Beatles Get Back documentary

just finished  part  1    amazing 

You’re right there in the studio with them. The only problem is they’re recording Let It Be not Revolver or another happier, more creative session. It looks to me like this is Paul’s idea and the other three don’t really want to be there. That said, it’s great to watch anyway.

Maybe they won’t break up this time around. Keep fingers crossed!  

Gripping.

I think they broke up after the Abbey Road album.

The Beatles broke up? Whaaaaaat

Sound and picture are very high quality.

Let me add to my first post after, "...the other three don't really want to be there," and aren't prepared to record a new album.  There's a lot of wasted time and groping around for a direction and new songs.

It’s pretty established that Paul was the workaholic that kept things going as long as it did but the spark was no longer there as it had been during their peak just a couple years earlier.

I think the fact that they called it quits when they did after the spark was no longer there for all but still cranking out classics helped cement their incomparable legacy. Opposite of the The Stones who were happy to keep their thing going forever and get it back out on the road from time to time.

The footage was filmed 15 months before the break-up.  By the time the original film based on that footage came out, the dates were much closer.

Big Beatle fan here but, as I reach the 2 hr 15 minute point in installment 2, perhaps my predominant thought is, “Man oh Man, THIS is an overload of Beatles!”

Definitely going to see this through to the end credits on installment 3 but, IMO, there comes a point in time where the most die-hard Rembrandt fan would tire of watching video after video of him chatting with art dealers and rearranging his studio!

There was a great review of it in the San Francisco Chronicle this morning; I'll take that one with a bit of a grain of salt, as the reviewer considers 'Long and Winding Road' a 'masterpiece', while I regard it as maudlin schlock I'd be happy to never hear again. Paul's got a whole lot of masterpieces, but this one, not so much, at least for me.... 

Paul McCartney used to be in another band?

The Beatles? Wasn't that Paul's backup band before Wings?

Let it Be Naked is pretty awesome. I think it is a lot better than Let it Be (with clothes on)

@deadhead1000

News flash. And Denny Laine is in the R&R Hall with the Moody Blues.

What is Wings?

Early on I thought that Paul's confession that he felt uncomfortable imposing (trying) his will on the other 3 to work on the music together was a real "wow!" moment for me. He seemed to really be trying to hold the whole thing together. George wasn't impressed and John and Ringo seemed aloof to the whole thing.

Early on I thought that Paul's confession that he felt uncomfortable imposing (trying) his will on the other 3 to work on the music together was a real "wow!" moment for me. He seemed to really be trying to hold the whole thing together. George wasn't impressed and John and Ringo seemed aloof to the whole thing.

Truth be known he'd been imposing his way since the Magical Mystery Tour days and by then the others had enough.

John playing The Third Man theme was nice.

I really don’t see how this is going to change my opinion of the Let It Be recording sessions. The  promotion for the Get Back documentary has been to prove that they were all getting along, and happy. So far, it seems like they are just trying to get through the sessions. Yes, they still care about each other, and I don’t think anyone truly feels that it is over, but the bloom is off the rose.  I am going to stick with The Beatles original opinions of the sessions  

Still fascinating to watch, and I am loving it as a Beatles fan. 

If you watch it backwards...........

@tomcy6 

There's a lot of wasted time and groping around for a direction and new songs.

While it's clear there was a lack of motivation, I found the collaborative process of their songwriting depicted in the first two segments absolutely fascinating, and it showed that, even though the band was on its last legs for numerous reasons, the professionalism of their craft itself was not. The group dynamic was not destined to survive the transition from the natural leadership of Lennon, based on raw talent, to the attempted leadership by McCartney, through sheer hard work and perfection of craft. 

Have any of you ever been in a band?

Some of these comments prove you have not, thus appreciate music but have no idea how it is written or performed by musicians.

As for the Beatles, list all the bands that have had better music or more influence, please.  

What is Wings?

It involves barbecue sauce, and watching really really bad ’nam B movies.

(the kind so bad, that it is wrapped right around to the other side and becomes entertaining)

While it’s clear there was a lack of motivation, I found the collaborative process of their songwriting depicted in the first two segments absolutely fascinating, and it showed that, even though the band was on its last legs for numerous reasons, the professionalism of their craft itself was not.

Have any of you ever been in a band?

Some of these comments prove you have not, thus appreciate music but have no idea how it is written or performed by musicians.

I have not been in a band, but I don’t think what’s been going on in Episodes 1 & 2 demonstrates The Beatles’ approach to songwriting and recording at its best.

From Wikipedia regarding the recording of Abbey Road:

Producer George Martin returned on the condition that the Beatles adhere to the discipline of their earlier records. They found the album’s recording more enjoyable than the preceding Get Back sessions, but personal issues still permeated the band.

and

McCartney, Starr and Martin have reported positive recollections of the sessions, while Harrison said, "we did actually perform like musicians again".

So, though I’ve never been in a band, It seems that people who were in bands, specifically some of The Beatles, share my opinion on the Get Back sessions.

However, if anyone thinks that the Get Back sessions are how The Beatles normally worked, I won’t try to convince them it was not because we don’t have film of other recording sessions.

I am a huge Beatles fan, watched the first 2 and thought it was stretched way to long. There were some shinning moments like Maxwell Silver Hammer which showed on the White LP and when Billy Preston arrived and everything got much tighter. Paul was in charge and the others were there in body prior to that point.

The high and low moments of the first 2 could have been shown in half the time.

I imagine part 3 will be the most interesting with the roof top concert.

After watching the first episode, I have to agree with Johnto. While some parts are fascinating, there is just too much meandering and downtime. Other than Paul, the other 3 Beatles seemed to lack focus and the episode could have easily been condensed to an hour.

I was really looking forward to watching as a die hard Beatle fan.

I must say that it got interesting when one of the hit songs were developed and played but a bit of a drag in many other parts were they were unfocused or playing seemingly unrecorded or old songs.

Surely, the first several days tracked the evolution of the process but there was a lot that was wasted or otherwise uninteresting and a bit boring.

I felt kind of sad that John seemed to be uninvolved much of the time.

For sure, it would be great to see the Lenon-McCartney writing process!

At least Part One was kind of a disappointment. My expectations were high.

Especially with the expectation of "great film making".

A great narrative film maker is not necessarily a great documentarian.

Wonder what Ken Burns could do with this material?

I remember reading a quote from John Lennon saying something like he thought that Phil Spector had done a great job on Let It Be considering the load of crap that we gave him to work with.

It's simply amazing what Jackson has done with the picture quality.

Looking at Let It Be and then at Get Back and it's hard to understand the difference in image.

One looks dark and grimy and the other looks bright and clear, uncannily clear, (some might say digitally artificial).

Some of the differences are due to the original being shot on 16mm as a documentary and then, shock horror, pan and scanned onto a 35mm film for cinema release to satisfy their contract with United Artists.

I've already signed the online petition for Disney to allow Jackson to release an extended version with 5 /6 extra hours.

Why not?

Nothing else gives a better insight into how the Beatles worked and much of the Abbey Road is here in the making.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/peter-jackson-get-back-extended-edition/

This is one of the most rewarding, amazing films I’ve ever seen.

Comparing it to other films is difficult as it is unlike most films, even unlike most documentaries.  It is not a typical documentary. It’s closer to an archeological project than, say, “Grey Gardens,” “Hoop Dreams,” or, “Crumb.”  While Michael Lindsay-Hogg certainly did a great job filming in 1969, “Get Back” belongs to Peter Jackson.  With a total of 60 hours of video and 150 hours of audio to exhaustively scrutinize and edit into a beautifully-made, 8-hour, 3-part film, Peter Jackson and his colleagues ultimately created, in my opinion, something akin to a world treasure.

Jackson had me at the opening montage sequence.  He spends only 2 minutes putting the viewer in perfect historical context as to why we are watching this footage in the first place.  After only 2-3 minutes, he masterfully puts the viewer in January 2, 1969 Twickenham Studios, circa 9:00 am, as the workers sweep the studio floor and set up the gear for Day 1 of the recording sessions.

From then until the end of the film, one need not be a music fan, let alone a Beatles fan, to be completely gripped throughout the 470-minute running time.  The level of intimacy afforded the viewer to the personal relationships and real-time creative process of a ridiculously famous band under massive pressure is simply astonishing.

If one is interested in watching an unflinching depiction of this, rendered with incredible video/audio quality and masterful editing, it’s a must-see.  For Beatles fans, it’s essential viewing.

I watch lots of movies of all kinds. Again, it’s apples and oranges comparing “Get Back” to classic fiction and non-fiction. Either way, I can’t think of many films I’ve found more deeply rewarding.

@fjship I feel that the relentlessly over-flogged message in the media that preceded the film’s release (aided and abetted by Paul and Ringo themselves) and the reinforcement of such by the media following the film’s release should be discarded and ignored.  

The tired and trite message the public was pounded with ad nauseam was:

”Look! The Beatles weren’t so mired in strife and lackluster creativity! Look how happy they were!  This will ‘change the narrative’ of Beatles history, blah, blah blah…”

One should forget all that noise. The fact that they were at their lowest point is the reason the film is so gripping.  Us Beatles fans would rather watch 8 hours of sessions from their halcyon days, but that footage may not necessarily make a more compelling film.

Due to the trite messaging of the media blitzkrieg that preceded the film’s release, I was worried that Peter Jackson may have been too biased towards depicting harmonious relationships and successful, triumphant achievements, and too quick to jettison honest depictions of the inherent strife and lackluster productivity of those sessions. I was very relieved, after watching the film, that he did not do these things.

I intend to eventually watch Get Back, even though I have found the album from the day it was released to be grim and unbearable to listen to (I still have my original UK LP). They sound so tired, so "done." "It’s" obviously over, they’ve all outgrown The Beatles. Well, maybe not Ringo ;-) .

But their imminent demise was of no concern to my mates and I, as there were far more interesting new bands and solo artists vying for our attention. For hard rockers there were Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath (no musicians I knew liked either, only stoners), for LSD lovers Pink Floyd and The Grateful Dead,, for Roots Rockers (who already missed Buffalo Springfield and The Lovin’ Spoonful) there were the emerging Americana bands and solo artists (okay, singer/songwriters): The Band, Little Feat, Ry Cooder, Randy Newman, Neil Young & Crazy Horse, C, S, & N, Fleetwood Mac (original line-up), Moby Grape, The Flamin’ Groovies, The Flying Burrito Brothers (and shortly thereafter Gram Parsons solo, as well as Emmylou Harris), Dan Hicks, Commander Cody, plenty of others. Even Jazz was "infecting" Rock ’n’ Roll, leading to a lot of looooong "songs" featuring musicians one-by-one soloing. Yawn ;-) . Progressive Rock (the blending of Jazz and Classical) was developing a very large audience, and the "The 60’s Are Over" party was just getting started.

Even before Get Back appeared---in fact before Abbey Road had, The Beatles were starting to sound as passe to me as had the "teen idols" when Meet The Beatles changed the world overnight in 1964. Unlike perhaps many of you, I am ambivalent about Abbey Road. By the time it appeared, I had already moved on. For me The Beatles peaked in 1965-66: the Rubber Soul, "Paperback Writer" b/w "Rain", "Strawberry Fields Forever" b/w Penny Lane", Revolver era.

I saw and heard The Bealtes live in the summer of ’65 in S. San Francisco (having passed on doing so in ’64, at that point in time still not loving them), and was not overly impressed. By that time I had already began attending local shows in San Jose, seeing all the legendary Garage Bands ya’ll may have heard of (Rock ’n’ Roll historian Greg Shaw proclaimed San Jose "Garage Band Ground Zero"): The Chocolate Watchband, The Syndicate Of Sound, Stained Glass, People, many others. The next year it was up to The Fillmore and The Carousel and Avalon Ballrooms to see not just the new stars (Cream, Hendrix, etc.), but also the old Blues guys whose careers were being revived by their young white imitators (Clapton, Page, Peter Green, etc.). Thanks to them and Bill Graham I got to see and hear the likes of Albert King. OMG!

The popular music of the mid-late 60’s now appeared to have been more Pop than Rock, and the future of Rock ’n’ Roll music was going to be defined more by musicians than songwriters. The Beatles were better songwriters than musicians, at least in terms of the Rock ’n’ Roll standards becoming dominant in the late-60’s (virtuosity). When The Beatles "picked themselves up" to do those last two albums, George Harrison hadn’t played guitar in two or three years (that damned sitar ruined him as a musician imo), Ringo’s timing had gone to hell, and they hadn’t played live in three years. They weren’t a Band, they were a Pop Group. And the days of Pop Groups was over, just as had been the days of the Teen Idols when The Beatles first appeared.

It's all just a matter of taste.  Not fact.  Judgement is what I read here often.  Self-reflection.  Coolness.  

I have liked the Beatles since my older sister brought home Meet The Beatles and have since bought and rebought and rebought all the albums.  Having said that, I didn’t rush out and subscribe to the Disney channel just to watch Get Back.  I’m sure I’ll see it someday, but not today.

@bdp24 - I love the Beatles but I have the same reaction to the 'Let It Be' album, and I do not have it in my Beatles collection.

I know a lot of people love it, and I'm glad they do, but I could live easily without hearing anything from it again, even though I think 'Across the Universe' and 'I've Got A Feeling' are pretty decent.

Is it a coincidence that this is the album that George Martin wasn't involved with? 

@larsman 

George Martin is present throughout in a kind of overlooking role as Glynn Johns sets about trying to produce the album.

I've not heard the Glynn Johns mix of Let It Be but apparently the Beatles didn't like it and lost interest in the project thereafter.

As Get Back shows, the Beatles were always working continuously as a unit. By the end of the film most of their final album Abbey Road is already in the making.

Contrary to Beatles history, there exists a tape where they seem to have been considering a follow up album to Abbey Road.

One of the most chilling moments is where Lennon casually mentions that he's just been to see Allen Klein...

John was very present and productive in these sessions.
I thought he would be more indifferent and disengaged at this time.

He’s banging out “Don’t Let Me Down” before Paul even arrives on Day 1.  He’s jumping on the organ or the piano to help develop a Paul or George song, he’s presenting songs that are just as good as Paul or George’s, he makes great suggestions and decisions as to how the songs should be, he try’s his damndest to sing and play well, and brings forth some great, great songs.  
“Jealous Guy/On the Road to Rishikesh/Child of Nature” is a better song than most of the ones that made it on the album. “Gimme Some Truth” would have been cool to hear as a Beatles song.

They’re all great. Paul’s talent is stunning. The dismissive attitude towards George from both Paul and John sucks.  It’s great watching George not take any crap anymore.

@cd318 - Didn't Phil Spector have something to do with this? 

What an amazing 6 hours.  Watching masters of their craft create the classics knowing how they came about musically and lyrically was soooo good.  For me one of the best parts is when they got thru the drudgery of creating the music, the joy they exhibited performing as band.

I've seen it twice and will watch several more times I'm sure.

@larsman

Yes, Phil Spector was later drafted in to try to assemble an album out of the wreckage.

Probably by Lennon or Harrison.

Definitely not by McCartney.

I’m a fan of Phil’s work on Let It Be but I wish he’d included Don’t Let Me Down in the finished album as it’s surely one of the key songs of the period.

According to some reports it would appear that both the original Let It Be film and Jackson’s Get Back left out a few key details.

"The atmosphere in the film studios, the early start each day, and the intrusive cameras and microphones of Lindsay-Hogg’s film crew combined to heighten the Beatles’ discontent.

When the band rehearsed McCartney’s "Two of Us" on 6 January, a tense exchange ensued between McCartney and Harrison about the latter’s lead guitar part.

During lunch on 10 January, Lennon and Harrison had a heated disagreement in which Harrison berated Lennon for his lack of engagement with the project.

Harrison was also angry with Lennon for telling a music journalist that the Beatles’ Apple organisation was in financial ruin. According to journalist Michael Housego’s report in the Daily Sketch, Harrison and Lennon’s exchange descended into violence with the pair allegedly throwing punches at each other.

Harrison denied this in a 16 January interview for the Daily Express, saying: "There was no punch-up. We just fell out."

After lunch on 10 January, Harrison announced that he was leaving the band and told the others, "See you round the clubs."

Starr attributed Harrison’s exit to McCartney "dominating" him."

In Jackson’s version all this is only alluded to, but Harrison’s leaving followed Ringo’s from the year before. However, the next ones to leave weren’t so easy to entice back.

Perhaps more detail will be included in the extended version if Jackson gets a free hand to tell like it was?

I really don’t think Jackson’s film glossed over the strife.

Could this have been more unflinchingly depicted? Perhaps.

It’s worth noting that Yoko, Ringo and Paul, and other family members of Beatles, deceased or not, are still alive.  We don’t really know how much influence those people had on what was left on the cutting room floor.

While they very well may have been magnanimous as to their respect towards the importance of honesty in the storytelling, it’s not unreasonable to assume they may have been apprehensive towards the depiction of certain Beatles’ unsavory behavior.

@cd318 - thanks for that detailed explanation! All this time I  thought it was always Phil Spector, except for that 'Naked Let It Be'....

I just know I bought it when it came out, put it on, and went "EH?". It seemed like a whole album's worth of songs as good as 'Octopus' Garden' and 'Maxwell's Silver Hammer'. 

This did not sound at all like the band that recorded the White Album, MMT, Sgt Pepper, A Hard Day's Night, etc etc with all those awesome songs, and I initially blamed it on Phil Spector. He deserved blame, for sure, but apparently so did a lot of other folks.

And lots of folks don't think 'blame' should even be involved, because they like the record! It's all good....  

I always felt John’s opinion of the album (not very printable here) was spot on.

Paul had every reason to be irate over what Phil did to his song, but Phil-or-no-Phil, it’s still their weakest album. 

”Across the Universe” is a career highlight in a discography loaded with highlights, but I don’t really consider “Across the Universe” a Let It Be song (I prefer the Feb. ‘68 Take 2 version). They went with, IMO, the two weakest songs of those Feb. ‘68 sessions for their March ‘68 single, “Lady Madonna/The Inner Light.”  I would have strongly advocated “Hey Bulldog/Across the Universe” (what a single that would have been) but who the heck am I.

”Let it Be” and “I Dig a Pony” are great.  I think “Two Of Us” is pretty nice.  
That’s about it.