Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

indeed! "Let It Be" was the lowest point in the Beatles' career, they sure looked bad, didn't they? Considering they had by then stopped performing live concerts and were essentially "rested", why did they look so bad? I think George was the one who looked the best, but his "cheesy Telecaster" sound ruined it for everybody. Had he been playing a Gretsch it might have made a world of a difference.

Around 1968-1969 I too purchased a Fender Telecaster, it was a (rare today) "Blue Flower", I got rid of it in less than a year and got a Gibson SG Custom, little did I know what those "Blue Flower" Teles would sell for 40 years later, but back in 1969, I hated it, I couldn't get a decent sound out of it, it sounded (you guessed it) "Cheesy" with a Capital C. Even today, I won't go near a Telecaster, (or any Fender for that matter). Having said all that, I do admire those darned Country pickers who melt them Teles, they sure know their guitar playing!

The thought of having business, among the most despicable forms of "evolved" human thought ever associated with art, typically embodied/espoused/implemented by those who have no artistic thought at all, or if they, do, no desire to express it other than to ponder its potential for deriving wealth from something someone else does, sickens me.

However life here on earth is never that black and white. "Artists" are rarely not "Despicable Businessmen" (your naive words) at the same time. Just ask Paul McCartney.

It may make you sick that sick that people are "deriving wealth from something someone else does", but that is not what is happening. The record companies (radio stations, book publishers, museum operators etc) provide a vehicle for the artist's work to be widely seen/heard and the work of those people need to be compensated, just as the artist work needs to be compensated. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with that.

(.... having said all that... rock'n'roll is rife with stories of ripoffs, scams and other sleazy activities. Just ask Alan Klein.)

hey guys, please help me clear up something in my mind:

which album was recorded FIRST ? ::

"Let it Be" or "Abbey Road" ??

the correct answer leads me to the next "theory":: something happened between "Magical Mystery Tour" and either "Let It Be" or "Abbey Road". (assuming "Magical Mystery Tour" was the album BEFORE either "Let it Be" or "Abbey Road").

I always get the order of their albums crossed, and at my age, it's not easy to keep track. (no pun intended).

thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_It_Be

Basically, Let It Be was recorded BEFORE Abbey Road, but released AFTER Abbey Road. The band was in real turmoil around the time of Let It Be and couldn't get it all together. They eventually dumped the whole project onto Phil "What, ME the shooter?" Specter - hence all the orchestration on the album. While Specter was doing his hatchet work, the band came back together for "one last album" and the FANTASTIC Abbey Road was the result. They later released Let It Be, but Abbey Road is, in reality, their last album.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_It_Be

The rough "Let It Be Naked" is the best representation of the band during that time.

brammy wrote: Basically, Let It Be was recorded BEFORE Abbey Road, but released AFTER Abbey Road. The band was in real turmoil around the time of Let It Be and couldn't get it all together. They eventually dumped the whole project onto Phil "What, ME the shooter?" Specter - hence all the orchestration on the album. While Specter was doing his hatchet work, the band came back together for "one last album" and the FANTASTIC Abbey Road was the result. They later released Let It Be, but Abbey Road is, in reality, their last album. The rough "Let It Be Naked" is the best representation of the band during that time.

thank you, that's where my confusion was, but i'm clear now. So my theory is that something happened between "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Let it Be", which is evident in the movie. They look "ragged".

Zurdo wrote: So my theory is that something happened between "Magical Mystery Tour" and "Let it Be", which is evident in the movie. They look "ragged".

Post Magical Mystery Tour and Brian Epstein's death, they went with the Maharishi for several weeks in Rishikesh and came back and battled their way against each other with the White Album sessions throughout the Summer of '68.

Yep, for what-ever quantity of blame foks don't want to ascribe to the "cheesy Telecaster" theory -- I vote that it must be the Maharishi's fault

I would never want to think that the music heroes of our generation were immature, self-centered and taken in by a con-man like Klein.

ragged, burned out, fed up, drugged up, conned, sad, frustrated, selfish, distracted, overly influenced, tired, disagreement about the future of the group, over productive, under productive, weirdly productive..... I think all those terms (and many others) can be used when describing the dissolution of the band.

To say they'd done it all is an understatement and they wanted different things. Paul wanted to continue as the high profile pop star, George did not want to ever perform publicly again, John was snorting heroin and doing whatever Yoko told him to do and was very fed up with the business side of things, and I think Ringo would do whatever as long as the other stopped arguing.

I agree with all the theories, including those which don't agree with mine

what is obvious is obvious. It happens in every group. even Lawrence Welk had a constant turnaround in his orchestra.

yup, there are two types of groups - ones that have broken up and ones that are going to break up.

That rule apparently doesn't apply to the Rolling Stones.

brammy wrote:yup, there are two types of groups - ones that have broken up and ones that are going to break up.
That rule apparently doesn't apply to the Rolling Stones.

yeahh, and then there's always a "Reunion" album from the ones that broke up

brammy wrote: However life here on earth is never that black and white. "Artists" are rarely not "Despicable Businessmen" (your naive words) at the same time. Just ask Paul McCartney.

It may make you sick that sick that people are "deriving wealth from something someone else does", but that is not what is happening. The record companies (radio stations, book publishers, museum operators etc) provide a vehicle for the artist's work to be widely seen/heard and the work of those people need to be compensated, just as the artist work needs to be compensated. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with that.

(.... having said all that... rock'n'roll is rife with stories of ripoffs, scams and other sleazy activities. Just ask Alan Klein.)

After 30 years in the music business, naivite isn't high on my list of traits. And I'm not sure you understood my point, as I was differentiating between the artists and the business people. So this statement: '"Artists" are rarely not "Despicable Businessmen"' doesn't follow from my argument.

And McCartney is a good example of my position on this. You need to be one of the single most well-known musicians to have any autonomy in the business of music. He's been so successful because of his talent and his ability to have control over his direction, for good or bad.

"business, among the most despicable forms of "evolved" human thought"

Not sure where the misunderstanding is.

My point is that to think that (when it comes to the music business) you can completely separate business from art is unrealistic. My second point is that business is FAR from "among the most despicable forms of "evolved" human thought".... quite the contrary, To wit, I refer you to:

Noted. Subject closed; naively, of course.

I will only make the one post, because I don't want this to degenerate into a political argument - but to imply that citing Ayn Rand is some kind of definitive proof of anything is disingenuous to say the least

This is an interesting topic, and one I hope can remain so without the injection of politics. While we may not like the idea of business playing too large a role in music, without the ability of business to garner the resources necessary for the artist to continue to produce music as a full-time occupation, we might have a lot fewer artists as well as a lot fewer sources of artists. Only those who were independently wealthy, or subsidized by wealthy patrons, would be able to devote significant time to their craft.

In the case of The Beatles, if there was no way for the business side of it to make money (and transfer a portion of it to them), then they'd have probably had to get day jobs and they definitely wouldn't be able to record at the rate that they did. They may have broken up a lot sooner under those circumstances and, if they were limited to playing live only, then it's doubtful very many people outside of their own friends and family would have ever heard of them. Even their initial trip to Hamburg happened only because there was a chance for Bruno (I'm not even trying to type his last name) to make money by importing English bands.

I think, so it's definitely only opinion, that there is a good, balanced way for business and music to co-exist in partnership. If either one gets out of balance both will end up suffering.

This is not an attempt to take sides but to find a way to keep a good topic going.