4 ms·

How exactly is it not “The Beatles”? It’s a voice line from Lenon extracted from a tape and mixed with other tracks recorded by other band members. That’s akin

How exactly is it not “The Beatles”? It’s a voice line from Lenon extracted from a tape and mixed with other tracks recorded by other band members. That’s akin to any other track produced by the band.

mellosouls 3y ago
According to the article it's from Lennon long after the Beatles had split that Harrison wanted nothing to do with because it was rubbish. Of course it's not The Beatles, not in time frame, quality, or assent.
- code_duck 3y ago
  The article says that Harrison said the sound quality was rubbish, not anything about song itself.
  - mellosouls 3y ago
    Fair enough, the main objections remain.
coldtea 3y ago
>How exactly is it not “The Beatles”? In any way that counts. >It’s a voice line from Lenon extracted from a tape and mixed with other tracks recorded by other band members. That’s akin to any other track produced by the band. The Beatles were a band, not someone's remix project. There's no band, it has disbanded in 1970. And two members aren't even alive, to see whether the agree on the use of their material, one that's even been made for a solo record, and by a band member they had their beefs with post-split. If you meant "It's a song that will use sounds that have been produced at some time or another from people that once were members of the Beatles", yes. Not the same as a Beatles song. And we're not even getting into the spirit of what the Beatles were, of which this is the antithesis...
- ratg13 3y ago
  The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. Yes. And when they do so, it's a hijacking of the original band's name. Which can be legally fine, but dubious as to the original spirit. Of course some bands are just a figurehead (or two) plus a replacable roster of members that are just hired guns. These remain the same band throught changes, because they were never about those other persons. But the Beatles weren't that with regards to John and George. Even more so when it's 53 years (over a century) after the band called it quits. Even more so when they are using, without the persons' permission, a demo song by a member who died 40+ years ago, who wrote it for their own solo use, as "the band's". >At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be. Irrelevant. We're talking about music and legacy, not trademarks and contract law. If that's your criteria for whether a song is a Beatles songs, that's a pretty law bar. Hell, they might even sell the rights to the name and some Max Martin type in 2100 might put out new music as "The Beatles", having proper rights and everything. Even use snippets of the old songs. Doesn't mean that has anything to do with Beatles the band. It's just greedy music industry looking for quick bucks pissing all over a legacy.
    - ratg13 3y ago
      So people like John and George are “The Beatles” but people like Pete Best are not, because of some arbitrary attachment you have to them personally. I mean I get it, but you shouldn’t try and force your personal paradigm on others.
      - 3y ago

mellosouls 3y ago

According to the article it's from Lennon long after the Beatles had split that Harrison wanted nothing to do with because it was rubbish. Of course it's not The Beatles, not in time frame, quality, or assent.

code_duck 3y ago
The article says that Harrison said the sound quality was rubbish, not anything about song itself.
- mellosouls 3y ago
  Fair enough, the main objections remain.

coldtea 3y ago

>How exactly is it not “The Beatles”? In any way that counts. >It’s a voice line from Lenon extracted from a tape and mixed with other tracks recorded by other band members. That’s akin to any other track produced by the band. The Beatles were a band, not someone's remix project. There's no band, it has disbanded in 1970. And two members aren't even alive, to see whether the agree on the use of their material, one that's even been made for a solo record, and by a band member they had their beefs with post-split. If you meant "It's a song that will use sounds that have been produced at some time or another from people that once were members of the Beatles", yes. Not the same as a Beatles song. And we're not even getting into the spirit of what the Beatles were, of which this is the antithesis...

ratg13 3y ago
The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >The Beatles were/are a band, but someone still controls who is in the band as band members can (and often do) change. Yes. And when they do so, it's a hijacking of the original band's name. Which can be legally fine, but dubious as to the original spirit. Of course some bands are just a figurehead (or two) plus a replacable roster of members that are just hired guns. These remain the same band throught changes, because they were never about those other persons. But the Beatles weren't that with regards to John and George. Even more so when it's 53 years (over a century) after the band called it quits. Even more so when they are using, without the persons' permission, a demo song by a member who died 40+ years ago, who wrote it for their own solo use, as "the band's". >At the moment the people that control the band are Paul McCartney and Sony. So, the "Beatles" and whatever the band comprises is whatever Paul wants it to be, not what you want it to be. Irrelevant. We're talking about music and legacy, not trademarks and contract law. If that's your criteria for whether a song is a Beatles songs, that's a pretty law bar. Hell, they might even sell the rights to the name and some Max Martin type in 2100 might put out new music as "The Beatles", having proper rights and everything. Even use snippets of the old songs. Doesn't mean that has anything to do with Beatles the band. It's just greedy music industry looking for quick bucks pissing all over a legacy.
  - ratg13 3y ago
    So people like John and George are “The Beatles” but people like Pete Best are not, because of some arbitrary attachment you have to them personally. I mean I get it, but you shouldn’t try and force your personal paradigm on others.
    - 3y ago