Log In
Register
2.09pm
28 March 2014
Offline
Ron Nasty said
And here is the killer for me, should the living Beatles and the representatives of those we have sadly lost, consider that these two tracks be considered as part of their core catalogue/canon, why were they absent from the 2009 Remasters? They were reissuing the work they considered they should be judged on as a band, collecting it all together in a box, and they could easily have added both tracks under discussion to Past Masters . They chose not to, and so they obviously feel that they are somewhat separate to what they did when they were an active band.
Very valid point.
As for Let It Be , we all know it belongs in their canon, I just wanted to throw a log on the fire….
But for my canon, those 2 songs will always be in my iTunes canon, simply because it’s The Beatles! 
The following people thank Bongo for this post:
Matt Busby 
BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!
6.30pm
15 May 2014
Offline Q: Should “Free As A Bird ” and “Real Love ” count as canon Beatles Songs?
A: No, they shouldn’t.
“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
7.18pm
17 October 2013
Offline 
I thought I should also mention the video……
That’s not in the video canon either presumably…….(Oudis might tell us).
This article is food for thought or ‘fodder to canon’….. up to you. Like everything else in life……..Do what you got to do and go where you’re going too..Think For Yourself because you’re free……as a bird.
This says in quotes a lot about what the remaining Beatles thought about the making of FAAB…….. but also a long section about the video.
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Matt Busby, Bongo4.00am
8 February 2014
Offline Wigwam said
This says in quotes a lot about what the remaining Beatles thought about the making of FAAB…….. but also a long section about the video.
The analysis of the video is interesting and enlightening, but overboard in places. For example, “The dock workers could well be ‘lonely people’, as mentioned in ‘Eleanor Rigby ‘…” is stretching it a bit imo. Although he mentions several analogues for the bird in the video, he doesn’t mention that the flapping at the beginning is more than reminiscent of the beginning of Across The Universe .
*Busby hides before the topic police come for him* 
The following people thank Matt Busby for this post:
Ahhh Girl4.46am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline Oudis said
Q: Should “Free As A Bird ” and “Real Love ” count as canon Beatles Songs?A: No, they shouldn’t.
B: Yes, they should.
no – yes – no – yes ….
Repeat until they come to take us away 🙂
The following people thank trcanberra for this post:
Beatlebug, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, Matt Busby==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
6.43am
17 October 2013
Offline Matt Busby said
Wigwam said
This says in quotes a lot about what the remaining Beatles thought about the making of FAAB…….. but also a long section about the video.
The analysis of the video is interesting and enlightening, but overboard in places. For example, “The dock workers could well be ‘lonely people’, as mentioned in ‘Eleanor Rigby ‘…” is stretching it a bit imo. Although he mentions several analogues for the bird in the video, he doesn’t mention that the flapping at the beginning is more than reminiscent of the beginning of Across The Universe .
*Busby hides before the topic police come for him*
Yes i agree……I thought the two girls coming out the shop looked like Christine keeler and Mandy Rice Davies……But the connection of Paul’s mother Mary with the nurse selling poppies if true is quite moving.
It is a good video.
1.28pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline FWIW, my criteria of material that belongs in The Beatles canon: material newly recorded by The Beatles to be specifically released as a single, EP or LP by The Beatles. These two songs fit that criteria.
It won’t happen, but if Paul and/or Ringo recorded a new song or album today and were allowed to release it under the name The Beatles, it would be part of the canon – like it or not. Long after Brian Jones died, The Rolling Stones continued to record/release material that added to their canon. The same can be said of AC/DC and countless other bands.
Songs/albums that were recorded/released without the intent of release when originally recorded by The Beatles would not be part of the canon. That would knock out albums like Love, Live At the Beeb and others.
Just my opinion.
The following people thank Zig for this post:
Bongo, Necko, Wigwam, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<, trcanberraTo the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
4.22pm
5 July 2015
Offline Ron Nasty said
And here is the killer for me, should the living Beatles and the representatives of those we have sadly lost, consider that these two tracks be considered as part of their core catalogue/canon, why were they absent from the 2009 Remasters? They were reissuing the work they considered they should be judged on as a band, collecting it all together in a box, and they could easily have added both tracks under discussion to Past Masters . They chose not to, and so they obviously feel that they are somewhat separate to what they did when they were an active band.
I have to disagree here. Their inclusion or exclusion in remastered box sets doesn’t determine canon-inity. Ha! I’m just making up words here – but I wonder if there just isn’t some confusion about the meaning of ‘canon’ itself. ‘Canon’ includes all known works of art known to be authentic (as opposed to unofficial live or studio bootlegs, interview discs and the like). In the case of The Beatles, their ‘canon’ contains a lot more than just the ‘core catalog’ and I think that’s where the confusion lies.
Two of the Beatles are still alive and it’s quite possible The Beatles canon could continue to grow!
The following people thank glazball for this post:
Wigwam5.05pm
28 March 2014
Offline [sp_show_poll id=”74″]
There you go, here’s your answer! (sponsored by )
The following people thank Bongo for this post:
Wigwam, Oudis BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!
5.55pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline
The use of the word “canon”, and how it is used by those of us who use it, I explained in another thread when this subject first cropped up.
It comes from the word “canonical”, which describes (in both versions) the results of the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The Christian faith at that time had no defined Testament. There were many Christian texts which completely contradicted each other that different branches of the church were using, and caused conflict between different Christian churches. The Council of Nicaea was organised to agree upon a set of texts that would become the standard and accepted texts. From that was formed the New Testament.
Now, how does this relate to those of us who describe the official 1960s core catalogue as the canon. One of the main definitions (in fact, the main definition after the biblical canon) is, according to the Merriam-Webster, “conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure”.
Now, there is nothing wrong in describing The Beatles’ canon as “being released under the name The Beatles”. Woo-hoo! That dreadful Spankrox remix of Love Me Do that was done when LMD ran out of copyright in Europe is canon! Of course it isn’t. That rule isn’t enough. It needs refining. So, in that instance, you see refinement is needed.
This is not unusual. It often happens in literary circles around hit fictional characters. Two examples, Sherlock Holmes and James Bond. The canon, in both those cases, are the writings of Arthur Conan Doyle and Ian Fleming respectively, with all the rest being non-canon.
Should you choose to look at the canon of great English literature, you will find that varies across the world, often politically within the same country between the left and right, the liberal and the conservative.
There is often much disagreement over canons, and what constitutes a canon. There is always good to be found in open and polite discussion of these things.
So, for those of us, who consider the core catalogue as the canon, does that conform to a “general rule or acceptable procedure”. After all, ours is not a view we have come up with just for the forum, it is reflected in many books, articles, documentaries, etc. So, is there a “general rule” that those who identify the core catalogue as the canon apply. I believe there is:
The Beatles Canon is made up of recordings made (in various combinations, including solo, and with other musicians) by John Lennon , Paul McCartney , George Harrison and Ringo Starr that were credited to The Beatles and were commercially released by EMI Records, or under the license of EMI Records, between 5 October 1962 and 8 May 1970, during which time the four were an active partnership.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Wigwam, Beatlebug, Oudis"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
6.04pm
15 May 2014
Offline I’ve already posted my answer –they aren’t part of the canonical Beatles; but I’d like to say a few more things. I guess the problem here is that for many people it is hard to come to terms with the fact that The Beatles were a band that ended in 1970. They didn’t exist after that. For years people and the media speculated about a Beatles come back but when John was murdered that was the end of the dream (John himself had said the dream was over many years before). We have to let go…; The Beatles don’t exist anymore.
The following people thank Oudis for this post:
Wigwam“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
6.08pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Do you think we’ll ever get off this ride?
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Beatlebug"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.24pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Oops! I forgot to @ @glazball in my reply, and you can’t @ with an edit. (This can be deleted later.) Replied in post 70.
"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
7.23pm
17 October 2013
Offline Letter to Nasty,
Dear Ron,
You’re only representing a view held by many or most. You’re expressing your opinion, or received opinion politely, reasonably, respectfully and with the authority that comes from having done your research……But still…..we disagree…..mostly but not completely.
I think the term ‘canon’ from its original, very specific religious context has been loosely associated over the years to the ‘body’ of an artist’s work. You cite: ‘Merriam-Webster, “conforming to a general rule or acceptable procedure”. That happily leaves room for people like me who don’t conform in this instance. After all….”Black’s on the back of the bus’ could have been described by ‘MW’ in the same way.
As Bing and Bob sang….”Like Webster’s dictionary, we’re Morocco bound” I say we just shouldn’t be hide-bound by it
Words and their definitions change…even when they are religious in origin and very specific in meaning……’Awful’ once meant to be filled with the ‘awe of God ‘
As you helpfully point out, Conan Doyle’s Sherlock and Flemings Bond stand ‘central’ and apart from, all the spin-offs however, good or bad they are…The entire Doyle/Fleming output with regards to those respective fictional characters would fit my and your interpretation of ‘canon’….. So we can agree there.
You say:
“There is often much disagreement over canons, and what constitutes a canon. There is always good to be found in open and polite discussion of these things.”
Again we can agree.
For me it’s as clear as day, FAAB and RL should constitute part of the Beatles’ Canon. I’m sure there’s no need to run through my reasoning again.
For you, MMM, Silly and others, it’s obvious as the noses on your respective faces, (and the corporate face of Apple), that they shouldn’t.
As an old Roman general, Marcus Aurelius said: “Everything we hear is opinion not fact. Everything we see is perspective not truth”
We approach this question from a different angle and accordingly take a different perspective……Not surprising then that our opinions also differ.
As to which of us is right and which of us is wrong…’The farther one travels – – – -The less one knows’
Regards,
Your friend Wiggy
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Beatlebug, meanmistermustard, Ron Nasty9.11pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I wonder if its possible to conduct a whole conversation without planning to just by using the same posts that have been submitted before but were not in the same order as previously.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
9.53pm
8 February 2014
Offline Zig said
FWIW, my criteria of material that belongs in The Beatles canon: material newly recorded by The Beatles to be specifically released as a single, EP or LP by The Beatles. These two songs fit that criteria.It won’t happen, but if Paul and/or Ringo recorded a new song or album today and were allowed to release it under the name The Beatles, it would be part of the canon – like it or not. Long after Brian Jones died, The Rolling Stones continued to record/release material that added to their canon. The same can be said of AC/DC and countless other bands.
Songs/albums that were recorded/released without the intent of release when originally recorded by The Beatles would not be part of the canon. That would knock out albums like Love, Live At the Beeb and others.
Just my opinion.
Interesting definition. I see your point. I think the Stones and some other bands differ from the Beatles in that they never broke up. Once a band breaks up, reforming with some different members doesn’t necessarily result in the creation of new canon material. But it does in some cases. I’m trying (and failing) to think of an example like the Beatles where the remaining members reunited and released new material under the original name and it wasn’t considered canon. It’s hard to find examples where a band name was unused for a time and then picked back up.
Yet somehow the Beatles seem different. Maybe it’s because they were the greatest, and each of the 4 members had strong, “signature” influences upon the band’s sound (thus making it impossible to continue under a different lineup).
But your logic is infallible, Zig. You’ve changed my mind and I’ll now consider FAAB and RL as canon. I’m not sure that I would consider something released by Paul with his current band as canon if he called it Beatles.
Something you don’t define precisely is the meaning of “the Beatles.” In the case of FAAB and RL, it was the 3 remaining original Beatles with not only John’s writing but his performance included as well, just not his personal input to the production process.
Legally, does Apple own the trademark “The Beatles”? Meaning Neil has (almost) as much say in what’s released as Beatles as Paul and Ringo do?
9.58pm
17 October 2013
Offline meanmistermustard said
I wonder if its possible to conduct a whole conversation without planning to just by using the same posts that have been submitted before but were not in the same order as previously.
That wouldn’t be canon.
………..or would it?
The following people thank Wigwam for this post:
Necko1.22am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline @Matt Busby said
Legally, does Apple own the trademark “The Beatles”? Meaning Neil has (almost) as much say in what’s released as Beatles as Paul and Ringo do?
Sadly, Neil is no longer with us. However, while he was… He obviously had a voice that was listened to. The whole Anthology project was built on his early ’70s documentary project The Long And Winding Road . He was also the person employed by them for the longest amount of time, and among their closest confidants, he could only ever suggest things. The actual decisions were made by John, Paul, George and Ringo, and – as we lost two of those – their roles were replaced by Yoko (who many would argue replaced John in dealing with Apple business long before John’s death) and Olivia. Neil was a trusted advisor, the most trusted advisor, and the most loyal servant The Beatles ever had, often the bridge between fractious relationships, but as to decisions, while he was listened to, they belonged (and belong) to the four owners of Apple.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Matt Busby"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
2.16am
15 May 2014
Offline Wigwam said
As an old Roman general, Marcus Aurelius said: “Everything we hear is opinion not fact. Everything we see is perspective not truth”
Sorry gus, I know this is off-topic but I had to say it: that sentence is brilliant. Thanks for posting it @Wigwam.
“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
2.50am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline Oudis said
Wigwam said
As an old Roman general, Marcus Aurelius said: “Everything we hear is opinion not fact. Everything we see is perspective not truth”Sorry gus, I know this is off-topic but I had to say it: that sentence is brilliant. Thanks for posting it @Wigwam.
It is a great line, but it is also deeply flawed.
In 1980 I heard on the radio that John Lennon had been shot and died. Opinion or fact? Very sadly, fact.
This year I watched the Conservative Party win the UK’s General Election and become the Government of the UK. Perspective or truth? Very sadly, truth.
Some things are opinions, some things are perspectives, but not everything is subjective. We also live in a world of facts and truths.
I only exist in my own imagination, and you are all creations of my imagination, and so I am never off-topic.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Bongo"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
1 Guest(s)