The Beatles: Get Back--Inspiring, frustrating, and could Paul not get a left hander?

[semolinapilcher]

One thing I finally put together is that John was not really looking for just a new manager but someone who really could take the place of “Mr. Epstein”. That Allen Klein had an outsized, domineering personality was a *plus* for JL, because he knew he wanted someone who truly could wrangle the Beatles.

Meanwhile Paul didn’t want that at all, and particularly not at Klein’s fee structure. Paul wanted all the boys to man up, and when they didn’t he got too ambitious IMO and tried to do it all for them.

It was really telling that no George songs made it up to the roof. They would have rocked I Me Mine for example. Instead they played the LM tunes 2-3x, no covers, not even of themselves.

Finally I really marveled at Ringo. What a consistently positive force. He bides his time but then at a super-key moment it’s totally him who inserts his oomph and puts them on that roof. Then he wears the coolest red garment I have ever seen and just lays it DOWN for his boys to float on like a magic carpet. His drumming on Get Back is my favorite of his.

[OzzieMikie]

At age 67 and someone who remembers when the Beatles stormed to the top of everyone's charts, I've watched 7/8 of this documentary. I'm not a guitarist (still attempting to learn), but will offer these observations:

-- Paul seems to be, by far, the most accomplished musician in the band. Watching him play rhythm on his bass was fascinating! His ability to play any instrument in the room was pretty cool. IMO, his prowess on (especially) the bass has always been underrated.

-- I agree with others' observations that John seemed to be "out of it" for much of the first episode.

-- I got the sense that George's frustrations were deeper than just his songs being so quickly dismissed by Paul. I got the sense that John and Paul were really "The Beatles" and that George and Ringo were only sidemen in the band. I saw very little of either Paul or John collaborating with George on anything.

-- Their in-house director (forgot his name) seemed over-the-top full of himself. He seemed to be "strutting" around like a little Napoleon. And his ideas for where they should play their concert were "spitballed", with little to no concern for feasibility.

-- While their earlier albums almost always featured melodic harmonies, by the time this documentary was filmed they seemed to either "forget" how to do them, or felt they were so famous they didn't need to anymore. (Or maybe this was a by product of John's drug use at this point?)

-- It seemed to me that Ringo never felt he was more than a hired hand for the band, and could be easily replaced if he didn't just "shut up and play the drums".

-- While Paul was obviously the driving force of the Beatles, it didn't seem to me he was able to convey to the other members of the band how he thought their parts would be.

-- Yoko's constant presence was, for me, just weird. I'll always Bwonder if her always being there was her desire or John's. And anyone who considers her vocal chops as "good" must see something most of us can't.

-- I thought the original concept for the project was innovative and would have been masterful. Record a studio album with no overdubs, release it a few days ahead of a live concert. But John's lack of focus during the sessions kinda torpedoed the whole thing. Then, when they had the songs pretty well defined, Paul seemed to veto nearly every possible concert location suggestion.

-- It was a shame Paul nixed the suggestion that Billy Preston become the fifth Beatle. He might have added a stabilizing presence to the band.

-- Clear to me that the Beatle's "demise" began when their manager passed. I can't imagine what caused them to feel they could manage themselves after that.

-- I sure got the sense that they all truly enjoyed 60's rock and roll tunes, but for some reason at this point in their lives they couldn't write any more tunes like that. I got that sense watching all of them "rock out" to John's goofing around with some of those classics.

Anyway...the above is just my $0.02 worth.

[hifivic]

I certainly am glad I watched all 3 episodes however I think Jackson used "filler" material at the same time, I felt too much time was allotted to practice sessions for obscure material that really never caught on on the airwaves. I believe the three episodes totaled about 7.5 hours and I feel it should have been 6 hours.

[jklotz]

I found this interesting. This is an interview with Glyn Johns where he talks a little about those sessions from his perspective (Glyn was the engineer in the film, who later got some producer credits for the record). Go to 16:15 to hear the part about Get Back:

[Bob from Brooklyn]

So speaking of Billy Preston...

[DanR]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn Bob

So speaking of Billy Preston...

Too cool! Thanks for sharing.

[TJNies]

Originally Posted by LakewoodM32Fan

Except at the time of filming John and Ringo were 29, Paul was 27 and George was 25. They basically hit stardom just out of their teens, had journeyed the world and back, were exposed and endured things we can only guess at, and it's not at all surprising that they needed support systems, especially in light of Epstein's death. A loss they keenly felt and more than one of them expressed as much.

Yoko wasn't the only support presence there. Linda's present almost as much (and they were married in March 1969 so still technically still his girlfriend), George brought in his silent buddhist friends, etc.

The one thing I truly found most grating in the Twickenham part had nothing to do with anyone's SOs, but rather Sir Denis Eton-Hogg constantly harping on them to go to Sabratha in Libya (despite the lads rejecting the idea multiple times).

BINGO!!!
I think you've hit on the ultimate truth of The Beatles' issues...

They even said during the filming that Brian held them in check when they wanted to do their own thing.
After that, they kinda fractured into their own personalities (for better or worse).
IMO, Paul felt the pressure to produce an albums' worth of material, and took the lead. I'm not his biggest fan post-Beatles, but I'm sure it was difficult to bring the lads together.
As many, you can see George felt unappreciated and unable to provide his songs. Which by then were as good as / or better than John & Paul's. But them obviously leaving him out must have had consequences.

[Chriscom]

Random thoughts, having so far watched only the first section (Harrison cliffhanger):

*"It was really telling that no George songs made it up to the roof. They would have rocked I Me Mine for example." I was thinking the same thing.

*George was at boiling temperature so much I really felt bad for him. He was always going to be the junior partner. By this time he had not only grown as a songwriter (he commented it would take another 10 Beatles albums for all his compositions by then to be released at the usual Beatles pace)--he also had spent the previous year or so on other projects like producing an album and hanging out with Dylan and such where he *wasn't* the junior partner. So I can see him coming back to this and saying, Oh this stuff again.

*You see how Paul was Mr. Bossypants at this stage, and he had to be to keep this train rolling. Very poignant references to the void left by "Mr. Epstein."

*Yoko was clearly disruptive; I don't care how quiet she was most of the time, if you're blessed like I am with a handful of tight friends, having a new SO sit at the same table changes the vibe, and Yoko's persona was not exactly ingratiating. Linda was far less intrusive based on what I've seen so far. But yep, Yoko didn't crash the party all by herself, some guy brought her along.

*Seeing Linda struck me with surprising force. I love the way she looks at Paul. Maybe I've listened to one too many early solo albums by Paul.

*Michael Lindsay Hogg needed to be punched in the face. Figuratively--probably.

*In that connection, I forget whose line it was, maybe George, but when Lindsay-Hogg starts talking about chartering the QE and someone volunteers EMI or somesuch will pay for it, one of the Beatles quips "They won't even give us an amp."

*The whole project is haphazard, isn't it. Remember the group having to pull in George's personal 8-track board because the only one available (from EMI?) is 4-track.

*Connected to that is the insanely short schedule, given there were no complete songs before they all showed up. What was it, 3 1/2 weeks? Less?

*I will stipulate for the record that Ringo is a criminally underrated drummer.

Other than that there's no arguing taste, but as an old guy whose first acquisitions at the record store were Beatles 45s, what's more astonishing than a bunch of largely older guys talking about them a half-century later are the local singers in my area who, in their 20's, sing the Beatles.

As for the breakup, it was kinda time. What's great is that things had mended before either John or George passed away. In a brief segment I saw elsewhere that focused on John's murder, Paul talked about thankful he was that he and John had solidly reconnected as friends before that happened. Can you imagine...

[kurth]

One thing that was obvious to me, after watching the 'wft' was that there was no real continuity that showed how they actually perfected the songs during the long boring sessions days. Yes there were some details of Paul but about 1% of what would have been required, at least from my experience of playing in bands. And then all of a sudden they were performing masterpieces on the roof. Has there been a band who were better performers...ever? They took all that chaos and turned it into genius, with just the performance they made. It was so good they used a number of the rooftop performances for the album. And another observation...nicotine addiction. They were all thoroughly addicted to smoking. It was a miracle only one died of cancer. I'd like to see Jackson edit it down to a normal length doc.

[Mirosh]

"You know the Beatles. Here are 16 other important names in the epic 'Get Back' series"

...the above article is in the December 3, 2021 Washington Post. I subscribe. On their website I searched "Beatles 16" and found a link to the article.

(I haven't seen the series yet, but this article will be a help when I do. I have enjoyed reading others' commentaries here. Thanks, AGF.)

[fpuhan]

Originally Posted by Chriscom

Other than that there's no arguing taste, but as an old guy whose first acquisitions at the record store were Beatles 45s, what's more astonishing than a bunch of largely older guys talking about them a half-century later are the local singers in my area who, in their 20's, sing the Beatles.

Notwithstanding the never-ending Stones-vs-Beatles arguments, the statement above says more about the Beatles longevity than any argument could make.

Yes, there have been more prolific musicians before and since, but I rarely hear anyone playing, much less talking about Elvis. Yes, Jagger-Richards, Pink Floyd, Zep, all have their places in music history, but somehow the Beatles are like the cream that rises to the top of the milk.