Get Back

[Mark Kohut]

Too much unreliable narration here...imo.....Harrison is bringing his
songs, his work.....Ringo makes Get Back get a rhythmic backbone---because
he listens...

Just a couple observations....

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 11:08 AM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> I haven’t seen it yet, but here’s a blog review of Part 1:
>
> https://jabberwocking.com/a-few-notes-on-peter-jacksons-get-back/
>
> I'm a big Beatles fan, and I've read quite a bit about them, but raw
> documentary footage is almost always a bit of a slog and this was no
> exception. Honestly, if it were about any other band I don't think I would
> have made it to the end.
>
> Going into it, I was under the impression that it put paid to the notion
> that the Beatles were at each others' throats by 1969. But it didn't
> really. They had agreed to do the TV special, of course, but beyond that it
> was pretty obvious that no one was having much fun. Here are some random
> observations.
>
>    - To say that Paul McCartney was the engine of the band at this point is
>    to massively underrate him. As near as I could tell, he was almost
>    literally the only one actively interested in making music during these
>    sessions.
>    - Except for George Harrison, that is, who tried to bring in a few songs
>    he'd written at home. These got a tepid response, eventually leading to
> his
>    famous 12-day "resignation" from the band. (McCartney eventually decided
>    that Harrison's songwriting had improved enormously, but it was too
> little
>    too late.)
>    - John Lennon spent the sessions apparently stoned and completely
>    disengaged. He smiled amiably and played his parts, but that was about
> it.
>    - Ringo Starr was Ringo Starr. He mostly just hung around while the
>    others figured out the music. This is the fate of many drummers.
>    - The whole thing was remarkably haphazard. They were rehearsing in a
>    huge, bare film studio just because someone offered it to them. They
> wanted
>    certain kinds of equipment and had a hard time getting it. The acoustics
>    were terrible. These were the Beatles! Nobody could be bothered to set
>    up a nice rehearsal space for the greatest rock band of all time?
>    - At one point McCartney says he's been acting as sort of the leader of
>    the band and doesn't feel comfortable with it. This may or may not have
>    been disingenuous on his part, but the only one to even respond was
>    Harrison.
>    - All this said, except for Harrison storming out at the end of Part 1,
>    there was no real animosity on display. Just a bunch of guys trying to
> put
>    together a bunch of new music on an insane timetable and seeming a
> little
>    dispirited about it. And yet, they'll do it!
>    - The only times when the foursome seem to be really enjoying themselves
>    is when they're jamming on old classics written by someone else. When
> the
>    pressure of creating music is off, they still get a kick out of playing
>    with each other.
>    - It's surprising not just how unprepared they are, but that over the
>    course of a decade they still haven't settled on how to do recording
>    sessions. These habits usually emerge over time and then become stable
> just
>    through inertia. In this case, if you didn't know who these guys were,
> you
>    might guess that it was the first time they had ever made a record
>    together. I imagine this was partly because there was no firm leader of
> the
>    band that everyone looked up to.
>    - One of the problems with Part 1 is that it shows the period when the
>    songs are just barely taking shape. This is historically interesting but
>    musically a bit tedious. I'm genuinely curious to see how Parts 2 and 3
>    shape up, when the lads are trying to resolve their personality
> conflicts
>    and are playing their songs in more recognizable form. I will watch them
>    shortly.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:29 AM rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > imho, not really. There's so much footage that I don't feel he was a
> > distraction. He was in a tough spot, dealing with the drama and the open
> > secret that the group was nearing its end. Some of his or others
> > suggestions sure were wacky: a cruise ship or a concert in Libya. filming
> > at Twickenham was a mistake. No one cared about the footage afterwards
> > which explains the dismal vibe of Let it Be; Get Back provides better
> > context. It will be interesting to see what's in Mal Evans' archive. I'm
> > not sure he was ever properly compensated and the band did treat him
> like a
> > gopher of sorts. I think he ended up getting shot by the LAPD in the
> > mid-70s
> >
> > rich
> >
> > rich
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 10:08 AM Johnny Marr <marrja at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One of the reviewers in the Guardian said he thought Michael
> Lindsay-Hogg
> > > was an annoying distraction and a try hard throughout the film, do you
> > > think that’s fair comment?
> > >
> > > On Monday, December 6, 2021, rich <richard.romeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hiya
> > >>
> > >> Watching the Get Back documentary and identifying the scenes from the
> > many
> > >> photos that were released over the years around the sessions, it
> > reminded
> > >> me of that contraption/invention in AtD, if I'm remembering correctly,
> > >> that
> > >> takes a photograph and allows the viewer to see what happens after,
> > those
> > >> in the photo coming to life to continue on their way in whatever they
> > were
> > >> doing.
> > >> Beyond that, it's simply an experience to view them Beatles, even at
> the
> > >> end of their run, even the boredom, frustrations, amongst the times
> when
> > >> things click. Let it Be the film feels like Kansas, drab, dingy; Get
> > Back
> > >> is like Oz, man. the colors alone and clarity is quite a feat.
> > >>
> > >> rich
> > >> --
> > >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >>
> > >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>