New Beatles track

RFR said:
Ok, listened to it. They did a good job.

Tune’s ok. It’s no Eleanor Rigby, or the End, or Get back or, or, but it’s ok.
Click to expand...
It's not a Beatles song, it's a John Lennon song that got turned into a project by the rest of the group. It's not Lennon's most tuneful composition but interesting because of the history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
I think it’s okay. Definitely on the lower half of their catalogue in my opinion.

But it “not being a Beatle song” is also silly. The comments about the White Album are correct. And other albums. There were some songs where Paul wanted a very specific thing and asked them to play that specific thing. And he’d then record it himself if he didn’t like it the way George played or something—and I guess it happened again here.

There is more independent collaboration here than there are on multiple Beatle songs—even if it wasn’t approved by John.

But yes, it sounds like three+ people recording around John and in the same vein as Free As A Bird, which I agree sounds more like a Beatle song. I think that’s because all 4 seem independent in that one and stand out. John has his main part. Paul has his part, George’s lead guitar is very apparent, and Ringo is more upfront in that than this one.
 
Wasn't the whole thing with the Let It Be project supposed to be that the band would get together and make music like in the beginning? Everybody get in studio at the same time and lay down some tracks? The songs were supposed to be simpler compositions, songs they could play live, like the "good old days", ultimately to be presented at a concert.

Obviously it didn't work. Paul didn't like what Spector did with songs, George was pissed at Paul. John wasn't especially happy with the sessions.

The fact that the track is put together from old and new tracks isn't a problem. This was done with Hendrix songs for years. It's just that I'm not particularly enamored with the song.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
But it “not being a Beatle song” is also silly. The comments about the White Album are correct. And other albums. There were some songs where Paul wanted a very specific thing and asked them to play that specific thing. And he’d then record it himself if he didn’t like it the way George played or something—and I guess it happened again here.

There is more independent collaboration here than there are on multiple Beatle songs—even if it wasn’t approved by John.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it wasn't approved by John, and never would have been. Hence, it is not a Beatles song. Not silly, just the way it is.

So, let's say Andrew Ridgeley was given an old tape that contained some songs George Michael had written, years after Wham had broken up. Andrew reworks them and calls them new Wham songs? George didn't write them with Wham in mind, why are they all the sudden Wham songs?

Why is this a Beatles song? The Beatles broke up years before John wrote this song, and I highly doubt he had the intention of labeling them a 'Beatles' song - ever. Is there some part of the dialogue that I'm unaware of? Did John Lennon say to his ex-bandmates, that he was working on a couple songs, and he'd really like for them to be worked on by George, Paul and Ringo, and then released under the name 'The Beatles'? Was John pushing for the Beatles to reunite back in the late 70's? No.

The right thing for them to have done, would be to release this as a new John Lennon song. It would of got pretty near equal as much world attention, and doesn't need to hide under the guise of a 'New Beatles Song' BS.

I think the whole thing is a travesty and in poor taste. Maybe Paul's losing it. Smearing the latest buzz-word 'AI' all over it just makes it that much more contemporarily meaningless and shallow. Sorry John.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
Eric Malone said:
Exactly, it wasn't approved by John, and never would have been. Hence, it is not a Beatles song. Not silly, just the way it is.

So, let's say Andrew Ridgeley was given an old tape that contained some songs George Michael had written, years after Wham had broken up. Andrew reworks them and calls them new Wham songs? George didn't write them with Wham in mind, why are they all the sudden Wham songs?

Why is this a Beatles song? The Beatles broke up years before John wrote this song, and I highly doubt he had the intention of labeling them a 'Beatles' song - ever. Is there some part of the dialogue that I'm unaware of? Did John Lennon say to his ex-bandmates, that he was working on a couple songs, and he'd really like for them to be worked on by George, Paul and Ringo, and then released under the name 'The Beatles'? Was John pushing for the Beatles to reunite back in the late 70's? No.

I think the whole thing is a travesty and in poor taste. Maybe Paul's losing it. Smearing the latest buzz-word 'AI' all over it just makes it that much more contemporarily meaningless and shallow. Sorry John.
Click to expand...
Nah, this is just silly.

If I had a song, and asked friends to collaborate on it, and I died midway through them recording their takes, that doesn’t it mean the project has to be scrapped. It’s up to the people who are still alive to decide that. I’m dead.

If I asked them to collaborate, and I heard their takes and I said, “I think it sounds…” and magically died mid sentence, that doesn’t mean it has to be scrapped. It’s up to them. I’m dead.

As for whether he intended to be a Beatles song, I don’t think that matters. It’s not like he’s a ghost getting super outraged that his wife handed his former band mates the tapes and is shaking his ghostly head at the end result.

When George and John were gone during the White Album, Paul recorded the entirety of Why Don’t We Do It In The Road with a little help from Ringo. George and John didn’t like that. It still made it on the White Album. Nobody says “it’s not a Beatles song” to that.

The argument that this isn’t a Beatles song is just nonsense. Rolling Stones released tons of material after members have died. Who are we people who have never been Beatles and have never had a single conversation with them to decide that this isn’t a Beatles song and is in poor taste? Nobodies that’s who.

All four Beatles are on it—three of them with the intention of it being a Beatles song. That’s way, way, better than Why Don’t We Do It In The Road.

When you’re dead, you don’t have a say in anything unless you have it in writing. That’s what wills are for. This nonsense that we nobodies know what a dead man would think if he’s watching over the whole situation as a ghost is head scratching.
 
Haha! Now we can add Beatles to the list of divisive topics. :-)

Topics such as politics, religion, analog versus digital and now the Beatles.

Shhhh. Don’t bring up the Beatles at the thanksgiving table this year :LOL:
 
RFR said:
Haha! Now we can add Beatles to the list of divisive topics. :-)

Topics such as politics, religion, analog versus digital and now the Beatles.

Shhhh. Don’t bring up the Beatles at the thanksgiving table this year :LOL:
Click to expand...
Another thing I’ve been telling people recently is that this idea that music can be underrated or overrated is false.

There’s no such thing when it comes to music. Music simply is or isn’t.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
Nah, this is just silly.

If I had a song, and asked friends to collaborate on it, and I died midway through them recording their takes, that doesn’t it mean the project has to be scrapped. It’s up to the people who are still alive to decide that. I’m dead.

If I asked them to collaborate, and I heard their takes and I said, “I think it sounds…” and magically died mid sentence, that doesn’t mean it has to be scrapped. It’s up to them. I’m dead.

As for whether he intended to be a Beatles song, I don’t think that matters. It’s not like he’s a ghost getting super outraged that his wife handed his former band mates the tapes and is shaking his ghostly head at the end result.

When George and John were gone during the White Album, Paul recorded the entirety of Why Don’t We Do It In The Road with a little help from Ringo. George and John didn’t like that. It still made it on the White Album. Nobody says “it’s not a Beatles song” to that.

The argument that this isn’t a Beatles song is just nonsense. Rolling Stones released tons of material after members have died. Who are we people who have never been Beatles and have never had a single conversation with them to decide that this isn’t a Beatles song and is in poor taste? Nobodies that’s who.

All four Beatles are on it—three of them with the intention of it being a Beatles song. That’s way, way, better than Why Don’t We Do It In The Road.

When you’re dead, you don’t have a say in anything unless you have it in writing. That’s what wills are for. This nonsense that we nobodies know what a dead man would think if he’s watching over the whole situation as a ghost is head scratching.
Click to expand...

John asked Paul, Ringo and George to collaborate on this song?

What happened while the Beatles were still together, is irrelevant. They were still 'The Beatles', and of course, trading off on instruments and finishing songs in the absence of others is common in all bands. That is not this scenario at all.

Your Rolling Stones comparison makes no sense. Yes, the Stones have released songs after members have died. Keyword - Members, i.e. the band is still an entity, and the member who died was an active member of that band, up until his death. Not an ex-member who has his own successful solo career and has no connection to previous band, expect for his past membership.

I can decide whatever I like. I've decided that this is a John Lennon composition, brought back into the spotlight, by Paul McCartney. Anyone who is familiar with The Beatles catalog, and the solo careers of Harrison, McCartney and Lennon, can clearly tell the difference between a Beatles song, and a Lennon song written long after the Beatles breakup. It doesn't do John justice to lump his composition, completely outside of the Beatles, as a 'Beatles' song.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
Eric Malone said:
John asked Paul, Ringo and George to collaborate on this song?

What happened while the Beatles were still together, is irrelevant. They were still 'The Beatles', and of course, trading off on instruments and finishing songs in the absence of others is common in all bands. That is not this scenario at all.

Your Rolling Stones comparison makes no sense. Yes, the Stones have released songs after members have died. Keyword - Members, i.e. the band is still an entity, and the member who died was an active member of that band, up until his death. Not an ex-member who has his own successful solo career and has no connection to previous band, expect for his past membership.

I can decide whatever I like. I've decided that this is a John Lennon composition, brought back into the spotlight, by Paul McCartney. Anyone who is familiar with The Beatles catalog, and the solo careers of Harrison, McCartney and Lennon, can clearly tell the difference between a Beatles song, and a Lennon song written long after the Beatles breakup. It doesn't do John justice to lump his composition, completely outside of the Beatles, as a 'Beatles' song.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter if he didn’t ask them. He’s dead. He doesn’t get to decide.

The point of my comparison to Rolling Stones was to bring out the concept that you brought up. An “entity.” A legal entity.

So you want to know why “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road” was released despite George and John not liking it—let alone not even being on it? Because the legal entity decided it should be.

John is dead. George is dead. That means the people who decide this should be a Beatles song are Paul, Ring, Olivia/Dhani, and Yoko/Sean.

Not some nobodies on a home recording forum. You’re allowed to think what you want. That doesn’t change a thing. That this is an official Beatles song where all four members play on the track. You’re also allowed to think this is disrespectful of Paul (which is also just downright weird. Why only him and not literally everybody involved? You think he held guns to their head?). You have zero insight as to the decision making of those closest to John.

It’s just like people saying songs are overrated or underrated. You can say that all you want. It doesn’t make it so. The public decides how art should be valued—not an individual. But in this case, there’s an actual legal component involved with this that just says you’re downright wrong.

The holders of Apple Corps (names i mentioned earlier) could splice together a composition of melodic farts from random people who sent them emails. Wet farts, dry farts. Maybe one of them shat their pants a little in the process.

They could mash it all together like Revolution #9, and if all those names give their stamp of approval, it’s a Beatles song—whether you think it is or not.

Really, the only thing that’s even only potentially wrong here is calling this the “last official” Beatles song. I guess time will tell with that if Paul is telling the truth.

Be glad that there’s an official Beatles song with all 4 on it. Or be mad about it. Doesn’t change the fact it’s a Beatles song.
 
I'm not mad about anything. You can illustrate legalities and what can be done to make it an 'official' Beatles song. That is not my point. That's already been taken care of by the multi million dollar legal teams that managed to get Lennon's song, this far, and labeled as a Beatles song. The point is, it's a Lennon song, with some ex-Beatles performing on it. I respect integrity, that is my problem with this. My problem. I know I can't change it, nor am I trying to.

If John were still alive, how do you think the release of this song would pan out with him not onboard? I know you will take the cut and dry viewpoint. He's not alive - so fuck him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RFR
Actually, it doesn't matter whether John wrote it for the Beatles or not. They did record songs written by others. Till There Was You , Twist and Shout, Long Tall Sally, Chains, Boys, Taste Of Honey, etc. John was just the composer. Technically, they could have done it with the 3 remaining Beatles and called it a Beatles song. The fact that they included John's vocals just adds an extra touch, and as the beneficiary of John's estate, Yoko has final say on whether it could be done that way.

Still not my favorite, tho.....
 
Eric Malone said:
If John were still alive, how do you think the release of this song would pan out with him not onboard? I know you will take the cut and dry viewpoint. He's not alive - so fuck him.
Click to expand...
Dunno. I’m not going to speculate like you are.

I also find it weird you think it should be released as a Lennon only song. Slightly inconsistent philosophically. He had a chance to put it on Double Fantasy and he didn’t.

Thing is, because he’s dead, there’s zero way of knowing—so thinking that things end there because one member died is no different than thinking that The Rolling Stones are no longer The Rolling Stones.

I’ve written a few songs 10 years ago I scrapped, and went back to, reworked, and asked friends to contribute to it.

Also, why are you assuming he would not be onboard with this? Why are you accepting it as fact? Because he didn’t in 1977 and therefore he wouldn’t in 2023?

It wasn’t in writing, so I’m going to assume he wanted it to be worked on. <—sounds crazy and “insensitive” right? It’s no different than you, someone who never knew anybody involved in the entire band, assuming you know what his ghostly apparition is feeling.

Unless you’re secretly Yoko/Sean… 😱

If I die, I hope my friends can download all the stuff on my hard drive never released and have fun with it. I’ve never told them that, and probably won’t bring it up because it’s just weird to do so. So they won’t know and will think it’s insensitive to do so—when the reality is I didn’t care, and certainly wouldn’t after I’m dead because…I’m dead. So yeah, fuck me.
 
Yes, they could of called it a new song from ELO, featuring John Lennon on vocals. Who cares anymore. I guess what I'm trying to convey is not coming across very well. Enjoy the new 'Beatles' song!
 
Eric Malone said:
Yes, they could have called it a new song from ELO, featuring John Lennon on vocals. Who cares anymore. I guess what I'm trying to convey is not coming across very well. Enjoy the new 'Beatles' song!
Click to expand...
What you’re trying to covey seems to be understood. It’s just wrong or weak in many different forms.

Unless you’re trying to make the point that it doesn’t sound like the Beatles did in the 60s. That’s probably the only thing that has any leg to stand on.
 
Tune is growing on me a little bit.

Rick’s take on it is pretty good.

Now, listening to it, I’m also getting a Traveling Wilburys production vibe.
 
Last edited:
RFR said:
Tune is growing on me a little bit.

Rick’s take on it is pretty good.

Now, listening to it, I’m also getting a Traveling Wilburys production vibe.
Click to expand...
Same. The Traveling Wilbury's vibe is something that occurred to me as well (I'm a fan). I read elsewhere someone mention they thought Lynn's involvement was probably to account for that. It's unclear to me how much of the final product still has his fingerprints on it - but it wouldn't surprise me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top