Conference mr1pst::music

    *If* the reunion happens and **IF** they tour, you can forget about
    trying to get tickets.  Probably just as well, how good could they
    possibly be?  At this point, I can't imagine how seeing the Beatles
    live could be anything but a disappointment. And I LIKE the Beatles!!
    
    							Brian

    It could be interesting, though.
    
    Personally, I'd be more excited by a Bruce Springsteen & The E Street
    Band reunion.  Or, by Robbie Robertson rejoining The Band & touring
    together.
    
    Lorna
    

    I second that opinion regarding Robbie Robertson joining The Band
    again.  I would definitely be up for that.
    
    Regarding the Beatles getting together again.  I would definitely try to
    get tickets.  They wouldn't be as they once were (but then who is) but
    I think it would still be a good show.  Saw Paul a few years ago and I
    thought he did a great job - either that or I was just real nostalgic.
    
    Mo
    

    When I said that it would be a disappointment, look at it this way: 
    
    To see the Beatles as a showbiz act getting up and running through
    their hits, with a cool light show and twenty people helping out on
    stage to fill out the sound would be a drag.  I'd like to see the four
    of them (uh, three of them), plus maybe one or two sidemen, rocking
    out.   It would be hard or impossible to do this in the current rock
    concert climate.  Sitting 2000 rows back in a stadium is worse than
    staying home for the pay-per-view.
    
    Paul had the right idea with his early Wings tours, load up the van,
    show up at a school or town auditorium, ask for permission to play and
    do a show that night.  *That* would be exciting.
    
    I will probably never go to a large rock show again in my life, it is
    just the antithesis of everything I love about the music.  If an act
    is too big to play the Orpheum, I guess I'll have to get by without
    seeing them.
    
    							Brian

    
    There's an article about the Beatles in the latest New Yorker, with
    some full page solarized portraits of them, including John.
    
    len.
    

>
>    I'll only go if Linda sings a solo.
>
ummmmm.  I think you want to be in the HUMOR conference.  You couldn't 
possibly ever refer to her as a singer anywhere else.

    I think it would be interesting to see the 3 remaining Beatles (plus,
    maybe Julian filling in for his father, as best he can), with other
    musicians on stage to back them up.  In fact, that is what I would
    prefer to see.  I'm sure it would sound a lot better that way, than
    with just Paul, George and Ringo supplying the music.  But, they would
    still be the main attraction of the band, even with additional
    musicians.  I think it would be fun.
    
    Lorna
    
    ps - if people don't want Linda to do a solo, perhaps it could be
    arranged for Yoko to treat everyone to one her songs!
    

	.5 Exactly, to everything you said.

	Di

    I'm very much a fan of the Beatles' music, but I see no point in a
    reunion. Their compositions left an indelible mark on music history and
    remains today peerless. But they're not happening now. There is no more
    Lennon. It happened and it's over. Thankfully we are endowed with plenty
    of wonderful recordings to enjoy as often as we wish. I hope these 3
    don't go and do something that I'll regret.

    And for what it's worth, I don't think there's any disputing what a huge
    part George Martin played in the best work produced by the lads. It's
    likely that they'd never have risen to such majestic heights musically
    had it not been for Martin's participation and collaboration. Brian
    Epstein help them form an identity as an act and Martin was the governor
    that Lennon and McCartney needed in the studio where the ideas took
    shape.

    Separately these two never came close to what they achieved together. A
    synergy that Martin made certain never went into meltdown. A union that
    eventually disintegrated when other relationships displaced their own.
    But this is all history. Not even .01% of it is going to happen again. I'd
    be skeptical even if Lennon were alive are part of it. And he'll roll
    over in his proverbial grave if they enshrine him.

    Listen to the recordings and marvel. That's what I do.

    --Ron

    
    	re: .10 / Ron - I can easily see your point.  They were probably
    	just as much to me as you.  But, for me, my curiosity far outweighs
    	the feelings from the past.  Hell, what if they sounded GREAT?
    	And if they don't, so what?  We still have the past, right?
    
    	For me, I'd rather have the opportunity to hear their music and
    	if it's great - terrific!  
    
    	If it isn't, put Revolver on!!
    
    	Tom
    

    Besides the public is starved for media events, and I'm a little bored
    myself this afternoon.
    
    Lorna
    
    ps - think of the money to be made by somebody - the HBO special, the
    videos, the CD's, the t-shirts, etc., etc.

    Don't get me wrong, I hope anything they do will turn out good. If they
    perform with a star studded big band and the performance is as good as
    the version of "My Back Pages" done at the Dylan tribute last year, I
    might not be disappointed at all. But that's a bit different from a
    Bealtes Reunion. That would be a Beatles tribute. I think a "reunion"
    with Julian or <gak> Elvis Costello replacing John would be shakey at
    best. Beatles material is not easy to cover. McCartney's efforts are
    spotty at best when compared to the original performances.

    --Ron (major skeptic)

    
    Hmm...  I'd have to agree with the noter a few back - my curiosity
    factor would far outweigh any misgivings I had about the quality of the
    show ( and/or new album )
    
    My nightmare : that the three of them go into the studio and just do
    new covers of their old material.  Redundant, at best and at worst . .
    . well, just plain tacky.  Btw, I don't think *that*'ll happen :-)
    
    from John Wesley Harding's _When the Beatles Hit America_
    
    "Due to a miracle marketing strategy,
     Beyond the realms of reasonable possibility
     It is announced simulteously
     On radio, compact disc and t.v.
    
     That John, Paul, George and Ringo
     Are going to be reforming as the Beatles
     in 1993."
    
    	Geez, I guess he just got the year wrong, eh? :-)
    
    					- Smilin' Jim

    I, unfortunately, am filled with apprehension of what Paul, George and
    Ringo (and George Martin) could come up with for new material. And the
    result may be a whole generation that shugs and says "Big deal. They're
    not so great", mistaking the new Beatles for the old Beatles.

    --Ron

    Oh, do I get the curmudgeon award yet? :^)

    Don't worry, I'll lighten up when the weather resembles something other
    than the tortured ice moon of Jupiter.

    --Ron

    Hey Ron, I just heard Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell are reforming
    "The Experience"
    
    
    just joking :-)

    >    Hey Ron, I just heard Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell are reforming
    >    "The Experience"
    
    This is definitely a case of "no experience required"  ;-)
    
    	db - who opened for a pretty good nationally-touring Hendrix 
    	     tribute act Friday

re .14

How 'bout Marshall Crenshaw?  If memory serves me, I believe he started
out playing John in "Beatlemania".

Just a thought....

Geoff

    re .20
    
    Ha, I was thinking that the reunion would be like Beatlemania with
    really good casting.
    
    Jamie

    Re: .12
    
    Ya gotta be kidding...go to a Beatles show to see Tom Petty?  That's
    exactly the sort of thing I'm afraid would happen.
    
    							Brian

    I've given it some thought and I'd say they should go with Leslie West.
    
    Or, they could just put Lennon's coat on a hanger where he would stand,
    put a cardboard cutout of his head on top and move the mouth al la Monty
    Python with his vocal parts.

    Just my suggestions.

    Paul is sayin that Every_Body is Blowin this Outta proportion.
    Him,George and Ringo are just gonna Record A_Few new songs when
    they get together to Touch_Up The Sound_Track to The Beatles Movie
    that they are Workin On.
    
    
                Crazy_O_Blah_Dee_Al
    
    

    re: 596.5

>Sitting 2000 rows back in a stadium is worse than staying home for the 
>pay-per-view.
    
>I will probably never go to a large rock show again in my life, it is just the
>antithesis of everything I love about the music. If an act is too big to play
>the Orpheum, I guess I'll have to get by without seeing them.
    
Too right! The only decent stadium gig I've ever seen was Springsteen about 9
years ago, and even then nothing would have convinced me that it wouldn't have
been better in a small club!

Worst gig I've ever seen? Pink Floyd at the Monza racing circuit in front of
70,000 people. I can't think of a good word to say about large rock shows. On
the negative side, just take your pick:

1. The parking facilities are usually lousy.
2. You can't see the band without binoculars.
3. The admission fee is usually wildly inflated.
4. You have to arrive hours before the start.
5. Rapport between band and audience tends to be mediocre to say the least.
etc.

>Paul had the right idea with his early Wings tours, load up the van, show up at
>a school or town auditorium, ask for permission to play and do a show that
>night. *That* would be exciting.
    
This is just what the Stones did in the UK about 10 years ago, interspersing
big dates (e.g. Wembley Stadium) with small "surprise" dates (e.g. the 100 Club
in Oxford St.). The smaller gigs went down a storm, as you can imagine. Then
again, I'm not saying it makes financial sense for a promoter to have the
Beatles do 65 shows at the local village hall rather than one show in a 65,000
seater football stadium ;-) ;-)

But if it's a question of seeing three-quarters of the Beatles (plus "special
guests") through binoculars from the other side of a football stadium, count me
out.

Dom
  

   The Beetles without John Lennon, is like 

U2                    without Bono
Rem                   without Michael Stripe
Stones                without Jagger


   Forget it, you can't call it a Beetles reunion without the key member. Iam
surprised George Harrison would go along, as for the other two who nows.. Ringo
is no more of a musician than Linda and Yoko.... I'll go if its free just to 
see Tom Petty and Slowhand...


                                                                 -dave-

    re .26, or The Band without Robbie Robertson
            or The Heartbreakers without Tom Petty  :-)
    
    Still, I agree with .27, that it would be interesting on it's own
    terms.  I thought George Harrison was was quite charming at the Dylan
    tribute.  
    
    And, as far as Tom Petty goes, personally, *I'd* pay to see Tom Petty
    any day.  It's been over a year since I've been to a Petty concert, and
    I miss him!  He's one of my all-time favorites.
    
    Hey, maybe Dylan & Jeff Lynn could show up, too, and then The Traveling
    Wilbury's could open for The Beatles.  :-)    (now, we have to find a
    replacement for Roy Orbison.....)
    
    Lorna
    

    My following opinions can be paralled with fact:
    
    John Lennon was not The Beatles....it has been stated repeatedly, that
    it took all 4 of them to be what they were (repeated by the 4 lads, and
    George Martin, their producer) and they could not have survived without
    any one of them. They all were integral parts of the band, and their
    contributions were all important. If you disagree that Ringo or
    George's contributions were not as important, you have not done enough
    research...read "The Complete Recording Sessions" by Mark Lewisohn.
    
    There can never be a Beatles "Reunion"....how can it be...the 3
    remaining members may get together, but it can not be a reunion, and I
    wish the press would stop referring to it as such...
    
    Paul, George and Ringo are getting together to record some "incidental"
    or background music for a 10-part video series, tentatively titled
    "The Long & Winding Road" which will chronicle their entire history.
    
    I, along with most "Beatle fans" believe that there will not be an
    "album" or a tour....we would all be quite surprised....
    
    what they should do is appear on David Letterman on February 9, the
    30th anniversary of their 1st Ed Sullivan appearance, and perform
    All My Loving (the 1st song on the 1st show) and the "Lennon Medley"
    (Help-Strawberry Fields Forever-Give Peace A Chance) that Paul played
    on parts of his '89-'90 world tour.
    
                <<< SITP::USER1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BEATLES.NOTE;1 >>>
                                -< The Beatles >-
================================================================================
Note 674.31               *** 1994 BEATLES REUNION ***                  31 of 31
DELNI::RUKAS                                         37 lines  21-JAN-1994 08:49
                       -< USA TODAY JANUARY 21-23, 1994 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
                          (Used without Permission)
    
      NEW YORK - Paul McCartney has confirmed rumors of a Beatle
    quasi-reunion: The surviving three will gather next month to record
    "incidental music" for a BBC documentary.
      "For old times' sake we're going to give it a whirl," said McCartney
    backstage Wednesday at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction. He,
    George Harrison and Ringo Starr (both absent) are "not going to try to
    better the Beatles. We know we can't do that."
      A supportive Yoko Ono, widow of inductee John lennon, urged the
    assembled press, "Just please give the three of them a chance."
      The former foes' hugging rapprochement highlighted the ninth annual
    ceremony, pop's night of magical music and self glorification.
                                
    <deleted non-exBeatle related text>
    
      Paul McCartney, inducting Beatlemate John Lennon for his solo work,
    delivered the coziest accolades at this year's star-studded event,
    staged Wednesday night in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Reading a Dear
    John letter, McCartney recalled Lennon's talent and Friendship in
    touching and humorous anecdotes.
      He cited a pre-fame gig at Liverpool's Cavern Club, where the band
    was expected to play the blues. Only they didn't know any. Fans "kept
    passing up little notes: 'This is not the blues.'"
      Yoko Ono, accepting the award with son Sean Lennon, said the late
    Beatle would have been proud to be honored for his solo work. "It was
    no surprise when John was inducted as a Beatle (in 1988) because, after
    all, the Liverpool band was bigger than...Buddha."
      Backstage, onlookers marveled at the genuine chumminess between Ono
    and McCartney, who said, "It's just good to be back together" after
    years of "bitching at each other."
      Though Lennon was "some serious dude," McCartney said his presence
    would have shattered the night's decorum. "John would have been the one
    heckling. He probably would have been kicked out."
    
                                             - Edna Gundersen
    
    if you're really interested in knowing more about the Beatles, and what
    they are up to now.....read the Beatles Notesfile

>   The Beetles without John Lennon, is like 
>
>U2                    without Bono
>Rem                   without Michael Stripe
>Stones                without Jagger

Chocolate milk         without the chocolate

    That Letterman idea was in TV Guide earlier this month.
    
    Mark.

    yeah, unfortunately the Letterman thing was not my idea, but it would
    be most appropriate to have them there on the 30th anniversary...

    Replace Lennon? The mind wobbles at the very thought. The only thing I
    can imagine that would properly pay tribute to him would be having a
    Rickenbacker guitar leaning against silent Vox AC-30, illuminated by
    a single spotlight.
    
    re: living in the past.
    
    Sorry, but The Beatles *ARE* the past. Along with Brian and Ron, I
    agree they can't possibly live up to their own reputation. It was
    great, but it's over. The reality will never live up to the memory.
    
    Edd

I've followed this topic with a bit of interest. FWIW, I agree pretty much with
the sentiment that the Beatles *as* the Beatles are now history.

I'm of an age that I recall the entire lifespan of the Beatles, from the time
when some people didn't spell the name correctly on. What I saw/heard was more
of a "movie" than a "snapshot," as would be more apt a term when describing the
contribution of many other groups. The Beatles were and did many different
things throughout their existence.

However, the use of the past tense is, IMHO, justified when describing the
Beatles. A present "reunion" would not be the Beatles even *if* John were still
alive, it would be a new group, formed from the *former members* of the Beatles.
(I also, BTW, don't think of current incarnations of the Beach Boys as really
being the same group that taught all us back East about surf.) These guys have
all been doing their own thing for many years, not interacting as a group both
musically and personally. It might be *very* interesting to see what new synergy
could develop were the surviving members to truly reunite- say, compose, record,
and perform for a period of at least a year- but coming together for one concert
seems a bit shy of a "reunion" from my perspective.

I'd say that folks who see this concert (presuming it comes to pass) should keep
it separate in their mind from any perception they have of the Beatles as a
group and/or a musical and social phenomenon.

Bob

    
    They should have Julian replace John.  As the Wailers should have
    gotten Ziggy to replace Bob.
    
    IMHO.
    
    

    Newsday reports that Ono has given the fab 3 a demo tape of Lennon's
    from which they are using Lennon's vocal track. Tape contains 4 tunes.

    
    	As many of you know, the new 56 song cd comes out Dec 6th.
    	30 of the tunes are previously unreleased.
    
    	Heard an interview at Tower Records in Boston and the guy
    	said he ordered 700 copies.  However, Pearl Jam releases a
    	cd the same day and he ordered 3,000...
    
    	Tom
    

    
    Is this 30 unreleased Beatles songs or Lennon or what?
    
    Richard

    I Heard it was Mostly Some Un_Released BBC Recordings of The Group 
    Before they Where Singed to Capital.
    
      Crazy_UnSure_As_Al_Ways_Al

About 2� hours of the BBC's Beatles archive were broadcast on FM in
the US sometime in the early 1980s. It was called "The Beatles at
the BEEB" and included excerpts from the Beatles' own radio show,
which was called "Pop Go the Beatles."

Tapes of it are not hard to find. In fact, someone I used to trade 
with managed to get a copy of the station master discs.

Barry

    
    It was reviewed in the UK Sunday Times last week. Its basically 56
    tracks recorded by the Beatles for BBC radio shows. It basically got a
    good review mentioning different harmonies and arrangements for some
    songs. 
    
    Richard