Why the Beatles? (4 Viewers)

Some of the songs in the movie are apparently slower than they are on record and CD. Some guy mentioned it in the reviews on Amazon:

"
The reason the audio sounds slower in the film on many of the songs as compared to the LP/CD releases has nothing to do with the Beatles speeding up or slowing down the master tapes. They did not actively begin doing that in studio until later in their careers (around "Revolver" and especially with "Sgt. Pepper.").

Rather, all sequences shot in the television studio set were filmed at 25 frames per second, rather than the standard 24 frames per second. This is because the television monitors used on the set were PAL monitors, which natively display images at 25 fps. Had the sequences been filmed at 24 fps, the monitors in the background would have flickered, due to the film running at a different speed than the images they were projecting. Realizing this would be very, very distracting, Lester made the decision to shoot these sequences at a slightly faster speed, then slow them down by one fps for the final product.

Unfortunately, the recordings used for playbacks on the set were not adjusted accordingly. Thus, when the film was slowed down, the pitch of the audio was also lowered. This is especially obvious in the song "And I Love Her." McCartney's voice does NOT sound as deep as it is presented in the film, nor is his diction that slow and drawling. Compare that song to the LP and it becomes clear it is the same recording played at a slower speed. "Tell Me Why" also suffers, as the high-tempo recording on the LP becomes a moderate-time dragfest in the film.

The most obvious case, however, is "She Loves You," played as the final number in the television performance. The recording is clearly the 1963 single master. If you watch the chords Lennon and Harrison are playing as they sync to it, they are clearly playing in E minor/G major, as they did in the original recording. However, the pitch of the song is almost a semitone lower, again due to the sequence being filmed at 25 fps.

Songs that are NOT performed in the television studio set ("I Should Have Known Better," "Can't Buy Me Love," and "A Hard Day's Night") are played at their original pitch and match what is heard on the LP.

Now, I know for authenticity they should leave the audio alone and have the songs slower on the Blu-ray, but you would think in this day and age they could provide as an option at least for the songs to be artificially sped up to synchronize with the film, yet retain their original pitch. Since I, unfortunately, am cursed with perfect pitch, I find these parts of the film almost unwatchable, as I KNOW the songs should be played at higher pitch.

Hopefully, this provides some insight as to why many of the songs are at the wrong pitch."

- I wonder if anybody except audiophiles will notice it. I have an earlier DVD version of the movie and I never noticed it.
 
Last edited:
We're going to watch the whole thing this weekend, I'll let you know what I hear.

Though now of course I'll be listening for pitch variation, when I wouldn't have been before. I'm not sure it would bother me much either way, since it's a movie, not a record.
 
There are so many pitch-related variations in the Beatles' catalogue (intentional or not) that hearing something at a different pitch will probably make you think "That's just what I expect from the Beatles" rather than having it feel like an anomaly.
 
About 9 pages ago people were talking about whether or not Ringo was a good drummer. I really enjoyed Purple Stickpins and mjp's observations. Of course Ringo was a good drummer. Ringo was THE reason I wanted to become a drummer. Ringo was cool as hell. mjp points out that when you are a musician it is hard to find a good drummer. There are a lot of guys out there who bash away at the drums and call themselves good when in fact they have no "ear" to hear how a song needs to be tastefully played.

I put my whole life into drumming so I do know what I'm talking about. It is the same old story of you have to look at the times that this stuff was going on. At the time Ringo was the man. Do you think John, George, and Paul said let's go get a crappy drummer. Yeah...let's get Ringo, he sucks and he gets tired after one set and he can't keep a beat. No folks. They got him because he could ROCK for hours and he was known as the guy who could really swing.

It was him who drummed on all of those iconic songs that created the greatest wave of musical creativity that swept the whole world. Can he play like Bonham and Peart? No. I know for a fact that both of those looked up to Ringo. He was Ringo for God's sake. He was there when some of the greatest songs ever written were conceived and I assure you that those other 3 guys valued his input. Those 3 guys wanted Ringo to be their drummer. They picked him because he was great.
 
greece_rubber_soul.jpg
 
Ah, the third state, second printing of the Indonesian Rubber Soul EP. Classic.

Watched Hard Days Night, and if someone with golden ears is bothered by the horrible variation in speed of some of the songs, that must be a terrible burden. I was listening for it and still wasn't sure I was hearing it, so make of it what you will.
 
Ah. That was my second guess.

Well, Greece, Indonesia - it's all the same, isn't it? I mean, you can't tell those places apart in the dark, except the Greeks smell worse, so you would probably know you were in Greece just using your nose (you might mistakenly think you were in Spain, but that's understandable, as the Spaniards and the Greeks have a similar odor). I was going to say that you might think you were in France, but there's no mistaking the particular Parisian stench for anything else.

Other than that, I don't see any difference. Bunch of Godless hippies, all of them. Thankfully we won't have to rub elbows with them in heaven. If we even have elbows in heaven, which isn't really clear.
 
Watched Hard Days Night, and if someone with golden ears is bothered by the horrible variation in speed of some of the songs, that must be a terrible burden. I was listening for it and still wasn't sure I was hearing it, so make of it what you will.

So much for Amazon reviews by people with golden ears. If you have to look for the speed difference and still can't hear it then it must be minute and without importance for all of us silver eared people.
 
Someone should probably drop Lennon's line about Ringo being the greatest drummer to poor Danny Mac, but it ain't gonna be me. I already told the annoying 4 year-old next door that there is no Easter Bunny and Santa is his mother's pimp. I've met my obligations for circulating "the truth" for the year...
 
Lennon was famous for being an asshole when it suited him. In no way do I subscribe to some blanket reality that Lennon thought Ringo sucked. As far as I'm concerned, Ringo was a better drummer than Lennon was a guitarist. As a brilliant musician? Lennon by a mile. But let's keep it real.
 
Last edited:
you can not compare Tommy Ramone to Ringo. That's like trying to compare industrial shredders to the ring of wine with your finger around a fine glass of crystal. When Ringo got old he was horrible I'll give you that. When they were young and Rockin in Germany he ruled the age.
 
Whether Ringo was a "good" drummer or John was a "good" guitar player doesn't matter. It wasn't their individual talents that made The Beatles. It was those four guys collectively, the chemistry they had together. They didn't have it with Pete Best and they wouldn't have had it with Charlie Watts or Buddy Rich or Neil Peart.

We're still talking about them 44 years after they released their last album because of what happened when the four of them got together to make music. If that wasn't the case, we'd be talking about Wings or the Plastic Ono Band, but we're not.
 
semi-interesting interview about songwriting.

lennon sounds bored and macca is his usual annoyingly coy/cagey self.

 
When I was looking out the clip from Mean Streets in another thread, I got distracted with this clip about Phil Spector - turned out to be an anecdote on Mean Streets and John Lennon - slightly interesting rather than, em, gripping; but if you're bored...

[This video is unavailable.]
 
Last edited:
Think I disagree with the view that Lennon is better post Beatles.
The McCartney, 1970 album is great (and others) pared down, "simple!".
He plays almost every instrument on it. Don't think you should you have to pick a camp, if anyone does:

 
Neither was better post-Beatles.

But then very few pop or rock musicians get "better" as they get older. Name the last good Rolling Stones record (or The Who or Aerosmith or any rock band that has the audacity to hang around for a few decades or more - the exception being someone like AC/DC who figured out how to avoid that trap by simply making the same record every few years). Bob Dylan is another one who refuses to quit but is a little bit different, as he still makes an "interesting" record once every five or six releases, but he will never make another Blood on the Tracks.

Had The Beatles stayed together (and had Hendirx, Morrison, et al stayed alive), the odds are we would have seen the same thing from them. That inevitable decline. It seems to be a natural part of the life cycle of rock and roll musicians. The good stuff happens when you are young. That really doesn't apply to any other musical genre I can think of. In every other case the older a musician gets, the deeper the work they can potentially create.

Maybe that's the crux of the biscuit: rock and roll isn't supposed to be deep. But I think it really has more to do with rock and roll being young people's music, and as you age you hold on to that nostalgia of youth and you don't really want to see the Stones play whatever assembly line crap they've recorded in the last 30 years. You want to hear Gimme Shelter. Because it reminds you of when you were young and indestructible. And because it rocks.
 
Neither was better post-Beatles.
Agreed, couldn't be better, but they weren't dinosaurs either, Lennon was 30 McCartney 28, what were they going to do? singer songwriters must have some of the biggest egos in pop ( no mean feat) yes the teenage rampage years were well behind them and the hippie trippy stuff losing it's allure. But they were still talented musicians.
Maybe that's the crux of the biscuit: rock and roll isn't supposed to be deep.
But I think it really has more to do with rock and roll being young people's music
Yes, deep but shallow:).
Both of them I think produced a few good albums post Beatles and carried on their bickering and competing, I just dislike the way McCartney gets the brunt of the blame and abuse, still after all this time. Yes he produced some cheesy rubbish, but so did Lennon.But it was arguably music for their peers, the teens in the early seventies had moved on anyway.
 
The point I was trying to make in the other thread is that, while in the Beatles, Lennon's output massively outshines McCartney's output, but after the Beatles, McCartney's '70s output outshines Lennon's '70s output (but not massively). But in no way does any of their post-Beatles catalog surpass what they did in the Beatles.
 
That's ok Purple, I was sure I was in for a telling off for putting my earlier post here, I thought you had set sail and were 1 or 2 sheets to the wind when I saw your post in the music thread, then I thought shit, I should have this ( my earlier thread) in the music thread. If you follow me...
Anyhoooo,
Lennon's output massively outshines McCartney's output, but after the Beatles, McCartney's '70s output outshines Lennon's '70s output (but not massively)
easy for you to say, I think? measuring outputs:wb: but as has been said, they worked best together, for me it's Lennon and McCartney you raise a glass to, not who was best.
 
That's ok Purple, I was sure I was in for a telling off for putting my earlier post here, I thought you had set sail and were 1 or 2 sheets to the wind when I saw your post in the music thread, then I thought shit, I should have this ( my earlier thread) in the music thread. If you follow me...
Anyhoooo...they worked best together, for me it's Lennon and McCartney you raise a glass to, not who was best.
I was completely sober (well, possibly), but my point wasn't that Lennon was better post-Beatles, it was that McCartney was (but not by a wide margin, longevity notwithstanding). And no telling off or any of that; it's just my observation, which I find interesting. I hold McCartney in the highest regard as a bass player, but I have trouble picking out that many Beatle songs of his that really stand out as classics. Sure, there's Yesterday, I'll Follow the Sun, I've Just Seen a Face, Eleanor Rigby, For No One, Fixing a Hole and Hey Jude (not a favorite of mine), but beyond that, I've got 30 Lennon Beatle songs that are equally as good or better.

But I agree that as a songwriting team, that is where they excelled. But other than A Day in the Life (which wasn't so much a collaboration as a case of "Hey I've got this bit and you've got this bigger bit, let's make a sandwich), I've Got a Feeling (which is a bit disappointing), and The Ballad of John and Yoko (which is a true collaboration considering that Ringo and George were unavailable and that's just John and Paul and the results are fantastic), that pretty much ended by mid-'65.
 
But I agree that as a songwriting team, that is where they excelled.
Reading that, I don't think you had any trouble picking out McCartney songs you liked.:wb: For myself, I don't want to pick it apart that much and reach a verdict on who was best, particularly in the Beatles, for me it was a collaboration, not always a happy one but what band is? sometimes the best work is done in acrimony.
I haven't listened to all of the post Beatles stuff, don't want to, especially all the McCartney stuff, but the albums I rate are:
For Paul: McCartney, Wild Life and Band on the Run
For John: John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, Imagine and Mind Games.
The album McCartney seems to get lost though, I love it and it's underrated. Doesn't have the dark,angsty complexity of "Ono" but it isn't rubbish, Every Night and Maybe I'm Amazed, are beautiful, deceptively simple songs, as is the whole album.
I like this clip:
 
There's no direct comparison between those two anyway. Musically, temperamentally or any other way. Those differences (and a hundred other things) made their collaboration - even when they weren't really collaborating, strictly speaking - what it was.

When you gauge their post-Beatles work keep in mind that one of them was often consciously reaching for something, and the other was writing ditties. Which would you assume is going to appear more "successful"? If you strive for something artistically engaging, you're going to fall flat more often than you would taking a safer route.
 
When you gauge their post-Beatles work keep in mind that one of them was often consciously reaching for something, and the other was writing ditties. Which would you assume is going to appear more "successful"? If you strive for something artistically engaging, you're going to fall flat more often than you would taking a safer route.
Or perhaps McCartney was just keeping his rock and roll not so very deep, as some folks prefer. On the other hand, what's more of a ditty; Oh Yoko! or Live and Let Die? A very perfunctory and pedestrian 1975 album of '50s R&R chestnuts or Band on the Run?

Then again, McCartney has his share of tripe; Wildlife being first and foremost. But McCartney and Ram are excellent, as were Imagine and small portions of Mind Games and Walls and Bridges. What does bug me about post-Beatles Lennon and his recordings is that he seemed to have such a vendetta against Paul that the bass on his early-mid '70s recordings is generally abysmal. I don't know if it was a conscious thing or if it was just an artifact of the engineer, but it's just awful. Listen to Whatever Gets You Thru the Night. The bass part is great but it sounds like someone plucking a rubber band inside a dumpster on Pluto.
 
A very perfunctory and pedestrian 1975 album of '50s R&R chestnuts...
Imagine (no pun intended) losing a copyright lawsuit and one of the stipulations of the judgement is you have to include three songs by an oldies publisher on your next album. What the hell can you do but an album that fits around those songs? You're not going to fuck up a real album by forcing three old covers onto it.

Anyway, we could cherry pick McCartney's least tin pan alley songs and compare them to Lennon's most sing-songy, but that's not an accurate picture of the two as artists. McCartney has a reputation as a lightweight because he is a lightweight. Sometimes that's what you want. And you know, when you want that, he's an okay way to go. Smooth sailing. Git 'er done! Thumbs up. A reliable, toe-tapping two and a half hours ending with a Beatles medley. Everyone files out of the amphitheater smiling, their sleeping toddlers over their shoulders.

But McCartney never did and never will surprise you. He never walked on to a stage and had an audience wondering what the hell was about to happen. He just never rocked. He never had the undefinable thing that makes someone mesmerizing. Lennon had it, Morrison (Jim or Van), Johnny Cash, (the young) Iggy, The Replacements, The Clash, Johnny Thunders - and a lot of other great performers. There's an unpredictability there, a little danger (or a lot of danger), and that is the essence of rock and roll. Danger. The strong possibility that the entire "show" may implode at any moment. Keith Moon laying unconscious across his drums. None of that has anything to do with music, but everything to do with rock and roll.

So in that way, in the realm of rock and roll as a thing, McCartney isn't really comparable to Lennon. They are two different beasts.

But there's more to life than rock and roll, so not rocking isn't the end of the world. Also, Lennon had the advantage of dying relatively young, so we'll never know if he would have been giving concerts to sleeping children too. For all we know they could have "reunited" and disappointed us for decades.
 
It always boils down to the basic cliche, I suppose, of Lennon being deep, artsy and McCartney being shallow, tame, but nothing is that black and white.

The Double Fantasy album told us exactly where Lennon was going - nowhere anyone wanted to follow. Although John himself carried on disparaging the "ditties" of McCartney (and there are some terrible ones) at the same time he never stopped listening and competing. Neither of them did.

In his last interview for Rolling Stone Lennon 3 days before he was shot, he said this "I've selected to work with ... only two people: Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. That ain't bad picking."
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top