Alexander Posted November 28, 2003 Report Share Posted November 28, 2003 For me, Paul's strongest songwriting period came in '66 and early '67. Actually, both Paul AND John hit a stride during the period that produced "Paperback Writer/"Rain," Revolver, "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever," and Sgt. Pepper. They really could do no wrong that year. After that, things began to fragment. First came the immersion in psychadelia (and the sense that the Beatles were following a trend rather than leading) and then the trip to India. After that, John and Paul were working separately and were becoming increasingly mired in their own styles. John became too experimental and Paul was too commercial. It's amazing how much the Beatles evolved as writers and performers during their brief tenure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted November 29, 2003 Report Share Posted November 29, 2003 I agree again, '66 and '67 were great years for Paul. It's funny, when I was growing up, I was the biggest Beatles fan. My favorite Beatle was John (and this was before he was murdered and became a martyr to some ). I thought Paul was a sell-out sing to the masses type while Lennon was the real innovator. I've changed my view a great deal. I think musically they needed each other. To me, both their solo careers showed this to be true. I think that they peaked as a band in '66 and '67. They were best of friends and it showed in the music. It seemed that upon the death of Brian Epstein and then the trip to India the following year, they seemed to lose their way, especially John. Here's a group that in the beginning of '68 were so tight with each other that they all went to India together, but by the end of '68, Ringo had temporarily left the band during the White Album sessions, and George left the band for a few days during the filming of Let It Be in January '69. Upon his return from India in '68, he soon left his wife for Yoko Ono, and she became his top priority. He got hooked up on Heroin and Yoko and basically started living his own life. The whole Get Back thing was Paul's trying to bring them back together. Paul and George arrived with the new songs, John barely had anything (Don't Let Me Down and Dig A Pony are great songs, albeit. I've been listening to Abbey Road a lot lately. I've been mesmerized by how good of a group they were when they were functioning as one. My favorite songs were always John and George's in the past, but I have come to highly RESPECT Paul's contribution on side two. The medley from "She Came in Through the Bathroom Window" and the tracks through the end of the album have become some of my ultimate Beatle moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjazz Posted November 30, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Let's see: Disc 1 - LET IT BE - NAKED is about 35 minutes Disc 2 - talk - is about 21 minutes Why are there two CDs? Stocking stuffers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Let's see: Disc 1 - LET IT BE - NAKED is about 35 minutes Disc 2 - talk - is about 21 minutes Why are there two CDs? Stocking stuffers? Good point! I guess if people figure they're getting a deal.... Does anyone remember the flap about the reissue of the Beatles' 1962-66 double disc set. They also reissued the 1967-70 set at the same time as a double. The problem was that the 1962-66 double set would have easily fit on a single CD, but they still put it out as two CDs at full price. I guess if you're a Beatle, you don't think about these kinds of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJ Posted November 30, 2003 Report Share Posted November 30, 2003 Yes but isn't the difference here that they're only charging the price of one CD? So it doesn't matter much to me. If they had listed it at the price of a double, I'd be PISSED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AfricaBrass Posted December 1, 2003 Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 Yes but isn't the difference here that they're only charging the price of one CD? So it doesn't matter much to me. If they had listed it at the price of a double, I'd be PISSED. Good point! I picked my copy up for $11.99 and I'm happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjazz Posted December 1, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2003 Does anyone remember the flap about the reissue of the Beatles' 1962-66 double disc set. They also reissued the 1967-70 set at the same time as a double. The problem was that the 1962-66 double set would have easily fit on a single CD, but they still put it out as two CDs at full price. I guess if you're a Beatle, you don't think about these kinds of things. Yeah, I made a copy of the 1962-1966 set on 1 cdr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.