|
Post by braindead on Oct 25, 2023 20:55:29 GMT
Wish someone would take a shit in his mouth.
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,628
Member is Online
|
Post by daved on Oct 25, 2023 20:59:26 GMT
Wish someone would take a shit in his mouth. He really is the worst. Fucking guy never shuts up.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Oct 26, 2023 17:45:27 GMT
It is interesting that both the FAAB and RL singles had a similar copyright notice, where the copyright is held equally by the individual members, and not simply by Apple itself. Though also interesting is that on FAAB and RL, it names the Lennon Estate and the other three simply by name, whereas on this new blurb, it names Yoko by name (not the "Estate"), then lists three *companies* for the other three rather than the individual names for Paul and Ringo, or simply the "George Harrison Estate". I'm sure there are a myriad of business/legal/financial reasons they do it this way, but interesting nonetheless. I think you'll find this is very much a Paul McCartney project. He had it in his mind to finish it for years, and he's the one who pushed the thing to getting it finished. How that pans out once everybody else hears the song, well, we'll have to see. Knowing that Paul did so much of the work before giving it to Martin to add his stuff, I'm surprised a bit that Paul didn't enlist Jeff Lynne at all. But I guess I have to kind of give props to Paul for taking ownership of this thing. We'll see how it goes once it's out there for all. Right now we're in the puffpiece promo article phase, which is all well and good. The "last song" and "Jackson tech" narrative are doing their job. Actually surprised a bit of kudos go to *People Magazine* believe it or not for actually doing an article that included Paul's past statements about the song, that George didn't like it, etc. As predicted, the narrative is going to be that they didn't finish it because of technical issues. I can't say I'm surprised, and I can't say there's any other way they could market this thing. But still kinda weird and funny to see a kind of half-truth in the press release. Olivia's "George endorsement" kind of reads like a lawyer wrote it.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Oct 26, 2023 18:07:33 GMT
To be that dismissive of FAAB and RL doesn't make me trust that guy's judgment too much. He calls them footnotes. Just as with "Now and Then" on this set, those two songs were a HUGE part of the Anthology project. To me "footnote" has a mildly pejorative connotation. I think the writer was/is hung up on John's voice sounding wonky on FAAB and RL, which isn't an unfair criticism. But he's ignoring the quality of the compositions themselves, and certainly it's odd to call "FAAB" a "footnote" when it was such a huge deal in 1995 on every level. This guy isn't calling "Now and Then" a footnote, and that's of course because it's the new thing that's being promoted. I get it. I'm prepared for the narrative that's being spun behind this new song; I'm just a bit surprised to so quickly see FAAB and RL kind of thrown a bit under the bus in order to make the new song seem like a bigger deal. Probably one of a number of reasons they *didn't* include FAAB and RL on the new sets. His opinion on the song is as valid as anybody. But that article has some misinformation in it. He seems content to pass along the official party line on this stuff. He says Harrison brought in Jeff Lynne only because George Martin declined (wrong). Spizer also incorrectly describes how FAAB and RL were recorded. And he's just buying the official press release that Harrison only had issues with the technical aspects of the N&T demo. Not buying it. Paul's own words in the past suggest otherwise. Again, I say this having over recent months defended George against assertions he "vetoed" the song. I don't think he did anything so forceful. He just grumbled and wasn't into it, and they moved on to "Real Love." But I think he had misgivings beyond the sound quality. Keep in mind the demo had been cleaned up more or less to similar standard as FAAB and RL by the time the "Threetles" were working on it.
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Oct 30, 2023 17:53:55 GMT
Given that this is the guy that did the "McCartney III" cover, I think it's fair to assume Paul was the driving force, and everyone else signed off on it of course. As I've posted much more on the other two N&T-related threads, folks may not know my long history with "Now and Then", so let me assure everybody I bow to nobody in my fascination and interest in the song. I've been researching it for 28 years. I say this only as a preface to pointing out that Olivia's blurb in the "Now and Then" press release sounds like a lawyer wrote it, and I say *that* to suggest that I tend to feel some of the Apple shareholders don't seem like super-duper interested in all of this and just signed off on it because Paul really wanted it. As others have said, I agree in principle/theory with what you're saying. Just this particular piece for "Now and Then" is not something I (or many others), who are thoughtful, artistically-minded people, find provocative or challenging. It's only provocative in that it seems to stir a lot of negative sentiment among many, I'd say anecdotally the *majority*, of fans. Yes, just photoshopping a Beatles logo to a cover tends to make it sometimes less an art piece and more a product. For instance, check out the *cassette* art for "Now and Then", which was clearly done by someone who doesn't seem to remember how actual cassette singles were formatted back in the 80s and 90s, where they didn't usually just plop the 5x5 vinyl single art into the middle, but rather re-formatted the existing art for the cassette art dimensions. So with "Now and Then" you have an extra cheap-looking generic blue backdrop with the Beatles logo, with a postage-stamp piece of art in the middle. I don't think having a Beatles logo negates something still having some power and thoughtfulness; I think the "Free As A Bird" cover art served that purpose well. I think the first fan-made cover using the *back cover* of "Now and Then", and then formatting the song title and band name to match the FAAB and RL singles was a nice nod to the other two singles (which, I guess not surprisingly, this entire promotional campaign is seeming to aim *not* to refer to other than when absolutely necessary) while doing something that wasn't copy-and-paste. I gotta be honest; most of the people I'm seeing who seem to *really really* like this "Now and Then" art are people who have a fetish for that particular guy's work and style. To me, I feel like I'm looking at a book where 100 different artists contributed *their* version of a "Now and Then" cover. It's like, "Oh, okay, that's a cover interpreted through that guy's style, that's interesting. Now let's see it in the style of 2001: Space Odyssey poster art....." I think also that slapping this "Now and Then" cover lazily, "Cafe Press" style, onto things like tote bags also kinda weirdly reinforces the oddity and confusing nature of the art. That all being said, I don't feel it's *that* big of a deal. I never expected the cover art to be amazing, and once I actually saw it and spoke to people over the past month who had seen it, I kind of just set the art aside and thought more about the song. As I've said, I think the FAAB art was pretty good and had some obvious poignant aspects, whereas "Real Love" seemed super lazy. If I was going to try workshop the existing "Now and Then" cover art, I guess I'd probably prefer to see the band name in the same font/style somewhere? There, can someone mock *that* up at least? I suppose it's just my interpretation of what "provocative" is in relation to reaction to this art. When it comes to the term "provocative", I feel like even if one liked this cover art, I wouldn't go with "provocative" as a primary descriptor. Hence, both putting myself in the shoes of someone who likes it (as best I can), and also from my own point of view where I'm kind of detached/ambivalent while also fine with saying that I feel the art is a weird, kind of head-scratching miss, I see the most common thing that has been provoked from the art is a rather polarized sentiment about whether it works. It's a hornets nest to get too far into the weeds on cover art. By "majority", I didn't mean only this board, but also scouring around other corners of the internet, and speaking to some fans as well. There's really no way to truly particularly measure the fan response. But the feeling I get is that many find it off-putting, but not violently so (one argument would be that the art is so middling and bland that it's difficult to have any particularly energetic reaction one way or the other), many kind of just offer a shoulder shrug, and some certainly like it. I just find that I'm running into far fewer people who seem to genuinely energetically like it, and far more that react with a sort of "huh?"
|
|
|
Post by Chicken in Black on Oct 30, 2023 18:52:41 GMT
The entire Human Comedy is a shorter read than the stuff by this guy delighted to smell his own farts.
|
|
|
Post by Burnie ‘ceedee’ Grungeman on Oct 30, 2023 19:02:58 GMT
28 years of rEsEaRCh!!
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Oct 31, 2023 17:43:50 GMT
Yes, as I've mentioned, I've been writing about and researching this topic (both N&T and the reunion sessions in general) for decades, since the mid-90s. I've written pages and pages about it on this very board. I've written and read about it during stretches of years when seemingly nobody else knew or cared about the song. Nobody is more aware of the dynamics of getting this song released than I am. I was simply noting the dynamics by which this release has come about are in some ways very different from the other two reunion songs, and a lot of why it's happening now is because Paul is the last person standing, and seemingly the only person who cares to get the song finished and released. That's a very interesting and noteworthy story, but it's also worth noting because the other Beatles/estates were much more active and involved in the other two reunion songs. For sure, I'm definitely aware that within a year or two of the end of the "Anthology" project, George was tending to other things. But really, the gap of time during which it was clear he wasn't super into working with Paul much may have ended circa 1997 or so, but it began far before 1994. So when I point to the clear indications that George wasn't interested in regularly working with Paul, I'm counting pretty much everything from 1970 to whatever point in the late 90s one wants to assume that George was consumed by other more pressing matters. But, I think that raises another point. Prior to his illness, everything else was usually also a pressing matter compared to two of the things we briefly found him doing in the 90s: Touring and performing his old Beatles hits, and working with Paul McCartney. Both of those things came about largely because he needed cash. Would George have ever been on board for such projects without needing the money? Maybe. I'm fine with that type of an answer. And that's where I land when it comes to guessing what George would have done in 2022 concerning "Now and Then." I'm fine buying the idea that George *might* have signed on for all the obvious reasons (better technology, just softening in general; heck, maybe by 2022 he would have needed more cash again!). While I don't have a gripe with Olivia's statement concerning "Now and Then", I'm also okay with saying that she's side-stepping (understandably so!) other reasons George balked on the song. I mean, I guess I would have preferred a statement that didn't very slightly lie by omission, but that's commonplace in these things. And as a student of the whole "Now and Then" saga all these years (again, during years where few others seemed to care), I anticipated and fully understand the angle with which they have to promote this song and avoid dwelling on George being crusty about it back in 1995.
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,628
Member is Online
|
Post by daved on Oct 31, 2023 17:57:56 GMT
Please fucking die!
|
|
|
Post by My Avatar Is A Hot Babe on Nov 1, 2023 17:56:53 GMT
I don't want this to sound snarky or cranky or anything, because I think this is a cool conversation and I'm glad people do look this stuff up. But, Ed Ruscha's name is very prominent near the *very beginning* of the press release for the song. I (and possibly others) was also telling people a few weeks ago that Ruscha, the same guy who did "McCartney III" (another not-universally loved piece), would be doing "Now and Then" and that it would be quote-unquote "minimalist" with just the name of the song in big letters. I mean, maybe there are some people out there who actually think some flunkie IT tech guy made the "Now and Then" art in five minutes on a PC, but I think most people here have been aware all along (and even beforehand if they read some of the posts that teased it) that this was the work of Ed Ruscha. I don't think anybody denies Ruscha's resume and experience, and yes, it does have some texture to it which is at least a tell that it wasn't a quickie photoshop job. I think a lot of people just feel it's inappropriate or an odd choice for this type of release. As someone else opined, it does kinda look like "What if the Beatles had reunited in 1982?" Yes, it kinda *looks* like it was quickly and lazily done (and yes, in jest, it's kind of amusing to go into MS Word and just put Times New Roman in bold and then slant the picture and find that it looks kind of hilariously close), but that really just then gets us into the realm of debating visual art. I would argue that even within the realm of Ruscha's work and style, something better could have been done. But in general, I think this was the wrong guy for the job, and he produced something very much in his style, and the result is not particularly impressive. I've likened it to one of those deals where someone takes a logo (say, the "Stranger Things" logo) and does it in like 50 different styles. So this "Now and Then" art isn't so much *bad* as it is ill-fitted to be like *the* art. If someone put out a book of "100 artists interpret 'Now and Then'", and one of those was this Ruscha piece, I'd say "Oh, that's interesting" and then turn the page to "Now and Then" done in the style of like the Miami Vice logo, and to the next page done to look like a cheap mid-90s website in Comic Sans Serif. I don't need a stock drop-T logo slapped on the thing, but I think not having the band's name kind of throws the thing off too and makes it look a bit more cheap and generic (I've also likened it to the packaging from a box of perfume from like 1979). I'd be curious to see someone doctor the thing to add the Beatles name in the same style (where, I don't know), and see if that makes it seem a bit less like "Discount Store Sign Aesthetic." That all being said, by sheer mass of exposure I guess I'm almost slightly warming to it, and I've said all alone it's not really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things, especially in the era where it's going to be played at ton on digital devices (which may be part of the design scheme, to read clearly on a postage-stamp sized digital canvas). I've heard some of them, not sure if I've heard that one. I see one from July of this year, is that the newest one? That one has a good-sounding John vocal, but as I've mentioned, the backing is slowed down and sounds odd and sluggish. I'd also say that remix sounds off because it doesn't punch John's voice in and out, but essentially takes his vocal/piano demo and then syncs up the slowed down backing track to it. So you get the kind of unavoidably tinny-sounding piano as well. At the end of the day, there are some things baked into the 1994/95 versions of FAAB and RL that can't really be undone without extensive, arguably destructive work. Lynne took some criticism for the "sound" of those tracks, but as even George Martin pointed out when he commented on the tracks, Lynne *had* to give those tracks a kind of big, bombastic, thick sound to mask John's demo being punched in and out. They did a very good job overall, and it's only when you start pulling apart like the 5.1 mixes that you can more audibly hear John's demo being punched in and out. I think FAAB is the simpler "fix"; they can MAL the lead and just punch *that* into the finished recording. I'm not saying it would be *that* easy; there's a delicate balance between bringing John's cleaner voice forward in the mix, versus making his voice sound *too* loud, which can sound extra weird when kind of extensively lowering the volume on such a big, bombastic backing track. Some fan remixes have suffered from this, where John's voice is as loud as all the rest of the backing. Because I've studied these recordings so intensely, I have *a lot* of thoughts on remixing them. FAAB has a whole secondary set of issues regarding what's on the backing track. For instance, Paul doubled John's voice nearly throughout FAAB (weirdly, all the interviews and reports from back in 1995/96 mentioned Paul doing this on "Real Love" rather than FAAB), but it was mostly mixed out or mixed very low on the finished 1995 mix, with only the final "next best thing to be" doubling being left in, and mixed tightly with John's voice so it almost sounds like one. It wasn't until the remixes (the 2003 5.1 mix and the 2015 remixes) where you could really make out that Paul doubled so much of the vocal. So if they did a "MAL Remix", how much of *that* do they use? If they can get John's voice very clean, I'd say they should leave it out mostly. With RL, the MAL part of the process would be the same (the main issue being whether they would go single-tracked or double-tracked; I personally would love to hear it both ways and just go with which ever version yields better results), and then they *have* to do some digital stretching and manipulating to get his voice in the right key and synced up, while avoiding the chipmunk-speedup issue. Changing the key is not an option in my opinion, even some sort of weird meeting-in-the-middle thing where they speed up John's voice a bit and slow down the backing track a bit. I mean, I'd love to hear a million different options.
|
|
|
Post by essayceedee on Nov 1, 2023 18:12:32 GMT
I refuse to believe that anyone on earth has listened to either of those godawful songs since 1995.
|
|
|
Post by shinyshiny on Nov 2, 2023 16:42:03 GMT
Does he also post as Cleandan?
|
|
daved
Better than Steve
Posts: 10,628
Member is Online
|
Post by daved on Nov 2, 2023 16:58:25 GMT
I refuse to believe that anyone on earth has listened to either of those godawful songs since 1995. Guilty. I like Free As A Bird. Real Love sounds too chipmunky. As I said in another thread, Now And Then is not warming my cockles. The change from the verse to the bridge is awkward.
|
|
|
Post by audiobile on Nov 2, 2023 21:58:31 GMT
"All the hype in the world won't sell a bad product." Maybe, maybe not. There's a lot of hype about this but the song itself is just meh. FAAB and RL were better songs, they should revisit those with this fancy new tech. But if they don't, who cares.
Oh and fuck ballsack, that guy doesn't need to get a life, he needs to end it.
|
|
|
Post by essayceedee on Nov 2, 2023 22:35:11 GMT
I just find it impossible to give a shit about any of these new releases. There are Beatles reissues I downloaded years ago that I still haven’t listened to yet. I preferred the pre-Anthology days when there was still the slightest bit of mystique left.
|
|