PorterhouseMusic
Mitakuye Oyasin
Marketing I reckon. But kinda fun. The future is here.
Marketing I reckon. But kinda fun. The future is here.
Don't forget about the accompanying holographic 20 city tour!Just a matter of time before we see ‘new previously unreleased’ SRV concerts. All AI driven of course.,
Thankfully there is a shit ton of live stuff of his out there. Much of it pretty good. I do expect a movie about him at some point. I'm a pretty big fan. From early on.Just a matter of time before we see ‘new previously unreleased’ SRV concerts. All AI driven of course.,
That wouldn't surprise me in the least!Just a matter of time before we see ‘new previously unreleased’ SRV concerts. All AI driven of course.,
I'd rather not !I’m dead. So yeah, fuck me.
So, which is better, "Now and Then" or "Hackney Diamonds" ?The argument that this isn’t a Beatles song is just nonsense. Rolling Stones released tons of material after members have died
Actually, now that you mention it, what material did the Stones release after a member died that wasn't part of the sessions for the album that came out around the time the member {Brian Jones and Charlie Watts and at a stretch, Ian Stewart} did actually die ?Rolling Stones released tons of material after members have died
If by the legal entity you mean John, Paul, George and Ringo, then yes. That is precisely why this new recording isn't the Beatles. They had a rule that unless something was OK'd by all 4 of them, it didn't happen. For example, John wanted "I Am the Walrus" as a single and he wanted "Revolution 1" as a single but he didn't have George and Paul on board, certainly with the latter. Well, that legal entity was dissolved in the High Court as part of the lawsuit Paul brought in 1970. George's refusal to carry on with the song alone would have kept it from going any further.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
I think you run into a cul-de-sac of your own argument here.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?
That's a huge assumption that runs into a dead end. He didn't know he was going to be murdered. He didn't know he was going to die at the time he did. If he wanted it worked on, it would have been worked on by him.It wasn’t in writing, so I’m going to assume he wanted it to be worked on
My statement that it wasn’t in writing was facetious—because the assumption is just as ridiculous as saying he would disapprove. It doesn’t matter what he said all the way up to his death. He’s DEAD. He doesn’t have a choice.If by the legal entity you mean John, Paul, George and Ringo, then yes. That is precisely why this new recording isn't the Beatles. They had a rule that unless something was OK'd by all 4 of them, it didn't happen. For example, John wanted "I Am the Walrus" as a single and he wanted "Revolution 1" as a single but he didn't have George and Paul on board, certainly with the latter. Well, that legal entity was dissolved in the High Court as part of the lawsuit Paul brought in 1970. George's refusal to carry on with the song alone would have kept it from going any further.
Incidentally, while I've not yet come across anything George ever said about "Why don't we do it in the Road ?" John is on record {no pun intended} as saying he liked the song. In '72, he told Hit Parader that it was one of Paul's best songs and in '80 he told Playboy that he enjoyed the song.
I think you run into a cul-de-sac of your own argument here.
As human beings, especially as human beings that don't know one another personally, there are signs that a person can give that indicate where they may be at, at a certain point in their life. They might talk about it and we have the benefit of interviews, films and books. For example, we can say some definitive things about Hitler's state of mind as the Russians made their way into Berlin, just by the fact that he shot himself. In the case of Lennon, it is instructive to look at his thoughts about Paul McCartney, Beatle songs and life going on in that period of 10 years when the Beatles had ceased to exist. Interesting little observations like [Paul] "was the one that wanted the Beatles most," "I think he wanted to show that he was the Beatles," "Paul thought he was the fuckin' Beatles and he never fucking was, never," "Paul isn't the Beatles," "It wouldn't matter to me if I saw them [the other Beatles] often or if I never saw them again [he said this just before he died]," "I don't give a shit what Wings are doing," "He wanted us to go back to the dance halls and experience that again. But I didn't," "I haven't really talked to him in 10 years. Because I haven't spent time with him," "I don't have any romanticism about any part of my past...." And when asked if it wouldn't be interesting to have a reunion with Paul just for old times' sake, he replied "I never went to high school reunions !"
One of the last things he said, before he died, was "I will talk about the Beatles forever and ever. I will discuss them intellectually and what they mean and what they don't mean. That doesn't bother me. What does is the idea that people think we can recreate it for them - for the kids who keep writing me saying 'I'm only 14 now and I missed it.' I think that's pathetic. I mean, forget about that. Listen to the Beatles records, but dig Queen or Clash or whatever is going on now....the sixties is over and the Beatles is over." Interestingly, he was saying the same thing 10 years previous when he declared "The dream is over."
So actually, he was pretty consistent in certain things over a 10-year period and that gives a window into what he may have felt at the time of his death ~ given that many of those quotes come less than 3 months before he was killed. His 2023 thoughts are largely irrelevant because he died 43 years before that and so it's to those latter-day thoughts that one must turn in order to answer your question.
That's a huge assumption that runs into a dead end. He didn't know he was going to be murdered. He didn't know he was going to die at the time he did. If he wanted it worked on, it would have been worked on by him.
Or Ringo !
Clearly. As was my reply about Ringo. But many a true word is said in jest and often underscores some slightly more serious bedrock.My statement that it wasn’t in writing was facetious
For the purposes of the discussion, I think it does.It doesn’t matter what he said all the way up to his death
As funny as that sounds, it's true.He doesn’t have a choice
Well, it's an interesting talking point. It's not about being hung up on it. We're expressing opinions that we hold. Famous Beagle is of the opinion that because it's Paul saying John would be on board with it, that makes it acceptable. I happen to think there's another side of the story which makes for some interesting conclusions. I've no idea what Lennon would have thought if he were around 43 years on from the last words we have of him. But the point is that Paul is the one that brings up that John would love it. And for me, there was enough stuff that John said in his latter years that throws a lot of doubt on that. And so it makes for a good talking point and we explore various angles about it and state why we think what we think.I don’t understand why people get so hung up on what a dead man MIGHT think if he were alive
To be honest, I could care less about what John would have thought had he not died. He thought the tracks of "Ticket to ride" and "Lucy in the sky with Diamonds" were crap and that "Across the Universe" was badly recorded and realized. I heartily disagree. And I've expressed on these pages since 2009 what I think of remixes and remasters of songs and albums that have been part of the fabric of my life for 4 or 5 decades.—especially when they don’t personally know any of the people involved (who were all closest to him at some point in his life) .....Why is everyone else acting like they’re personal friends of John and are experiencing outrage at his dead behalf?
I’m not going to invade Sweden because of "Now and Then."
A blessing in disguise? AI is the way of the future? I certainly hope not. Is AI produced music the future?. I certainly hope not.One thing I will say though, this song could end up being a blessing in disguise for home recorders. The tech that exists to "unbake the cake" as it were, could mean that if we can.......