Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Reported on MSN music news page this morning, Apr 29, 2010 summarizing an interview in Q Magazine
http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=496516

In a nutshell he says, if they had reformed (which he says was "a bit of talk" during the decade before Lennon's death) it would have spoiled their legacy.... this is how Sir Paul now puts the Beatle years in perspective. "Three of us might fancy it and then maybe George or John or I wouldn't. In a way it was a blessing. We'd done it, why spoil it."

Agreed.

kennyhowes wrote:Agreed.

Totally!

They were kings while they were around, and they disbanded gracefully. I've always liked how "The End" on "Abbey Road" really showed it was the end. At least they said Goodbye.

And if George, Paul and Ringo DID reform, they'd probably be afraid they'd look as silly as the Stones.

Off topic (what's new?) The Stones haven't come out with anything decent since 1981, and they look horrible and are making fools of themselves. Live, the shows are terrible, Mick garbles his words, and Keith and Ronnie aren't playing in a way to show who's rhythm and who's lead. Charlie Watts is still holding it down, but he's probably sick of it. Bill Wyman got out of there before it got worse. Don't want to make anyone mad with this, it's just my two cents. At least they're trying to make a living and are at least trying, I give them credit for that!

"Trying to make a living" sounds like they're in fast food jobs.

They are outrageously wealthy, and that's what it's about. That, and the addiction to fame and stardom. These two factors and creativity are most often mutually exclusive after a long time at or near the top.

Charlie is the one real gentleman left in the group...soft-spoken, married to the same lady for 45 years, raises horses, country life in Devon, demons dispatched decades since, and involved with many interesting projects when he's not on tour or in the studio.

I call Bulsh (BS) on Sir Paul. He would have reformed in a minute,and was the only Beatle that really missed playing live after they stopped touring in 1966. George Harrison had the famous quotes post Beatle breakup where he stated that he would never be in a band again with Paul McCartney, & when asked about a Beatle reunion Harrison quipped "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie". It would have been John or mainly George that would have said no to a reunion. With half of the group shuffled off this mortal coil Macca gets the last word i'm afraid.

Backpages66 wrote:I call Bulsh (BS) on Sir Paul. He would have reformed in a minute,and was the only Beatle that really missed playing live after they stopped touring in 1966. George Harrison had the famous quotes post Beatle breakup where he stated that he would never be in a band again with Paul McCartney, & when asked about a Beatle reunion Harrison quipped "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie". It would have been John or mainly George that would have said no to a reunion. With half of the group shuffled off this mortal coil Macca gets the last word i'm afraid.

I couldn't agree more on this point. After all this time, I still have a strong impression that Sir Paul had a schoolboy attachment, with its accompanying schoolboy attitude, to the exclusive Club of Four that was the Boys in their heyday. It was a part of Paul's late childhood that he carried well into adulthood. Like many childhood habits, it was tough to quit.

+1 for Charlie Watts..a very cool cd box is the "From One Charlie To Another" (Watts to Charlie Parker)..tight small jazz combo Charlie put together came with a book of childlike sketches and story that Charlie wrote and drew..early copies were autographed

Backpages66 wrote:I call Bulsh (BS) on Sir Paul. He would have reformed in a minute,and was the only Beatle that really missed playing live after they stopped touring in 1966. George Harrison had the famous quotes post Beatle breakup where he stated that he would never be in a band again with Paul McCartney, & when asked about a Beatle reunion Harrison quipped "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie". It would have been John or mainly George that would have said no to a reunion. With half of the group shuffled off this mortal coil Macca gets the last word i'm afraid.

There was a period in the mid '70s when everything was going so well for Paul (and not so well for the others) that his attachment to the idea of a Beatles reformation may have waned temporarily.....

kenposurf wrote:+1 for Charlie Watts..a very cool cd box is the "From One Charlie To Another" (Watts to Charlie Parker)..tight small jazz combo Charlie put together came with a book of childlike sketches and story that Charlie wrote and drew..early copies were autographed

His CD with jazz orchestra, "Warm and Tender", from about 1993, is one fine piece of work as well.

JakeK wrote:They were kings while they were around, and they disbanded gracefully. I've always liked how "The End" on "Abbey Road" really showed it was the end.

(emphasis in the above quote was mine)

Maybe you're too young to remember! Lawsuits, slogging each other in the press, arguments...

Plus, sadly, they did not "end" with the glory of 1969's Abbey Road. In 1970, we were left with the Spectorized, uneven Let It Be.

servant wrote:

JakeK wrote: and they disbanded gracefully. I've always liked how "The End" on "Abbey Road" really showed it was the end.

(emphasis in the above quote was mine)

Maybe you're too young to remember! Lawsuits, slogging each other in the press, arguments...

Jake -- Abbey Road was a polished apple in a fruitbowl where the real Apple was rotting to the core. John Lennon said in the 1970 Rolling Stone interview, http://www.amazon.com/Lennon-Remembers- ... r=1-1#noop that the Let it Be film showed them "warts and all." You might want to listen to some of those bootleg Get Back albums from that era, that have the dialogue and in-fighting recorded that was going on, (most of the ugliness did not make it to the released film).... but everything from the Nagra tapes is detailed word for word, day by day, in the following EXCELLENT book:

http://www.amazon.com/Get-Back-Unauthor ... 331&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Get-Back-Unauthor ... 0312199813

Check it out !

All you really need to assess the breakup is to look at is the back of Ram. The picture next to the songlist tells it all. Then listen to How Do You Sleep? off Imagine.

No love lost there. But to me, McCartney was several levels above the other Beatles in terms of musicianship, and I can see how he must have grown frustrated with the disparate directions that the music was going, and how it wasn't really a band anymore.

Don't get me wrong; if you asked me to name my top 20 Beatles' songs, ~17 of them would be Lennon tunes, and Something is one of the best rock songs ever (ahem, thanks in large part to Macca's bass line). I'm merely commenting on Paul's drive toward producing music with what he knew was the best band on Earth for a time - who wouldn't? (Answer: John and George).

Fretless, I agree with you. I love the Beatles .,.,each of the 4,but what drove the others toward sometimes hating Macca was his obsessive drive for musical perfection. It was almost like he didn't have a choice...he is a mucical genius and I don't think any of it was personal against the other members of the group, He saw it as music for music's sake. He wanted it to be the best it could be and his vision sometimes drove the others crazy. For the record, I'm a huge Macca fan,but I love the others as well!

I'm a huge Macca fan. IMO, the best Beatle songs were John's that Paul got to have some input on. I for one am glad he pushed to work so hard on their tunes. We may not be here talking about them now if he didn't.