|
Post by tafultong on Oct 25, 2007 0:02:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MikeNL on Oct 25, 2007 12:37:36 GMT -5
wow.. that sure is an angry Son of magickian it's time
|
|
|
Post by Jai Guru Deva on Oct 25, 2007 19:11:57 GMT -5
Oh if ever I found myself in such an improbable predicament where a similiar incident occured before mine eyes, my head spins of the choices I might have... Sir Faul... His daughter Mary... But perhaps we can all learn something from from this Chinese proverb:
Man who waits for roast duck to fly into mouth must wait very, very long time.
|
|
|
Post by blackbird on Oct 27, 2007 11:27:27 GMT -5
tafultong: Unfortunately the middle video you gave above has already been pulled. . . it's no longer on YouTube.
|
|
|
Post by B on Oct 27, 2007 12:49:29 GMT -5
Return To Pepperland www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMNCTHJBKOk&NR=1Is this a real JPM song? Apparently so: thewreckroom.blogspot.com/2006/02/return-to-pepperland.html"'return to pepperland' is a collection of tunes paul did during 1984-87. he was working with various producers (phil ramone, hugh padgham and david foster), and trying to find his way to a new musical direction. the songs vary from great beatlesque pop to silly disco dittys but as a whole it is a very satisfying assortment. the highlights include the title tune, which is a whimsical reminder of the summer of love 20 years on, the very mccartney sounding 'yvonne', a rousing tune called 'i love this house', a few outstanding instrumentals recalling the man early in his solo years and the grand 'the lovliest thing'. it's a shame that most of these cuts never were released to the world proper as it is a much better record than the last couple of wings albums of the late 70's. he may yet come around tho. "Another one from those sessions: Christian Pop www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0hT46K5Gn8A bootleg collection with the title "Lost In Pepperland" (but a whole other animal)www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CKOhmLbvK8See: www.jpgr.co.uk/sm0001.html"The songs on this album were all recorded in 1986/1987 with Phil Ramone **[/b][/color] producing. Most of them remain unreleased officially up to the date of this release, whilst others (notably "Beautiful Night") were re-recorded. Only a handful crept onto various CD-single B-sides more than 10 years later. Tracks 3, 6, 7, 8 and 16 are demos..... This is totally different to the already released bootleg "Return To Pepperland", both of which feature the terrific whimsical title track. And ... Is almost identical to the bootleg release "Return To Lindiana" which featured the same first 13 tracks, but for some reason ended with two tracks from a different period. "McCartney: Rare Unreleased/Alternate Takes #1 of 2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh1JnvEvSQ** Billy Joel's producer, Mr. Ram_On(e). Wasn't Phil Ackril, Paul Raymond or Phil Raymond or Paul Ackril or something at TKIN? Why are bells ringing in my head? Here's the Billy Joel connection.
|
|
|
Post by tafultong on Oct 27, 2007 13:01:18 GMT -5
tafultong: Unfortunately the middle video you gave above has already been pulled. . . it's no longer on YouTube. Here you go, Blackbird. It's in a new location. www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5VQFh2OKz4
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 29, 2008 9:05:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B on Jan 29, 2008 23:25:01 GMT -5
"I had another look..." "Heads across the sky"
|
|
|
Post by iameye on Jan 30, 2008 0:30:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B on Feb 3, 2008 10:17:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by B on Feb 23, 2008 13:54:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jai Guru Deva on Mar 3, 2008 1:25:14 GMT -5
No, I don't believe so.
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 3, 2008 10:29:22 GMT -5
In that case, it looks like they were mocking Billy, portraying him with hair like Hitler.
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Mar 6, 2008 20:49:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CoconutFudge on Mar 6, 2008 22:09:10 GMT -5
I remember seeing that and thinking, "What?! Why choose to say the names and elaborate on missing all of them in that way? "
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 22, 2008 20:51:10 GMT -5
Beatles Sue to Block 1962 Tapes' ReleaseMarch 21, 2008, 6:33 PM EST music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=306429>1=7702MIAMI (AP) -- Lawyers for the Beatles sued Friday to prevent the distribution of unreleased recordings purportedly made during Ringo Starr's first performance with the group in 1962. The dispute between Apple Corps Ltd., the London company formed by the Beatles that helps guard their legacy, and Fuego Entertainment Inc. of Miami Lakes stems from recordings the Fab Four apparently made during a performance at the Star Club in Hamburg, Germany. Eight unreleased tracks are said to be among the recordings, including Paul McCartney singing Hank Williams' "Lovesick Blues" and McCartney and John Lennon singing "Ask Me Why." Apple Corps claims that the songs were taped without the consent of the band and that Fuego and sister companies Echo-Fuego Music Group LLC and Echo-Vista Inc. have no right to distribute them. "This appears to us to be a garden-variety bootleg recording," said Paul LiCalsi, an attorney for Apple Corps. But Fuego Entertainment says the recordings were legally made. "Don't claim that these were just bootlegged," said Fuego president Hugo Cancio. "It's not like today, that you just go in with a phone or a blackberry and you record." The lawsuit contends that the recordings are of poor quality and that circulating them "dilutes and tarnishes the extraordinarily valuable image associated with the Beatles." (What a load of crap. )[/i] Cancio said that he had not been served with a copy of the lawsuit, but that the filing demanding at least $15 million in damages was not expected. "I'm surprised because up to a few weeks ago, we were in good-faith conversations with Apple," he said. Also named in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Collins, a partner of Cancio who obtained the recordings. It's unclear how Collins obtained the recordings. Cancio intended to release the songs as "Jammin' with The Beatles and Friends, Star Club, Hamburg, 1962." "It's unfair to millions of Beatles fans not to allow this recording to be put out. The world deserves to hear these tracks," he said. "The fact is that we have it; they don't, and that is what's bothering them." Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
|
|
|
Post by CoconutFudge on Mar 24, 2008 4:18:49 GMT -5
That's the worst lawsuit EVER. What the hell? Why should I not be able to listen to a clip if I want to? It is in no way going to tarnish the image of the Beatles, but perhaps make people notice how much they changed/improved/whatever through time. I can't see the side that wants to prevent their distribution winning.
|
|
|
Post by percythrillington on Mar 24, 2008 12:39:11 GMT -5
I think the point is "Why should someone make money off the Beatles back and spread a low quality recording without a proper authorization?" Would you be ok if someone released a video of you badly singing during a BBQ on a sunday afternoon on YouTube (knowing you would be the laughing stock in the town you live)?
|
|
|
Post by B on Mar 24, 2008 13:02:04 GMT -5
Bullfeathers. No one would be laughing at the Beatles unless Ringo was falling down drunk or something. Not very likely. "Proper authorization" meaning what? That Apple gets the profits. But the owner of the tape had been trying to work that out, so it just sounds like a bid by Apple to get control of the tape; a tape that was made before they ever existed. Boo.
|
|
|
Post by CoconutFudge on Mar 24, 2008 13:13:38 GMT -5
I think the point is "Why should someone make money off the Beatles back and spread a low quality recording without a proper authorization?" Would you be ok if someone released a video of you badly singing during a BBQ on a sunday afternoon on YouTube (knowing you would be the laughing stock in the town you live)? Perhaps I'm just different than most people, but such trivial things wouldn't ever embarrass me and I can't imagine anyone who is relatively secure about themselves caring what their neighbors think about something he or she thought was fun. It's not like their friends are going to stop hanging out with them for that reason alone, just like it's not like Beatles fans are going to hear these recordings and boycott the Beatles in their home because they weren't as great at this time. That's how I see it, anyway!
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Mar 24, 2008 13:20:02 GMT -5
i think LB was spot on:
Apple don't own the rights, and so they don't want the public to be able to hear it... let alone buy it. However, I'm sure they'd be content with letting it fall into the bootleg category as no one makes much money off those. Then again, if the quality's good enough then i suppose they'll want it for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by percythrillington on Mar 24, 2008 13:31:58 GMT -5
Well, Apple represents the Beatles. And the Beatles play on this recording. Therefore, you can't release the recording without Apple's authorization. That's business, that's simple. I doubt that at the time of the recording, the Beatles signed a release allowing the person who recorded to do whatever with the tape. And yes, I think it would be fair to let it fall in the Bootleg category. The "available for free on the internet" category Do you think that Fuego Entertainment (!) cares a second about Beatles fans? or do they just want to make a quick buck out of it?
|
|
|
Post by tafultong on Apr 5, 2008 20:56:08 GMT -5
This could probably be done a little better, but it's a nice concept and very worth watching for something homemade. It's a 9-minute documentary about the song "Tomorrow Never Knows." www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dja-HgLzE9o
|
|
|
Post by The Deceptionist on Apr 5, 2008 21:21:28 GMT -5
interesting to see john pointing his finger in a few of the butcher photos, not just the final version
|
|
|
Post by thisone on Apr 11, 2008 12:48:34 GMT -5
|
|