So Paul McCartney wants to release a wanky 11-minute “experimental” piece the Beatles recorded for an electronic music festival. He wanted to put it on Anthology, but the rest of the band vetoed it. Now, look. It’s trendy to rip on Paul. But if you had these things you created and you wanted to mess around with them but when you made any small move people howled about corrupting history and disturbing their memories, wouldn’t that drive you kind of crazy? None of these are George Lucas moves that will put the originals out of business; they’ll always be there. If the guy wants to release shitty songs he thinks are interesting, then hey, go nuts. [Reuters]

 
Paul McCartney Blackpole - The Beatles Photo (7755867) - Fanpop
... · Music · The Beatles - Paul McCartney | Free Background 1600x1200
Paul McCartney, The Beatles
Paul McCartney celebrates Hollywood star
HOLLYWOOD, LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- Sir Paul McCartney finally accepted his star on the Hollywood ... It was 48 years ago to the day that the Beatles ignited the British Invasion with their appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. McCartney, who penned his first ...
Paul McCartney gets Hollywood star
Los Angeles - Paul McCartney became the last Beatle to get a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame in a ceremony Thursday, in which he paid tribute to his bandmates in the legendary rock group. 'Way back in history, in Liverpool when we were kids and ...



 
  1. Al Shipley  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    Recording over John Lennon demos from well after the band broke up was a “George Lucas move.” Releasing something the band actually recording while they were together that might show a different side of the band is a great idea and something they should’ve done ages ago, whether it turns out to be shitty or not.

  2. Anonymous  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    As someone who’s sat through George Harrison’s “Wonderwall Music”, I can testify that “beatles” + “experimental electronica = dental drill

  3. Marth  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    I kind of want run my hand through George’s hair in that photo. Is that wrong?

  4. mackro  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    I’m excited about seeing thousands of Beatles fanatics being disappointed again.

    I mean if “What’s The New Mary Jane?” was accepted (and sorry guys, I barely remember that track after a dozen listens) and “Carnival Of Light” was vetoed, what does that say about “Carnival Of Light”?

    And I’m a big fan of “Revolution 9″ here, and a good chunk of the experimental side of the Beatles and thereafter. I’m not a melody-only Beatles guy.

  5. Hyman Decent  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that the reason the others vetoed it is, it didn’t fit? It is 14 minutes long, after all.

    They should offer it as a free download.

  6. mackro  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    “BARCELONA!”

  7. Captain Wrong  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    Sure it’s popular to rip on McCartney, but he makes it so easy. This seems like an extension of his stance in Anthology that really he was the avant garde guy and John was just along for the ride.

    Honestly though, who cares? Releasing/not releasing isn’t going to change my day either way so let him knock himself out.

  8. Chris Molanphy  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    @Hyman Decent: DING. All of the Anthologys were fully stuffed as it was.

    I’m also glad “Carnival of Light” didn’t make those albums, because (don’t laugh) I think it would’ve wrecked the flow. I particularly love Anthology 2, which I have ripped to my iPod and still listen to, in toto; it’s this wonderful summation of the most fruitful phase of their recording (roughly 1965-very beginning of 1968). I even enjoy the multiple takes of everything; the three-draft build of “Strawberry Fields Forever” is like a Beatles ur-text.

    Since I assume the 1967 “Carnival” would’ve qualified for A2, I’m really, really relieved it didn’t make it on there. Again, not that it would have fit without making it a three-disc set.

    (For the record, A3 is nearly as good as A2 but a little puffed up. And I never listen to A1 unless I want to hear something for archival reasons; it’s the most odds-and-endsy of the three Anthologys. Ironically, because it was released the same week as the ABC special, it sold the best, by far.)

  9. Anonymous  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    Nobody has heard this thing…
    Calling it “shitty” is a bit much don’t we think?

    It’s a piece of history…and nobody has heard it since….the versions that are being put up on the internet are just creepy fan-boy frauds…nothing to see there…move along…

    It’s The Beatles…we’re fascinated…now please get those mono mixes out already!!!!

  10. Anonymous  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    Wanting to put half-assed, self-ingulgent crap out on a Beatles album? Who does he think he is? John Lennon?
    It can’t be more useless than #9.

  11. cheesebubble  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    I’m with Al Shipley and sydbarrett05 on this one. If it’s crap then so be it – but at least it’s out there for us to judge. I’ve known about this fabled recording and, although I don’t expect to be riveted, I am interested in hearing it.

  12. Silverfuture  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    @Captain Wrong: @Lucas Jensen: Yeah. I think that Paul brought John into the avant-garde world with him, and John kinda ran with it, but I think Paul was the weird one first…

  13. Nicolars  |   Posted on Nov 18th, 2008

    My only objection to this song is that it dredges up bad memories of the mediocre Ride album.

  14. Lucas Jensen  |   Posted on Nov 17th, 2008

    @Captain Wrong: I would argue that Paul is at least as avant if not more.

  15. riffraff  |   Posted on Nov 19th, 2008

    slapping it on to an anthology is one thing,
    now if old man Paul were just to release into the wild NIN style? who could complain then?

Leave a Reply

Sign In Login