Ringo, Charlie and Bill were amicable to the idea as long as everyone else was interested. John didn't say a flat no, but he wasn't that interested.
८ नोव्हेंबर, २०१४
Keith and George thought Bob had a great idea.
Paul and Mick said no.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
Similar story: Donovan, The Monkees and The 1910 Fruitgum Company proposed doing an album together, but no record producer wanted to be in the room with that.
"We've gotta have a great show, with a million laughs... and color... and a lot of lights to make it sparkle! And songs - wonderful songs! And after we get the people in that hall, we've gotta start em in laughing right away! Oh, can't you just see it... ?"
— Judy Garland as Patsy Barton, Babes In Arms
And instead we got Dylan and The Dead.
Dylan/Stones/Beatles. The mind shudders at the possibilities.
The word he was looking for was amenable not amicable, isn't it?
Amicable is about feelings between people, amendable is in reference to an idea or suggestion.
Mick and Paul were right, IMO.
The Traveling Wilburys, on the other hand, worked.
Dylan got lucky, for soon after this the Stones and John and Yoko did the Rock and Roll Circus which was sad, bad and best forgotten.
"Yer Blues" with Lennon, Clapton and Keef:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muF9HSjeMyw
diff version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFoDObEIFDg
I remember back in the 60s running across a fan magazine that posed the theory that John Lennon and Bob Dylan were the same person. Their faces are kind of similar, and they seemed to have the same comic-hostile edge.
There used to be a lot of those stories about two people being the same person, I remember one about Julie Christie and Peter O'Toole. The catch was that, supposedly, they were never seen at the same time, at the same place.
By then it was hard for the Beatles to sing Happy Birthday together
Keith and George thought Bob had a great idea. Ringo, Charlie and Bill were amicable to the idea as long as everyone else was interested. John didn't say a flat no, but he wasn't that interested.
Confused? You won't be after this episode of...Soap!
There used to be a lot of those stories about two people being the same person
Justin Bieber, and Smiley Virus.
Have you ever seen them in the same place at the same time?
"I remember back in the 60s running across a fan magazine that posed the theory that John Lennon and Bob Dylan were the same person. Their faces are kind of similar, and they seemed to have the same comic-hostile edge."
My guess is that is why Paul said no. He was willing to play 'second' to John's bullying persona because of their history together, but to deal with two would only push him farther down the bench and leave him the odd man out.
Indeed, I think John and Bob would've been two peas in a pod: John seemed to have a need for a more powerful art figure in his life; with Bob Dylan as an artistic partner he might have not looked twice at Yoko Ono.
Even though now there would be no 'Yoko' in John's life he would still end up writing the song "Jealous Guy," detailing his feelings about Bob.
That's how it would happen.
I'm surprised the Beatles weren't more receptive, since the Beatles, especially on Beatles for Sale were heavily influenced by Dylan. ANd they had no problem using guest stars on their songs. (like Clapton on While My Guitar Gently Wheeps).
Any collaboration The Beatles did with other artists though was with the Beatles being the front men and the back up guy acting as a sessioneer. WIth Dylan he'd be sharing songwriting duties.
And I dont' think Lennon/McCartney wanted anything to do with that. On a Beatles record.
Julie Cbristie and Peter O'Toole?
Julie Christie was a major heart throb of mine. My wife of 44 years once told me she accepted my proposal because she had given up on Sean Connery asking. I replied that I asked only because I didn't figure Julie Christie would give me the time of day.
Whereas, Harrison was always second fiddle as a songwriter on Beatles records anyway. So for him collaborating with Dylan would be no problem. And he used it to good effect with the Travelling Wilbury's.
I think all the Beatles would have had no problem collaborating with Dylan on one of his records. They just wanted to keep the Beatles, the Beatles.
They also wouldn't collaborate with Mick Jagger if he was equal to the Beatles on a Beatles record And vice versa.
And I guess the issue was, we are already in the worlds biggest bands, why do we need to do a side band with our competitors, which would only be compared to our main bands negatively. Or worse, OUTSHINE the main band and become bigger.
Sounds like early 70's college dorm room bong talk nirvana: "...wouldn't it be far out if...?".
But as to the reality of actually doing the project, I think the Stones would have been a better fit, as they were looser and rougher than the fabs, and, they already had less than pristine vocals. (maybe the Beatles could have done a Traveling Wilbury sort of thing, to dilute Bob's nasal, detuned vocal contributions)
Hmm, the story only gives an approximate time - summer of 1969. Not a great time for either the Stones (Altamont) or the Beatles (on their last legs, losing the rights to their compositions, John & Yoko stepping out).
In 1969 Dylan was coming out of a period of isolation, Brian Jones died at the beginning of July, and the Beatles would not be in the same room together without their lawyers present.
Popville - on the other hand, the sumer of '69 is when The Beatles were recording Abbey Road, their final masterpiece. A final high note.
Fernando - Yer Blues with John, Keef and Eric is great.
Personally, I don't think the Beatles and the Stones would have meshed - even with Dylan leading the show - but it is a nice "might have been."
Similar story: Donovan, The Monkees and The 1910 Fruitgum Company proposed doing an album together
For "Season Of The Witch" alone, Donovan gets a pass.
I once had a fantasy where I made sweet, sweet love to Paul McCartney;s ex-wife. We did it three-legged doggy-style. Balance is important.
I once tried to masturbate to Yoko Ono, then I realized I wasn't gay. Yoko Ono is a man, Lennon fan-boys: accept it.
The only thing longer than Yoko Ono's penis? "Revolution #9."
In other cultures Ringo's name would translate as 'Sphincter'. Beware where you have Beatlemania.
Ringo was upset that -- for a drummer -- the other Beatles liked Pete, Best.
Rimjob.
I once saw george Harrison at an airport and he gave me a pamphlet. See, George Harrison was a Hare Krishna, and the Hare Krishnas used to give out pamphlets at airports, and bang tambourines. It was the Seventies, it doesn't have to make sense.
It would've been great to see Bob Dylan get together with Robbie Robertson and The Band: that would've been cool.
So, nobody asked Brian? Or Mick Taylor?
No. Sir Paul and Sir Mick were absolutely correct in their response.
For those who remember Bob Dylan's set with the Rolling Stones' Keith Richards and Ron Wood at the end of 1985's Live Aid show the answer is, in hindsight, obvious.
If this was in the summer of 1969, it was right after Dylan came out with Nashville Skyline, which he did with Johnny Cash. I recall the Dylan fans on the left in Madison being disappointed and annoyed at the country style and the collaboration with Cash coming on the heels of Dylan's edgiest stuff (Bringing it All Back Home, Highway 61 Revisited, Blonde on Blonde, John Wesley Harding). it bothered the lefties mightily that Dylan seemed to be saying, "Hey, be happy," instead of going on with the iconoclastic countercultural in your face stuff that people in Madison wanted from him.
My sense of Dylan is he knows pretty well what the times demand. He and Cash on Nashville SKyline were light years ahead of Madison SDS. Also, Dylan has enormously wide-ranging respect for many musical traditions. To have suggested doing something with the Stones and Beetles at that time fits and makes perfect sense to me. That John, Paul and Mick could not rise to the occasion is why it is Dylan, not they, who will last and prevail, forever young, on into the future.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा