that show, the only tune I could hear some of was Act Naturally and, man, it sounded just like the record! My point being, I get where they were coming from on live shows. Other than the money they made (and that IS where they made the majority of their income), it really was a waste of their time as musicians.

I really think that the Let It Be project was a mix of behavior and emotions on the group's part. I don't think it was all/mostly pleasant (Jackson's version) nor all tense and acrimonious (Lindsey-Hogg's version). They weren't tired of the music - they were tired of being Beatles.

All that said, I'm looking forward to being able to watch whatever I can of Jackson's take on things. Tempering the viewing with what I know of that time would make for a fascinating addition to the original film. Having it released to home video (dvd, BR, whatever) would be appreciated by me.
 
Also, had the sound reinforcement industry that exists today been there at the time, maybe the touring would not have completely stopped. It could have been a few live shows a year, maybe less. One of the biggest complaints I heard from all of them was 'they couldn't hear themselves' on stage due to the 'mania'. They felt they were becoming poor musicians in a live setting due to that situation. That had to be immensely frustrating for them.

Though it's never been officially released outside of Japan (at least, not as far as I know), the Budokan recordings from 1966 really point this out. It's been a while since I've listened, but my memory is telling me that the harmonies that open "Paperback Writer" were just painful. It's difficult to tell how much of that is due to an inability to hear themselves and how much is possibly because they've become somewhat apathetic in the face of the certainty that no one is really listening anyway.
 
Agree on the Budokahn show. In fact I think one of the Fabs pointed to that show as the point where their musicianship sucked due to not being able to hear themselves in concert at other venues . The Japanese audience were much more reserved so the group COULD hear themselves there along with all of the shortcomings. I am surprised Paul didn't take the few seconds it would have taken between tunes to tighten the mic clip on the stand. I sure would have as it would be very annoying. Playing in local bands we dealt with that stuff ourselves. Hard to believe the Beatles were above making that kind of an adjustment when it was messing with their comfort during performance. Maybe they were on a tight schedule playing wise, but even then pulling the mic, tightening the clip and reinstalling the mic wouldn't have taken all that long. Where's Mal when you need him?

@atrocity: Perhaps they had become so out of practice from what came before that, when faced with the reserved Japanese audience, their set list had tunes that they could not replicate with the accuracy they might have had they been able to hear well in all previous performances. It was a wake up call indeed for the band. Think of it, had they even had foldback onstage they could have done better in the noisy environments. Monitors onstage weren't going to happen 'til later unfortunately. There was no sophisticated SR in 1966. What was done at Shea in 65 was joke, but did provide a signal to some folks, who later went on to develop and improve the situation, that SR needs needed to be addressed. I've always wanted to ask Paul or Ringo about this as it would be interesting to hear their response.
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand how anybody can have a positive impression of Yoko after this. Sure, Linda and Maureen were also there, but they weren't on sitting next to their man the entire time, particularly when it came time to write. They withdrew to the control room or elsewhere, whereas Yoko never moved away from John. I don't know how she survived when it was time for a potty break! That must've been when John and Paul were able to have a discussion in the break room. I'm not sure how many of you have been in a band situation before, but when it comes time to write and rehearse, the band needs to be focused. And when George left, she sure was ready to step in wasn't she? Shouting into the microphone and all that...how annoying. Loved it when Linda's daughter one-upped her later by doing the same thing, only somehow sounding better as a 6 year old.

The overarching impression I get (from this snapshot of 3 weeks) is that Paul had to carry the load because John was (1) out of it, and (2) distracted by Yoko. Even Paul says if it comes time to choose between the Beatles and Yoko, John will choose Yoko. So yes, he is domineering at the expense of George, who doesn't help himself by being the youngest and most timid. Instead of speaking up for himself, George simply avoided conflict and withdrew. We all know people like that and many of us are probably the same way. But Paul did that in order to keep John's focus, and to keep him involved. I'm sure Paul looks at this now and thinks he could've done a better job being receptive to George, but he is also just in his mid-20s here, subject to the judgment of a person that age, and really has a lot on his plate in trying to preserve The Beatles. As their solo work would show, John and Paul were much better together than they were apart, and I think Paul understands this. Remember that it wasn't long after that Paul sang about John taking his lucky break and breaking it in two in Too Many People.
 
When I was a kid I had like a 12 album bootleg box set of the Nagra reels. I listened with great fascination... once. I suspect a 12 hour cut of this footage will be very similar. FWIW, I don't have Disney+ and am not subscribing for one show, so I haven't seen it yet.
 
All that said, I'm looking forward to being able to watch whatever I can of Jackson's take on things. Tempering the viewing with what I know of that time would make for a fascinating addition to the original film. Having it released to home video (dvd, BR, whatever) would be appreciated by me.
One thing about a 12 hour version is that it makes it much harder to edit for an agenda. Out of fifty hours or whatever of footage, it would be really easy to come up with an hour to slant perception in a certain direction. Six hours probably still allows for that, but you've got to work a little harder to sculpt the narrative. At 12 hours I would think the actuality of the proceedings start to reveal themselves (not that I'm accusing Jackson or Lindsey Hogg of anything, just speaking to the dynamics of editing a finite amount of footage.)
 
I really don't understand how anybody can have a positive impression of Yoko after this. Sure, Linda and Maureen were also there, but they weren't on sitting next to their man the entire time, particularly when it came time to write. They withdrew to the control room or elsewhere, whereas Yoko never moved away from John. I don't know how she survived when it was time for a potty break! That must've been when John and Paul were able to have a discussion in the break room. I'm not sure how many of you have been in a band situation before, but when it comes time to write and rehearse, the band needs to be focused. And when George left, she sure was ready to step in wasn't she? Shouting into the microphone and all that...how annoying. Loved it when Linda's daughter one-upped her later by doing the same thing, only somehow sounding better as a 6 year old.

The overarching impression I get (from this snapshot of 3 weeks) is that Paul had to carry the load because John was (1) out of it, and (2) distracted by Yoko. Even Paul says if it comes time to choose between the Beatles and Yoko, John will choose Yoko. So yes, he is domineering at the expense of George, who doesn't help himself by being the youngest and most timid. Instead of speaking up for himself, George simply avoided conflict and withdrew. We all know people like that and many of us are probably the same way. But Paul did that in order to keep John's focus, and to keep him involved. I'm sure Paul looks at this now and thinks he could've done a better job being receptive to George, but he is also just in his mid-20s here, subject to the judgment of a person that age, and really has a lot on his plate in trying to preserve The Beatles. As their solo work would show, John and Paul were much better together than they were apart, and I think Paul understands this. Remember that it wasn't long after that Paul sang about John taking his lucky break and breaking it in two in Too Many People.

I don't mean to pick on @fetchmybeer here. (In fact I'm sympathetic to pretty much everything he says in the second paragraph of the post above.) But there's been a whole spate of critical comments about Yoko lately that got me thinking.

I know it's not the issue here, but I always found the "Yoko broke up the Beatles" idea dumb, not to mention misogynist. And while I was never a fan of her work, especially, a retrospective at MOMA a few years ago gave me a genuine appreciation for its significance that I'd never had before. Just the same: watching The Beatles: Get Back, I think I had the same reaction as everybody: why the hell is she there? Her constant presence came off as strange, and distracting, and inappropriate, and ickily codependent. But cultural critic Amanda Hess made me question that reaction and gave me a different perspective; starting in the same place as me, more or less, she wound up in a much different one. (A sample: “The documentary’s shaggy run-time reveals Ono’s provocation in all its intensity. It’s as if she is staging a marathon performance piece, and in a way, she is.” She also has a much different interpretation of Heather Eastman's mimicry.)

If you're not a subscriber and you've already read several NYT articles for free this month, then you won't be able to get past the paywall. But if you can, then I think it's a brilliant piece, worth reading all the way through.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/arts/music/yoko-ono-beatles-get-back.html
(In fact it's a good companion piece to Ann Powers's riff on Get Back at NPR Music, "The Fellowship of the Rockers." And for those of a certain disposition who see the subheader and might be tempted to dismiss the essay as PC SJW posturing, I'd just plead: read the whole piece. If you enjoy long-form journalism, anyway.)
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/21/1066022789/beatles-get-back-band-guys
 
Last edited:
Back
Top