Log In
Register
2.29am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline
“Its not enough to say three Beatles + a demo of John’s from 20 years ago = a full Beatles recording.“
As noted in other threads this is one area I seem to disagree with most folks here. Numerous other bands have had to replace deceased members and we (mostly) still consider their songs as canon (the Rolling Stones come to mind). It’s almost like folks are suggesting it’s different in this case just because it’s by the Beatles who are above the ways of other mortal bands. For mine these songs are as much by The Beatles as anything else in their catalogue.
==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
2.36am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
You cannot compare what one, two or five thousand bands did or do with another band.
And the Rolling Stones didn’t dig up a demo of Brian Jones playing sitar from 1966 and record a whole new track around it 20 years later before releasing it as a Stones song. Plus The Beatles didn’t replace John as he’s on the record.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.11am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
You cannot compare what one, two or five thousand bands did or do with another band.And the Rolling Stones didn’t dig up a demo of Brian Jones playing sitar from 1966 and record a whole new track around it 20 years later before releasing it as a Stones song. Plus The Beatles didn’t replace John as he’s on the record.
I can understand why so many people don’t consider the songs canon. It’s one of those circular debates which ultimately will (hopefully) not affect anyone’s enjoyment (or otherwise) of the songs in question. I hesitate to suggest it is shades of grey as we have that other thread out there somewhere 
I was also having a bit of a laugh at the thread title – as soon as anyone starts a thread anywhere on the net which begins “Can we all agree ..” you just know we won’t be able to.
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:
Zig, Mr. Kite==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
4.29am
17 October 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
Lack of input to me means John could not at any point say if he wanted to change, adapt, remove, suggest, add etc any part of either ‘Real Love ‘ or ‘Free As A Bird ‘. They were unfinished demo’s, who knows what John had in mind for them as studio recordings – if anything. We have no idea if John would have said “fine, go with that as i don’t want to be involved but do what you want with these two tracks Yoko thinks would work” or if he would have refused any part of a reunion or if he would have…………….I don’t see how you can say @Wigwam that you “would argue John’s creative input here is greater than many of the Beatle covers that he sang on” as its not as, again, on those covers John agreed to record them and actively made suggestions on the musicianship and put his name to them, on these two reunion tracks he didn’t as he couldn’t. At least with ‘Real Love ‘ John worked on it frequently, with ‘FAAB’ he forget about it pretty quickly.
I have no idea how you can say @Wigwam that you “would argue John’s creative input here is greater than many of the Beatle covers that he sang on” as its clealy not.
Dear ‘Mean and Nasty’,
…….’Mr Nasty’ had written…..‘No input’….You change that to ‘lack of input’ and give a fair definition of ‘lack of input’. Now, if you could define ‘No input’ for me and explain how the song came into being and was sang with ‘no input’ from John then I’d perhaps follow Mr Nasty’s argument more sympathetically….if not as ‘clealy’ as you do.
As to weighing the relative input John put into their covers like, ‘Dizzy Miss Lizzy ‘ or ‘Mr Moonlight ‘ against a song that John conceived and hatched…. like, “Free As A Bird “?……I’d argue that this song owes more to John than the two I’ve mentioned above, or indeed any of his ‘renditions’ of other people’s songs. For me it’s a more personal ‘input’. I give FAAB more weight……But that’s just my opinion.
Had John’s voice not been used, I may have felt differently about it as a Beatle product….But then again I’ve accepted in the past that, ‘The Ballad Of John And Yoko ‘ and ‘I Me Mine ‘ are by the fully, paid-up ‘Beatles’ ……And, come to think of it…. the dozens of other songs, where either one, or all three of the other Beatles were missing and had nothing to do with them………Songs like ‘Yesterday ‘ to ‘Julia ‘ were/are still ‘by The Beatles’.
As it stands we have two tracks that all 4 Beatles were deeply committed to……and that all 4 played on……and all therefore had an input.
I’m actually very pleased about the existence of these songs and while they have a different place in Beatles history……or as you’re fond of saying, the ‘Beatles’ Canon’ …..they do have a place.
It’s them……. the FAAB Four…….If you forgive the pun.
Though I can’t quite see how it is that you can view this so differently……It’s clear that you do and I accept that. I’ve no intention of trying to convince you, or ‘Mr Nasty’ to my way of thinking……It shouldn’t matter to you.
I’ll end my contribution to what will otherwise prove to be a circuitous discussion, by taking the words from a song that even though it’s on, ‘The White Album ‘ is often not credited to their…… ‘canon’…..
‘Can you take me back where I came from?’……..Well I’ll try. The subject of this thread is……..’Can we all agree or not?
Most of us can agree……’Not!’
So paradoxically maybe we do.
Cheers.
11.37am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
@Wigwam Coming to this conversation late, you are missing so many aspects of what it was when it was live, and making implications about my opinion that simply do not stand up, my friend. You miss the context on so many levels, and by doing so put forward your interpretation as my intention.
Firstly, you seem to contend that I reject these as being Beatles songs. I do not, and that is clear when the context of the conversation is reimposed, rather than your selective reinterpretation of what was occurring.
To give back the context of the conversation between myself and Faceo, a decision was made to have a poll of forum members to see what the most popular recordings are among those who use this forum. Faceo was given the lead role in coordinating this. The next decision to be made was exactly what we would be voting on, would it be everything officially released that included “The Beatles” as part of the artist name (ie. all non-bootleg recordings).
It was quickly decided that everything released under their name would not be included in the poll, which meant the conversation turned to what would be included. Very quickly it was decided that the poll would concentrate on the “core catalogue”. We, therefore, had to decide just what the core catalogue was. Would we include the BBC recordings that had been released? Would we include the Star Club and Decca audition? Would we include the archive recordings, especially those songs never released, included in the Anthology series of releases?
Again, it was agreed that those were not core catalogue releases, canonical releases. The decision was made that the vote would be on the canon, as defined by the initial 1987/1988 CD releases. There was, however, some discussion over whether Free As A Bird and Real Love should be considered as canon or other. My feeling was, is, and will always remain, that they are other – and this is a very real and honest debate, and one that I respect differing opinions on.
Which brings us to the conversation between myself and Faceo, and your decision to pluck out two words from the end of the conversation, take them as if they did not have the context of the conversation – but rather treat them as divorced from my preceding comments, and the introduction of a wholly new argument.
In circumstances like this, I am always reminded of a John Lennon quote on the back of an ’80s book of Dezo Hoffman photographs of The Beatles. It read, “…Dezo Hoffman was the best photographer in the world.” What a fantastic compliment from John, I thought. Then I found the whole quote, “At the time we believed Dezo Hoffman was the best photographer in the world.” Now that’s very different.
You have chosen to pull the words “no input” from my response to a comment, while ignoring the context – and meaning – that statement is given by my previous words.
…they do not feature, and could not feature, the active participation of John.
I do not say, as you suggest by twisting my words, that the recordings are not built on John Lennon demos. My argument is that John had no input into them becoming Beatles recordings, and that we have no idea whether he would approved of what was done, and – as a result – while they may be as close to a Beatles reunion as we’re ever going to get, and are Beatles songs, they should never be considered as part of the “core catalogue/canon”. They are an addendum, the best we could hope for in the circumstances, but they are not a reunion.
As George once said, very dryly, in an interview after John’s death, when asked what it would take to reunite The Beatles: “Three bullets”.
I don’t reject them as Beatles songs, as you imply I do, I just do not consider them as canon songs, and that is what the conversation was about.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
11.58am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline @Wigwam, whilst all four Beatles do not play on tracks like ‘I, Me, Mine’, ‘TBoJaY’, ‘Yesterday ‘, a lot of the ‘White Album ‘ tracks all four were able to say yes or no to them appearing on the albums and coming under the name of the Beatles. ‘John could not give his consent for ‘FAAB’ or ‘RL’ to do the same.
I find the argument that all four Beatles are on the track therefore its a Beatles recording strange as by that approach if i take elements from 4 different songs from each Beatle, all from different periods of time – say 1973 John, 1985 George, 1999 Ringo and 2014 Paul – stitched them back together in whatever way i choose does that make it a Beatles track? All play on the track. Yes its taking it to the extreme.
I do agree they have a place in Beatles lore, just not in the same category or whatever you want to call it as the core catalogue or canon.
As with everything on this forum its fine to disagree, its what makes the forum.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.19pm
17 October 2013
Offline I accept your criticism on two points
I have come to this debate late……….and I reacted to what you had written not having read through the whole thread.
………….which I’ve still to do. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
However, I don’t consider I twisted any of your words. I took the opportunity to respond to the post that was in front of me, allowing me to voice the opinion that these songs do have a special position within the Beatles canon or, (I prefer the term) ‘body of work’.
It’s written by them.
It’s performed by them.
It’s released under their name………
……..If it walks like a Beatle and ‘quacks’ like a Beatle……..
After all….. If it isn’t included in The Beatles’ canon….and you’re an archivist or librarian whose canon can it be ascribed to?
1.06pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Atlas said
I accept your criticism on two pointsI have come to this debate late……….and I reacted to what you had written not having read through the whole thread.
………….which I’ve still to do. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
However, I don’t consider I twisted any of your words. I took the opportunity to respond to the post that was in front of me, allowing me to voice the opinion that these songs do have a special position within the Beatles canon or, (I prefer the term) ‘body of work’.
It’s written by them.
It’s performed by them.
It’s released under their name………
……..If it walks like a Beatle and ‘quacks’ like a Beatle……..
After all….. If it isn’t included in The Beatles’ canon….and you’re an archivist or librarian whose canon can it be ascribed to?
ELO?
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Zig, ewe2"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
1.15pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline You have to understand the word “canonical”, and I am not sure you do.
It is very precise, it refers to the central and accepted body of work. It comes from the formation of the Bible. There were many Christian texts vying for a place, and different Christian leaders relied on different texts to put forward their views. It was decided to have a conference among the leading Christian figures of the time to decide on just what writings would make up the New Testament. Some Gospels that had been accepted were rejected, others that were relatively contentious were accepted.
It was about defining the central body of Christian teaching. That is where the term comes from. It doesn’t refer to the whole “body of work”, but a considered selection of the central body of work.
The majority accept that, in the case of The Beatles, this refers to the recordings as released by John, Paul, George and Ringo between 1962 and 1970. There are many other recordings that flesh out the story, give different perspectives and new insights, but they are not a part of the canon.
A Day In The Life is Canon. Paul warbling Falling in Love Again at the Star Club is not. Both are The Beatles, but both are not Canon.
As to twisting my words, you decided to make a point of plucking out the phrase “no input”, and made a point of explaining to me that the recordings were written by, and featured the vocals of, John. However, when I used the phrase, it was merely a contraction of my previous statement that “they do not feature, and could not feature, the active participation of John”. The exact same thing said in two different ways.
You argue with my use of “no input”, and point out John input, but you do not argue with the statement it was a contraction of. You treat the contraction as an independent statement, rather than a contraction of a previously stated opinion. By “no input” I mean “…they do not feature, and could not feature, the active participation of John.” Are you suggesting that John did have an “active participation” in them becoming Beatles songs?
The two phrases I use are connected, by only using one – stripping it of the context in which it was written, and ignoring the other – which gives it its meaning, you are twisting my words.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.04pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Atlas said
After all….. If it isn’t included in The Beatles’ canon….and you’re an archivist or librarian whose canon can it be ascribed to?
Thinking further about this line, I am sure our resident librarian, @Ahhh Girl, will happily tell you there is a difference between the canon and the body of work. Whether it be on a subject, say psychology, where there are must reads, and these might also interest, or a specific author, for instance Sylvia Plath – where the published poems in her lifetime, The Bell Jar, are essential, canon – but then there’s things like Letters Home and the collected poems (which add much unpublished work); or Tolkien’s Silmarillion that are addendum, footnotes, not core catalogue, not canon. I can’t see, for instance, Ahhh Girl, ever recommending The Simarillion should be read before The Lord of the Rings or Plath’s Letters Home before The Bell Jar.
A canon is always the central work, that doesn’t mean the same author might not have non-canon works or documentation.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
2.10pm
1 November 2013
Offline 
2.44pm
17 October 2013
Offline Here we go!
You don’t deny John had a major input into these songs. I don’t deny he had no say whatsoever in their 90’s production or release under The Beatles’ Banner. We’ve wasted enough words stating the obvious…..
You’re keen on and cling to this word ‘canon’……I do know it’s meaning in liturgy, literature and it’s broader use. However, it seems to me that the boundaries of what constitutes a canon…..core and peripheral are so blurred as to be indistinct and subject to arguments like the one we are having that are in the end based on opinion.
Did John have a say in the release of Let It Be Naked ?
Is that album still The Beatles?
Is it still the Beatles but not in their canon? Not a core work?
I’ve included their discography so that you can draw your distinctions without much difference………And let us know the official Beatles canon what’s in and what’s out………In your opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…..iscography
At the end of the day my argument is, what constitutes a Beatles record and what doesn’t? Had John released FAAB on Double Fantasy it would have been filed under ‘Lennon John’…… As it is, it appears on a Beatles’ LP and as a Beatles’ single………For me and I’m sure for you and others we agree it’s ‘The Beatles.’
Our disagreement is that I give FAAB and RL full status and a special place within their main body of work……( I gave my reasons) You don’t, (and you gave yours).
We’ll just have to disagree.
3.32pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Maybe its easier to go by core catalogue than cannon however the official Beatles cannon is commonly and widely viewed (as by Apple hence why no outtakes or bonus tracks were included. Apple are incredibly protective over these) as being the 12 UK albums from Please Please Me thru to Let It Be + the US Magical Mystery Tour + Past Masters . This constitutes every song the Beatles released on Parlophone and Apple from Love Me Do thru to You Know My Name (Look Up the Number). Buy the albums in the stereo box and you have everything, thats why we have the stereo box as it is with nothing from the Anthologies, BBC or anything else. Thats the music the Beatles as the four intended to be their body of work, they never planned or thought anyone would go back and release the BBC tracks otherwise they would have taken more care over how they recorded them.
If you want to go deeper and see and understand more about the group then Apple have put out Let It Be Naked, the Anthologies and BBC albums but they are not needed and never intended to be part of the above block. Yes its the Beatles, yes they recorded it, but no its not part of that core collection and is not therefore intended to measured by the standards that the Beatles set when releasing material from October 1962 thru to May 1970.
I do think we are not going to agree and that its probably best to move on before we start going over and over the same points boring the pants off others.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.38pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline What constitutes the canon? This has been stated both by myself and @meanmistermustard, the singles, EPs, and albums released on Parlophone/Apple between 5 October 1962 (Love Me Do ) and 8 May 1970 (Let It Be ), along with the 3 stray tracks (Sie Liebt Dich ; Komm, Gib… and the World Worldlife fund of Across The Universe ). As previously said, the UK albums Please Please Me through to Let It Be , with the addition of the US Magical Mystery Tour and the Past Masters compilation issued on CD across 1987/1988.
That’s it, the core catalogue, the canon. There’s no confusion. No flipping. No flopping. It’s just as I defined it in the original conversation with Faceo. It’s exactly the same as meanmistermustard defines it. It’s a straightforward – what they released when they were an active band, between signing for EMI and breaking up.
You throw up the point about FAAB not having any John release prior to The Beatles version, however Real Love (with a different lyric) did. It opened the John Lennon : Imagine film in 1988, and was included on its soundtrack album, which defeats your argument about no previous John release.
Our opinions are not actually that different. I just think the canon is made up of their released (in the) 60s recordings, whereas you’re happy to be more flexible and include 2 90s recordings that were overdubs of Lennon demos.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.09pm
Reviewers
1 November 2013
Offline Von Bontee said
Can’t see the link
@vonbontee There is no link. This is the discussion thread.
(This signature brought to you by Net Boy and Net Girl. Putting messages in modems since 1996.)
5.00am
17 October 2013
Offline “Our opinions are not actually that different. I just think the canon is made up of their released (in the) 60s recordings, whereas you’re happy to be more flexible and include 2 90s recordings that were overdubs of Lennon demos.”
That’s it in a nutshell.
I don’t think an artist’s body of work should be restricted even partially by ‘time’…or….’record label’……..
I’m ‘flexi-disc to your vinyl.
5.14am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline Atlas said
“Our opinions are not actually that different. I just think the canon is made up of their released (in the) 60s recordings, whereas you’re happy to be more flexible and include 2 90s recordings that were overdubs of Lennon demos.”
That’s it in a nutshell.
I don’t think an artist’s body of work should be restricted even partially by ‘time’…or….’record label’……..
I’m ‘flexi-disc to your vinyl.
And everything else off Anthology? Love?
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:
Wigwam==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
12.01pm
17 October 2013
Offline We are all fans……….That is what unites ‘Mean’ and ‘Nasty’ and me…………….
But I don’t care about canons.
I don’t care about ‘accepted’ opinions……..EMI……..Apple……It’s executives…..I have my own……opinion as to what, more than anything else constitutes the beating heart of the Beatles.
John wrote a couple of songs….. The other guys who loved him and had mourned him came together. They gave him their best….. perhaps more than they had ever done. They tried to make those dammed demos the best they could be……..Through love and time and history and their friendship for all those years together.
Those two songs meant more emotionally to Paul, George and Ringo that any other track they have ever cut together in their lives…………
‘Free As A Bird ‘ and ‘Real Love ‘ deserve place at the very centre of the heart of the Beatles’ body of work……….This is quintessential Beatles. The four of them and the Real love of three.
If you don’t see that…….?
Well go with the EMI executives and welcome!!
5.36pm
28 March 2014
Offline Atlas said
Those two songs meant more emotionally to Paul, George and Ringo that any other track they have ever cut together in their lives…………‘Free As A Bird ‘ and ‘Real Love ‘ deserve place at the very centre of the heart of the Beatles’ body of work……….This is quintessential Beatles. The four of them and the Real love of three.
I know I’ve probably said this before, but I’m actually surprised Yoko doesn’t give Johns songs to her son to finish up! These 2 songs could have been mild hits for him.
BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!
5.56pm
28 March 2014
Offline Ron Nasty said
What constitutes the canon? This has been stated both by myself and @meanmistermustard, the singles, EPs, and albums released on Parlophone/Apple between 5 October 1962 (Love Me Do ) and 8 May 1970 (Let It Be ), along with the 3 stray tracks (Sie Liebt Dich ; Komm, Gib… and the World Worldlife fund of Across The Universe ). As previously said, the UK albums Please Please Me through to Let It Be , with the addition of the US Magical Mystery Tour and the Past Masters compilation issued on CD across 1987/1988.That’s it, the core catalogue, the canon. There’s no confusion. No flipping. No flopping. It’s just as I defined it in the original conversation with Faceo. It’s exactly the same as meanmistermustard defines it. It’s a straightforward – what they released when they were an active band, between signing for EMI and breaking up.
.
I prefer the “every song counts” approach, because in my iTunes I have the Beatles in chronicle order starting from their 1958 demo “In Spite Of All The Danger ” & “That’ll Be The Day” and other songs like “Ain’t She Sweet (Polydor Germany)”, “Leave My Kitten Alone “, “You Know What To Do”, “12 Bar Original”, “That Means A Lot “, “If You’ve Got Troubles” etc., right up to “Not Guilty “, “What’s The New Mary Jane ” and beyond. (Yes I skipped a few, as this would have been a much longer thread)!
Most of these are great unreleased songs, that should be down in history somewhere!
Also I still find it funny that they actually prefer the Capitol MMT over their own MMT EP, knowing how they hated what Capitol records where doing to their stuff.
BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!
1 Guest(s)