Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Posts 51 to 63 of 63
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Hey, thanks DoctorJeff; I agree. If Yoko was undeniably the force behind the breakup of the band, it would have been hard for Jackson to portray otherwise.

    I found it interesting that the author says he couldn't take his eyes off of Yoko. I was too busy watching the band. Sure, I did find her to be kind of irritating. But the author of the article seems dead-set on villainizing her.

    I have been in bands that banned girlfriends, family, friends, etc. from rehearsals because their very presence could be distracting. But the Beatles don't seem to be that band. Perhaps by the time you reach that kind of mega-stardom you just don't care who is at rehearsal.

    Any number of people besides John could have closed the rehearsals. But they were supporting him in what he wanted to do. They were being good friends.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52
    I came away from the film feeling that I understood much better what may have happened. I'd always heard about the Yoko aspect, creative departures or drugs etc. Life is complicated, and I know that all of these are factors, but for me, after watching the film, I felt something different. I thought the band seemed to be seemed to suffer from an Epstein-defficiency more than from an overabundance of anything else, including Yoko. Creatives need direction from somewhere, usually external, and I think it's an evident struggle for them throughout the film.

    I know what this looks like on a personal level, as I live with a super-artistic creative type, largely disconnected from time in a linear way (schedules, goals, timelines for work, even things like actual meaning which might be interpreted from the order of events). There seems to be a direct correlation between creative openness to limitless possibility and the degree to which that very "limitless" aspect bogs things down, in terms of linear time and goals.

    All artistic types deal with this to a degree, but they are usually hemmed in arbitrarily by external factors: prepping for a paying job, paying bills, making time commitments to the people that you depend on for all of these aspects etc etc. But what happens when you've reached the level where you can do whatever you want, where there are virtually no external limits? What happens when you don't clock in, and there's no one above you in terms of competency in your field etc? Then, factor in all of the "interests", financial and otherwise, who want to "help" and "advise" on what to do, when you're at the absolute top, the way that the Beatles were. Who to trust? I think, at the very least, they would have trusted Epstein as a way of outsourcing some of these debates. From what I can tell especially watching this, his absence left a pretty huge vacuum in terms of direction.

    In the film, the numerous "summits" about what to do gave me a sinking feeling, because I know what it looks like at a personal level. They don't necessarily go anywhere, and in the film, they always bogged down into philosophical "meaning" questions which stopped them actually planning to do anything. These "what's it all for?" discussions mostly discount the "happy accident" aspect of life and the necessity of simply doing something, or even the idea that the more you do, the more opportunity for great moments.

    The pivotol (and most moving) moment in the film for me was seeing Paul's rooftop performance, after witnessing the hours of debate on "what the point of it all" was. He didn't seem to be phoning it in or doing it for Ringo etc. I was struck by one aspect particularly: that he so obviously couldn't have foreseen that he actually needed and craved that moment. This type of "meaning" isn't best understood philosophically, beforehand, the way they were constantly debating in their meetings, but it's very much a kind of artistic imperative.

    I think they needed that outside voice that they could trust enough to do some "arbitrary" events on a schedule. Life is full of meaningful moments which were previously unforeseen and arbitrary. Can you imagine them never having done the rooftop concert? It's arbitrary on multiple levels and required far too much emotional and creative energy just to arrive at as an event. I don't think you can discount the creative "space" which is freed up, as an artist, when you don't have to make all of those decisions. It's difficult for less artistic temperaments to appreciate the emotional drain of "basic" things like scheduling.

    I just don't think there was anyone else who could be trusted as that voice to replace Epstein.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    they always bogged down into philosophical "meaning" questions which stopped them actually planning to do anything.
    Much like the threads around here.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Goo goo g' joob.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher View Post
    I came away from the film feeling that I understood much better what may have happened. I'd always heard about the Yoko aspect, creative departures or drugs etc. Life is complicated, and I know that all of these are factors, but for me, after watching the film, I felt something different. I thought the band seemed to be seemed to suffer from an Epstein-defficiency more than from an overabundance of anything else, including Yoko. Creatives need direction from somewhere, usually external, and I think it's an evident struggle for them throughout the film.

    I know what this looks like on a personal level, as I live with a super-artistic creative type, largely disconnected from time in a linear way (schedules, goals, timelines for work, even things like actual meaning which might be interpreted from the order of events). There seems to be a direct correlation between creative openness to limitless possibility and the degree to which that very "limitless" aspect bogs things down, in terms of linear time and goals.

    All artistic types deal with this to a degree, but they are usually hemmed in arbitrarily by external factors: prepping for a paying job, paying bills, making time commitments to the people that you depend on for all of these aspects etc etc. But what happens when you've reached the level where you can do whatever you want, where there are virtually no external limits? What happens when you don't clock in, and there's no one above you in terms of competency in your field etc? Then, factor in all of the "interests", financial and otherwise, who want to "help" and "advise" on what to do, when you're at the absolute top, the way that the Beatles were. Who to trust? I think, at the very least, they would have trusted Epstein as a way of outsourcing some of these debates. From what I can tell especially watching this, his absence left a pretty huge vacuum in terms of direction.

    In the film, the numerous "summits" about what to do gave me a sinking feeling, because I know what it looks like at a personal level. They don't necessarily go anywhere, and in the film, they always bogged down into philosophical "meaning" questions which stopped them actually planning to do anything. These "what's it all for?" discussions mostly discount the "happy accident" aspect of life and the necessity of simply doing something, or even the idea that the more you do, the more opportunity for great moments.

    The pivotol (and most moving) moment in the film for me was seeing Paul's rooftop performance, after witnessing the hours of debate on "what the point of it all" was. He didn't seem to be phoning it in or doing it for Ringo etc. I was struck by one aspect particularly: that he so obviously couldn't have foreseen that he actually needed and craved that moment. This type of "meaning" isn't best understood philosophically, beforehand, the way they were constantly debating in their meetings, but it's very much a kind of artistic imperative.

    I think they needed that outside voice that they could trust enough to do some "arbitrary" events on a schedule. Life is full of meaningful moments which were previously unforeseen and arbitrary. Can you imagine them never having done the rooftop concert? It's arbitrary on multiple levels and required far too much emotional and creative energy just to arrive at as an event. I don't think you can discount the creative "space" which is freed up, as an artist, when you don't have to make all of those decisions. It's difficult for less artistic temperaments to appreciate the emotional drain of "basic" things like scheduling.

    I just don't think there was anyone else who could be trusted as that voice to replace Epstein.
    The rooftop concert was brilliant, and Paul (I think especially) was a stud in that performance. I think it was indeed some kind of release.

    For me, the documentary confirmed what I’ve long perceived as the core reason (among several) for the breakup. John had replaced Paul with Yoko as his ultimate creative partner. Nothing wrong with that. And this wasn’t anyone’s “fault.”

    I think if this has not happened, the band’s other issues (Epstein gone, George needing more input, no more live performance identity for the group) were still correctible.

    Yoko represented a new direction creatively that also happened to be an outgrowth of Lennon’s personality. The idea that anything could become art as a concept. This is the common theme of songs like “All you need is love”, “instant karma”, “war is over if you want it”, “imagine”, “you are here”, “mind games”, and so forth.

    I wish John and Paul had kept rocking together, because I love their two voices, and love their work at the end of the Beatles, like “the ballad of john and yoko.”

    In the end, I think John started the band, and John broke it up.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    I think the Beatles broke up because the sixties were over.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    I think the Beatles broke up because the sixties were over.
    I’m glad the Stones didn’t.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Garrett View Post
    I’m glad the Stones didn’t.
    The Stones killed the 60’s, man.

    After Altamont it was downhill to where we are now.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Garrett View Post
    I’m glad the Stones didn’t.
    The end of the Beatles, and the sixties, allowed the Stones to be themselves. No longer did they have to compete with the bigger and nicer band.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    The end of the Beatles, and the sixties, allowed the Stones to be themselves. No longer did they have to compete with the bigger and nicer band.
    It’s funny to think that was ever a thing. Such different bands. The Stones were a funky, great live band.

    I remember the question, “Are you a Beatles person or a Stones person?” As if you couldn’t be both.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Here is an analysis of the creative methods the Beatles used during the sessions. The author points out the (mostly) good and bad ideas.

    https://medium.com/fluxx-studio-note...s-ea14385e27a4

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by docsteve
    Here is an analysis of the creative methods the Beatles used during the sessions. The author points out the (mostly) good and bad ideas.

    10 lessons in productivity and brainstorming from The Beatles | by Tom Whitwell | Fluxx Studio Notes | Nov, 2021 | Medium
    These are quite good and true.

    Incidentally, these practices (or ways of being) are always evident in earlier Beatles sessions as well, such as we have of them now, and also in John and Paul’s songwriting process (or processes, plural) as depicted brilliantly in the Hunter Davies biography published in 1968.

    I feel most people are too quick to be critics and kill ideas (and the vibe) most of the time, often with the charge that an idea isn’t “original.” I think this is wrong headed. Originality is a doubled edged coin. You often get to originality through a journey of imitation, which was very much the case with the Beatles from beginning to end.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    In today's management seminar, we will learn the creative methods that caused the Beatles to split.