The Whole Is Greater Than The Sum Of Its Parts

[bgas]

I may be assuming too much, but from the history of the Wondermints going back to the 1980's, the loyalties of the band members and the band in general have leaned more toward Brian than anyone. The contributions to LLVS, the obscure cover songs at gigs, the whole Brian-fandom in general leading up to what was the dream gig of first playing music with Brian then creating music with Brian, and one of the band members even riding in a Rose Bowl float with Brian and his family and becoming by all accounts a trusted friend...doesn't history suggest if Brian isn't signed up for a Beach Boys tour, they'll follow his lead? And it might go back to the way it was, in, say, 2011?

 

With McCartney... ...  I think he gradually came to terms with the fact that his legacy will always be tied to The Beatles, something he desperately tried to fend off when he was with Wings and has comfortably settled into a routine where he takes to the stage with young musicians who won't challenge him creatively and simply serve as his backing band and they give the audience "The Beatles Rock & Revival Show as interpreted by Paul McCartney"

For me it was never like that with Brian Wilson.  While I'll admit there are some similarities between how both men tour (young backing band, basing their shows around sixties hits) with Brian it seems he has found a way to change the game up just enough to keep things interesting whether it be the album tours of "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE" (which in enough of itself was a occasion of some significance given that record's long history) or touring TLOS as a complete record instead of just dropping a few songs off the record into a set filled with sixties standards which is how most of his contemporaries map out their shows. 

I'll close here because I've written a lot and am starting to ramble but to me there is a fundamental difference between what Brian Wilson has done with his solo gigs and what Paul McCartney does with his.

What I sense from all of this is Brian hasn't simply surrounded himself with young musicians, meant only to back his show in concert, but more, MUCH more than that, to supply him with the support and backing he wants, and also to PUSH his limits, so he's not just resting on " his laurels".

[GhostyTMRS]

In a perfect world, Brian would continue to tour for another five years with the Beach Boys but these days it seems he is bored, not doing well physically, and is just there cause he was talked into it and nostalgic reasons. I don't want to see the Beach Boys end cause Brian is not a part of the group. I would pay to see Mike and Bruce with or without David ANY day of the week. I would also love to see Al with Family and Friends.

The world will not end because Brian is taking a break. In fact, I am sure he will have another solo tour in the future.

I agree and disagree.  I understand realistically that it is not feasible for BW to tour with The Beach Boys everywhere they go from here on out.  Touring has never been Brian's thing to be quite honest and I've always felt privileged to see him when I get the chance for that very reason.  That being said I've never considered what Mike and Bruce have taken on the road since Carl's passing to be "The Beach Boys".  I can't really describe it but in the same vein I've never understood people who go to see Paul McCartney simply because it's the closest you can get to seeing a "Beatles concert" these days.  I've seen Macca a few times myself back in the nineties but I haven't gone in recent years because I know he's going to base the majority of his show around "Beatles songs" and I'm just not into hearing Paul and a backing band perform Beatles songs.

I don't know if that makes any sense but it's probably why I avoid the Mike and Bruce incarnation of The Beach Boys as well.

Excellent post. I can absolutely relate to what you say about Paul McCartney. I was one who simply could not wait to see the man live when he hit the road again back in, what was it, 89 or 90? I can't remember the year, but it was his first tour in years, and the band with Hamish, Wix, Robbie, Linda, etc. Flowers In The Dirt? I still have the program, buttons, t-shirts, etc...I have to dig them out to confirm. I remember so many details about the preparation for this, including calling a ticket hotline repeatedly on a Saturday morning at 10AM to get tickets, which turned out to be upper-deck at the old Veterans Stadium at Philly. I was super excited as a Beatle freak, and this was the closest I'd get especially at that time and at that age. Great show, I was moved to tears several times, and the band was spot-on terrific. A fantastic show and experience, quite expensive at the time but well worth it.

I did the same for Brian's "comeback" solo tour, hanging on the phone for tickets, seeing him with some really good seats at Symphony Hall in Boston, waiting on the street entrance to backstage clutching the DCC Pet Sounds cover for a signature, as the band filed in followed by Brian...incredible. Again, moved to tears and feeling like this was a watershed moment for me as a fan. The Smile tour...same way.

But having had numerous opportunities to see Paul McCartney live in the 20+ years since, I have not gone. While he has expanded the setlist and released new material with a crack new band (I went to school with the drummer  ), I chose not to go. I felt as if I had seen what I needed to see and could cross it off my "bucket list". I'm happy with the memories, and honestly I saw him do Hey Jude and have the crowd extend the singalong ending with everyone waving and belting out the na-na's, I don't need to experience that again even though it would be a nice show to see. It's not as much of a priority now as it was then.

That takes nothing away from Paul or Brian, but those earlier shows were such a catharsis and an intimate experience for me, I'm content to leave it at that. I don't mean that to sound dismissive or derisive in any way, but what JohnMill says about McCartney live is something that rang true for me as well.

Well I kind of see Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson as two different animals when it comes to their solo performances.  To put it simply, I don't think Brian "needs" The Beach Boys as much as Paul McCartney "needs" The Beatles in a live setting.  For me the infamous comment made by the anonymous backing band member regarding the differences between a BW solo tour and the current tour kind of sums it up for me as far as Brian goes:

Brian is one of those unique performers who can fit in comfortably in both theater and arena settings.  What he does as a solo performer is sustainable in it's own right because it's almost like you are going to see a great composer perform his catalog instead of a rock show.  The Beach Boys on the other hand are a rock show and having Brian integrated into that atmosphere has worked out pretty well because he's not required to MC the shows or to ham it up with the audience.  He leaves that stuff to Mike and is therefore able to focus the majority of his attention on the music which is essentially what he does at his solo gigs.  Now obviously there are always going to be some ripples in the road when it comes to Brian and live performances but I think most of the fanbase understands and accepts that.

With McCartney, I just think that he's never been a solo performer and he has admitted as much himself on several occasions.  But I think ever since Wings disbanded and John Lennon was assassinated, he's never truly found his niche.  Now he's obviously made some great music since 1980 but I think he stopped challenging himself creatively as a performer since that time.   He kind of allowed himself to become "rock's elder statesman" and certainly has become the torch carrier of The Beatles' legacy neither role which at least in my opinion has suited him well.  To be fair perhaps these roles were thrust upon him but after the loss of John Lennon it seemed to me that McCartney lost that fire in his belly that he had in the sixties and seventies.  I think he gradually came to terms with the fact that his legacy will always be tied to The Beatles, something he desperately tried to fend off when he was with Wings and has comfortably settled into a routine where he takes to the stage with young musicians who won't challenge him creatively and simply serve as his backing band and they give the audience "The Beatles Rock & Revival Show as interpreted by Paul McCartney"

For me it was never like that with Brian Wilson.  While I'll admit there are some similarities between how both men tour (young backing band, basing their shows around sixties hits) with Brian it seems he has found a way to change the game up just enough to keep things interesting whether it be the album tours of "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE" (which in enough of itself was a occasion of some significance given that record's long history) or touring TLOS as a complete record instead of just dropping a few songs off the record into a set filled with sixties standards which is how most of his contemporaries map out their shows.  

I'll close here because I've written a lot and am starting to ramble but to me there is a fundamental difference between what Brian Wilson has done with his solo gigs and what Paul McCartney does with his.

I can appreciate what you're saying about McCartney's shows but there's an even bigger factor at work here and that's Paul's massive fame. After all, his fame goes way beyond simple music fandom. As such it would be harder for him to NOT give a show that aimed at the widest audience possible especially when he's playing to 10X or 20X the crowd Brian's playing to. Brian can afford to give smaller and more intimate "fan-friendly" shows because he's got that smaller and loyal following.
Paul only played a smattering of Beatles songs on his Wings tours because he was looking to establish himself as a solo act which he did with platinum Wings albums, multiple #1 singles, etc. By the time the hits dried up in 1985, he hadn't been on the road since 1979. When he finally returned to touring in 1990 it wasn't with a much younger band but with (slightly younger) peers like Hamish Stuart and Robbie Macintosh from the Average White Band and The Pretenders respectively. Of course they've all been replaced since then and the shows have become heavy on Beatles as Paul indeed sees himself as the torch bearer for the Beatles. That's been his choice....which is sad because his albums beginning from 1997's "Flaming Pie" onwards have been outstanding and miles ahead of his 70's and 80's work. The recent "Electric Arguments" album is, for my money, the most challenging work released by any 60's performer...but you're right, aside from the 2 songs he played from it on his recent tour, you'd never know it from his concerts.   

[KittyKat]

I don't like Brian's older voice and that ruins his solo records and his tours and his recent work with the Beach Boys.  I own every Brian Wilson solo record and have a hard time listening to them and I think it's his singing voice.  It's gotten worse through the years.  When he tours solo now he even has his backing band members take some of the songs now.  I've seen him twice, once with Paul Simon and once on the Pet Sounds tour.  I can't see ever seeing him again.  He looks unhappy up there.  People who say he looks unhappy with the Beach Boys now have never seen him solo.  The two shows I saw his voice was croaky and he scowled most of the time.  I'm not sure why he ever had a solo touring career.  I've read very unflattering comments by professional reviewers so I'm not sure Brian has reached out much beyond his core cult audience.  I think Brian's band plays their instruments well.

I've never seen Mike and Bruce so I have no opinion other than some YouTube clips of them are better than others.  The more recent ones are more dignified and I think Mike was already trying harder when he put together the band of the past few years and hired Scott Totten as musical director.  I've never seen Al, either, but his video clips on YouTube look good.  I'd go see Mike with Al and I'm not sure I'd see Mike without Al, but I might see Al without Mike at least once.   I'm looking forward to seeing a reunion show next month.  The clips and TV appearances of the reunion have looked good.

[Chris Brown]

A lot of good points being made all around.  I for one would love to see all the band members f*ck with their respective formulas and find a way to keep this current configuration going until they collectively don't want to do it anymore.  

As others have mentioned, doing so would require some compromise - the touring schedule would have to be cut down, for Brian's sake (no way he wants to tour at the pace that Mike and Bruce have up to this point).   Even with a reduced schedule, it may involve more touring than Brian would like.  Naturally, some band members would end up with the short end of the stick, as there isn't room for everyone in this new hybrid band they've got going.

Bottom line though, I think that even after all the solo projects he's done, taking charge and creating a new Beach Boys record still motivates Brian like nothing else can.  If he has the chance to do it another few times before hanging it up, I think it would ultimately be more satisfying for him than making more solo albums.  Combine that with being able to perform shows without having to bear the whole load as a "frontman" and I think there's a solution that everyone could get on board with.

[JohnMill]

In a perfect world, Brian would continue to tour for another five years with the Beach Boys but these days it seems he is bored, not doing well physically, and is just there cause he was talked into it and nostalgic reasons. I don't want to see the Beach Boys end cause Brian is not a part of the group. I would pay to see Mike and Bruce with or without David ANY day of the week. I would also love to see Al with Family and Friends.

The world will not end because Brian is taking a break. In fact, I am sure he will have another solo tour in the future.

I agree and disagree.  I understand realistically that it is not feasible for BW to tour with The Beach Boys everywhere they go from here on out.  Touring has never been Brian's thing to be quite honest and I've always felt privileged to see him when I get the chance for that very reason.  That being said I've never considered what Mike and Bruce have taken on the road since Carl's passing to be "The Beach Boys".  I can't really describe it but in the same vein I've never understood people who go to see Paul McCartney simply because it's the closest you can get to seeing a "Beatles concert" these days.  I've seen Macca a few times myself back in the nineties but I haven't gone in recent years because I know he's going to base the majority of his show around "Beatles songs" and I'm just not into hearing Paul and a backing band perform Beatles songs.

I don't know if that makes any sense but it's probably why I avoid the Mike and Bruce incarnation of The Beach Boys as well.

Excellent post. I can absolutely relate to what you say about Paul McCartney. I was one who simply could not wait to see the man live when he hit the road again back in, what was it, 89 or 90? I can't remember the year, but it was his first tour in years, and the band with Hamish, Wix, Robbie, Linda, etc. Flowers In The Dirt? I still have the program, buttons, t-shirts, etc...I have to dig them out to confirm. I remember so many details about the preparation for this, including calling a ticket hotline repeatedly on a Saturday morning at 10AM to get tickets, which turned out to be upper-deck at the old Veterans Stadium at Philly. I was super excited as a Beatle freak, and this was the closest I'd get especially at that time and at that age. Great show, I was moved to tears several times, and the band was spot-on terrific. A fantastic show and experience, quite expensive at the time but well worth it.

I did the same for Brian's "comeback" solo tour, hanging on the phone for tickets, seeing him with some really good seats at Symphony Hall in Boston, waiting on the street entrance to backstage clutching the DCC Pet Sounds cover for a signature, as the band filed in followed by Brian...incredible. Again, moved to tears and feeling like this was a watershed moment for me as a fan. The Smile tour...same way.

But having had numerous opportunities to see Paul McCartney live in the 20+ years since, I have not gone. While he has expanded the setlist and released new material with a crack new band (I went to school with the drummer  ), I chose not to go. I felt as if I had seen what I needed to see and could cross it off my "bucket list". I'm happy with the memories, and honestly I saw him do Hey Jude and have the crowd extend the singalong ending with everyone waving and belting out the na-na's, I don't need to experience that again even though it would be a nice show to see. It's not as much of a priority now as it was then.

That takes nothing away from Paul or Brian, but those earlier shows were such a catharsis and an intimate experience for me, I'm content to leave it at that. I don't mean that to sound dismissive or derisive in any way, but what JohnMill says about McCartney live is something that rang true for me as well.

Well I kind of see Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson as two different animals when it comes to their solo performances.  To put it simply, I don't think Brian "needs" The Beach Boys as much as Paul McCartney "needs" The Beatles in a live setting.  For me the infamous comment made by the anonymous backing band member regarding the differences between a BW solo tour and the current tour kind of sums it up for me as far as Brian goes:

Brian is one of those unique performers who can fit in comfortably in both theater and arena settings.  What he does as a solo performer is sustainable in it's own right because it's almost like you are going to see a great composer perform his catalog instead of a rock show.  The Beach Boys on the other hand are a rock show and having Brian integrated into that atmosphere has worked out pretty well because he's not required to MC the shows or to ham it up with the audience.  He leaves that stuff to Mike and is therefore able to focus the majority of his attention on the music which is essentially what he does at his solo gigs.  Now obviously there are always going to be some ripples in the road when it comes to Brian and live performances but I think most of the fanbase understands and accepts that.

With McCartney, I just think that he's never been a solo performer and he has admitted as much himself on several occasions.  But I think ever since Wings disbanded and John Lennon was assassinated, he's never truly found his niche.  Now he's obviously made some great music since 1980 but I think he stopped challenging himself creatively as a performer since that time.   He kind of allowed himself to become "rock's elder statesman" and certainly has become the torch carrier of The Beatles' legacy neither role which at least in my opinion has suited him well.  To be fair perhaps these roles were thrust upon him but after the loss of John Lennon it seemed to me that McCartney lost that fire in his belly that he had in the sixties and seventies.  I think he gradually came to terms with the fact that his legacy will always be tied to The Beatles, something he desperately tried to fend off when he was with Wings and has comfortably settled into a routine where he takes to the stage with young musicians who won't challenge him creatively and simply serve as his backing band and they give the audience "The Beatles Rock & Revival Show as interpreted by Paul McCartney"

For me it was never like that with Brian Wilson.  While I'll admit there are some similarities between how both men tour (young backing band, basing their shows around sixties hits) with Brian it seems he has found a way to change the game up just enough to keep things interesting whether it be the album tours of "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE" (which in enough of itself was a occasion of some significance given that record's long history) or touring TLOS as a complete record instead of just dropping a few songs off the record into a set filled with sixties standards which is how most of his contemporaries map out their shows.  

I'll close here because I've written a lot and am starting to ramble but to me there is a fundamental difference between what Brian Wilson has done with his solo gigs and what Paul McCartney does with his.

I can appreciate what you're saying about McCartney's shows but there's an even bigger factor at work here and that's Paul's massive fame. After all, his fame goes way beyond simple music fandom. As such it would be harder for him to NOT give a show that aimed at the widest audience possible especially when he's playing to 10X or 20X the crowd Brian's playing to. Brian can afford to give smaller and more intimate "fan-friendly" shows because he's got that smaller and loyal following.
Paul only played a smattering of Beatles songs on his Wings tours because he was looking to establish himself as a solo act which he did with platinum Wings albums, multiple #1 singles, etc. By the time the hits dried up in 1985, he hadn't been on the road since 1979. When he finally returned to touring in 1990 it wasn't with a much younger band but with (slightly younger) peers like Hamish Stuart and Robbie Macintosh from the Average White Band and The Pretenders respectively. Of course they've all been replaced since then and the shows have become heavy on Beatles as Paul indeed sees himself as the torch bearer for the Beatles. That's been his choice....which is sad because his albums beginning from 1997's "Flaming Pie" onwards have been outstanding and miles ahead of his 70's and 80's work. The recent "Electric Arguments" album is, for my money, the most challenging work released by any 60's performer...but you're right, aside from the 2 songs he played from it on his recent tour, you'd never know it from his concerts.    

I understand all that but the only berth I will grant Paul is that he falls in line with most of his contemporaries in how he currently constructs his concerts.  We are fortunate that Brian Wilson is a rare exception who still goes out there and can highlight a new record release in concert.  I guess in a way it's understandable though.  Most of the artists of the sixties and seventies now find themselves in their sixties and seventies and their legacies as you mentioned to the general public are largely tied up in their impressive back catalogs.

As far as being the torch carrier for The Beatles, it really is a sad state of affairs in that regard to see what Paul has become.  I mean from the standpoint of public relations, it's a masterstroke as the general public will always be fascinated by The Beatles so the fact that Paul is wise to bring them up in almost every interview he does is a credit to how savvy he actually is.  That being said it's unfortunate that McCartney and I suppose even Yoko Ono base a large part of their public persona around a man that has been dead for over thirty years now.  Sometimes I wish that they would just let John Lennon rest in peace.  But instead both of them bring him up in almost every interview they do.  It's somewhat understandable from Yoko's POV as the legacy of John Lennon is a large part of her day to day business but in McCartney's case he really has no excuse except that he is essentially using Lennon's name to draw interest into whatever he's trying to promote.  

For the record I'm not the first person to notice this.  When McCartney first started to do this sort of stuff back in the late eighties, George Harrison noticed it and called him out for it publicly saying basically what I've said here.

[JohnMill]

I don't like Brian's older voice and that ruins his solo records and his tours and his recent work with the Beach Boys.  I own every Brian Wilson solo record and have a hard time listening to them and I think it's his singing voice.  It's gotten worse through the years.  When he tours solo now he even has his backing band members take some of the songs now.  I've seen him twice, once with Paul Simon and once on the Pet Sounds tour.  I can't see ever seeing him again.  He looks unhappy up there.  People who say he looks unhappy with the Beach Boys now have never seen him solo.  The two shows I saw his voice was croaky and he scowled most of the time.  I'm not sure why he ever had a solo touring career.  I've read very unflattering comments by professional reviewers so I'm not sure Brian has reached out much beyond his core cult audience.  I think Brian's band plays their instruments well.

I think when you once possessed a voice like Brian Wilson did you are always going to be compared with what you once were (at least in some people's minds).  I've personally been able to get past it.  Now I'm not in a state of denial that Brian's voice is nowhere near where it once was but I think he sounds fine on the new record and have enjoyed most of his solo work as well.  As far as live concerts go.  Being a fan of the sixties and seventies era of rock and roll, I've come to realize that with very few exceptions concerts in 2012 are crapshoots at best.  We are talking about men in their sixties and seventies who almost have no "top" left and in many cases cannot sign half the songs in their catalog the way they are supposed to be sung.  The Beach Boys are no exception to the rule but I think they have made a decent go of it during this tour.  Personally I just think it's up to the individual fan to be informed enough going in so he knows what to expect when he buys a ticket to see Brian Wilson or The Beach Boys in 2012.  I'm not saying expectations should be set low but you should at least possess an understanding as to where these guys are in their careers and what they are capable of doing onstage in 2012.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I don't like Brian's older voice and that ruins his solo records and his tours and his recent work with the Beach Boys.  I own every Brian Wilson solo record and have a hard time listening to them and I think it's his singing voice.  It's gotten worse through the years.  When he tours solo now he even has his backing band members take some of the songs now.  I've seen him twice, once with Paul Simon and once on the Pet Sounds tour.  I can't see ever seeing him again.  He looks unhappy up there.  People who say he looks unhappy with the Beach Boys now have never seen him solo.  The two shows I saw his voice was croaky and he scowled most of the time.  I'm not sure why he ever had a solo touring career.  I've read very unflattering comments by professional reviewers so I'm not sure Brian has reached out much beyond his core cult audience.  I think Brian's band plays their instruments well.

I think when you once possessed a voice like Brian Wilson did you are always going to be compared with what you once were (at least in some people's minds).  I've personally been able to get past it.  Now I'm not in a state of denial that Brian's voice is nowhere near where it once was but I think he sounds fine on the new record and have enjoyed most of his solo work as well.  As far as live concerts go.  Being a fan of the sixties and seventies era of rock and roll, I've come to realize that with very few exceptions concerts in 2012 are crapshoots at best.  We are talking about men in their sixties and seventies who almost have no "top" left and in many cases cannot sign half the songs in their catalog the way they are supposed to be sung.  The Beach Boys are no exception to the rule but I think they have made a decent go of it during this tour.  Personally I just think it's up to the individual fan to be informed enough going in so he knows what to expect when he buys a ticket to see Brian Wilson or The Beach Boys in 2012.  I'm not saying expectations should be set low but you should at least possess an understanding as to where these guys are in their careers and what they are capable of doing onstage in 2012.

Good points, John. The problem I have, and maybe KittyKat, is the difference between accepting Brian's vocals and being fulfilled or moved by them.

I've seen my share of Brian solo concerts, and honestly, I walk away giving him an "A" for effort. As you pointed out, I understand where he came from and what he is facing, and I appreciate him giving it his best shot. And, frankly he misses very few words and his voice is never totally crap. It's not unlistenable (is that a word?).

However, I do get a sense of not being fulfilled, or not being moved. On so many Beach Boys' songs he performs, he is singing Mike Love's leads, and not doing them as well, IMO. When he sings background, he is again usually singing the lower parts, again not as well as Mike. And, there are those classic songs where Brian has that beautiful, soaring, high part - only to be sung by Jeff.

That, in a nutshell, is my biggest problem with Brian's live shows. He doesn't play an instrument, he doesn't dance , so basically you are there to hear him sing. But, if you can't enjoy the singing (the way you would like), what's the point of going. Like I said in an earlier post, it used to be for the spectacle and the music, but...

These recent Beach Boys' concerts are making me re-evaluate things. These shows fill in the gaps nicely and solve a lot of problems I have with the separate factions. Do you really want three different factions of Beach Boys "groups"? Like some have mentioned, Mike & Bruce might have some backlash as they go on. I'm not sure how much, if any, they will encounter. Some I guess. I wonder if Brian might experience a similar problem if he goes back to his solo career. Probably not much, either. People know what they're getting in advance, and the music will always pull him through for a large majority of his fans.

[GhostyTMRS]

At the risk of this turning into a Beatles thread I agree with part of what you're saying here but I think your interpretation is way off base. It's not a case of Paul capitalizing off John, it's Paul capitalizing off the Beatles as a phenomenon. It's not like he goes out there and front loads the setlist with songs John wrote. He front loads it with Beatles songs that HE wrote (it's no secret that John and Paul rarely collaborated after 1964 and the majority of Paul's songs like "Yesterday", "Get Back", "Let It Be" etc. feature no input from John whatsoever outside of him giving a thumbs up to it). He has every right to do that, of course. He wrote them. They're Beatles songs but they're more his than they are John's, Paul's and Ringo's. The fact that he doesn't go out and play the "Band On The Run" album in it's entirety is the problem. It's a classic album and it sold in the multi-millions but Paul has resigned himself to being "Beatle Paul" and whooping it up onstage like it's the 60's again. No shame in that, really, but from a fan point of view I'd love to see him give a little more respect to his solo catalog but as Paul puts it "If I were a fan going to a Paul McCartney show and he didn't play "Hey Jude" I'd be upset". That's his thinking and as we all know, Paul is a bit of a control freak so I doubt he can be talked out of it.

Believe me, John brought up the Beatles as much as Paul does now in interviews. Despite the whole idea of "I'm John Lennon and I'm my own man and  could care less about living in the past", it was just typical Lennon posturing. Every interview he gave after 1970 is loaded with Beatles talk (and he usually contradicted himself John was motivated more by emotion than getting the facts right). Heck, he brought up the Beatles and discussed them constantly more than any ex-member back in the 70's, including Paul.  

As for George, he never criticized Paul for anything to do with John. It was always Paul's "I am the Beatles" attitude that rankled him. Of course, George would go on to his own Beatles-heavy concert tour in 1990 in Japan (cough cough).  Keep in mind that George harbored a lot of bitterness for both John and Paul for how they "carved up the empire between them" (John's own words) and dismissed his songwriting. Paul had no reason to begrudge his association with the Beatles while George had a big chip on his shoulder and rightly so. Some of the mot caustic criticism of George' songwriting came from John who told him "I'm loathe to play any of your songs" during what would be the Let It Be sessions (a bigger diss than Paul famously telling George what solo to play) Sadly, John and George were sniping at each other in the press right before Lennon was killed in 1980. People forget that.

It's a complicated situation between those guys to say the least.

I totally agree about Yoko. She's turned John into a mini-industry, turning any doodle he made into designer ties and some such nonsense. That's an entirely different animal compared to what Paul does.    

[Pretty Funky]

Went to Brians Pet Sounds gig and SMiLE show plus got the live albums but no Gershwin, Disney or Lucky Old Sun.
Said on this site a few years back thats it for me.

Al....nothing!

Dave...nothing!

Mike and Bruce? Not even when their show was 15 minutes from my house.

As Brian said once......'Put me in jail!'

But like a sports star trying for a unlikely comeback, the Beach Boys are back out there! And it is good......very good!

I salute them.

I am going to their show. Have the album. Will get the live DVD and album if released.

But no more shows of any formation for me. Albums? I'll wait on that one.

I wish them the best but I'm ok with what they have given me.

[Sound of Free]

I almost think they should have made an arrangement before the tour that Mike and Bruce couldn't tour as "The Beach Boys" after the tour. Maybe you would need four of the five guys to use the name, so that if Brian sat out a tour at least Mike, Al, Bruce and Dave would make it a more legitimate representation of "The Beach Boys" than just Mike and Bruce.

If they are going to split up again after the tour, let the two tour as "Mike and Bruce's Beach Party Band" or "Mike and Bruce's Beach Boys show."

[Cam Mott]

I agree Sheriff. Love Brian but his solo work does not do it for me and his self stacked vocals especially fall flat but that is just me.

[Pretty Funky]

Mike has never hidden the fact it is just him and Bruce in every interview in every town since 1998. That is unlikely to change. If people choose not to read those interviews or do some basic research prior to buying a ticket I could care less if they feel had.

[Avilos]

I almost think they should have made an arrangement before the tour that Mike and Bruce couldn't tour as "The Beach Boys" after the tour. "

Its very possible that was decided already. Them using that name was due to consent by the voting members. All it would take is one of them to not approve of Mike and Brice using the name alone and they could not any longer.

[JohnMill]

At the risk of this turning into a Beatles thread I agree with part of what you're saying here but I think your interpretation is way off base. It's not a case of Paul capitalizing off John, it's Paul capitalizing off the Beatles as a phenomenon. It's not like he goes out there and front loads the setlist with songs John wrote. He front loads it with Beatles songs that HE wrote (it's no secret that John and Paul rarely collaborated after 1964 and the majority of Paul's songs like "Yesterday", "Get Back", "Let It Be" etc. feature no input from John whatsoever outside of him giving a thumbs up to it). He has every right to do that, of course. He wrote them. They're Beatles songs but they're more his than they are John's, Paul's and Ringo's. The fact that he doesn't go out and play the "Band On The Run" album in it's entirety is the problem. It's a classic album and it sold in the multi-millions but Paul has resigned himself to being "Beatle Paul" and whooping it up onstage like it's the 60's again. No shame in that, really, but from a fan point of view I'd love to see him give a little more respect to his solo catalog but as Paul puts it "If I were a fan going to a Paul McCartney show and he didn't play "Hey Jude" I'd be upset". That's his thinking and as we all know, Paul is a bit of a control freak so I doubt he can be talked out of it.

Believe me, John brought up the Beatles as much as Paul does now in interviews. Despite the whole idea of "I'm John Lennon and I'm my own man and  could care less about living in the past", it was just typical Lennon posturing. Every interview he gave after 1970 is loaded with Beatles talk (and he usually contradicted himself John was motivated more by emotion than getting the facts right). Heck, he brought up the Beatles and discussed them constantly more than any ex-member back in the 70's, including Paul.  

As for George, he never criticized Paul for anything to do with John. It was always Paul's "I am the Beatles" attitude that rankled him. Of course, George would go on to his own Beatles-heavy concert tour in 1990 in Japan (cough cough).  Keep in mind that George harbored a lot of bitterness for both John and Paul for how they "carved up the empire between them" (John's own words) and dismissed his songwriting. Paul had no reason to begrudge his association with the Beatles while George had a big chip on his shoulder and rightly so. Some of the mot caustic criticism of George' songwriting came from John who told him "I'm loathe to play any of your songs" during what would be the Let It Be sessions (a bigger diss than Paul famously telling George what solo to play) Sadly, John and George were sniping at each other in the press right before Lennon was killed in 1980. People forget that.

It's a complicated situation between those guys to say the least.

I totally agree about Yoko. She's turned John into a mini-industry, turning any doodle he made into designer ties and some such nonsense. That's an entirely different animal compared to what Paul does.    

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I find Paul's constant posturing regarding Lennon in his interviews since John's passing in my opinion have been particularly distasteful.  Let the man rest in peace.

For me at least in the seventies it was a different game.  All four Beatles roamed the earth and if they wanted to use their legacy as a means of enhancing what they were currently up to that was their prerogative and John could also be extremely negative regarding The Beatles during the seventies.  Whether it was posturing or not is almost irrelevant because most of the media back then took his anger towards the group as fact.  It's only been in years after the fact that through research we've learned that a lot of what Lennon said in interviews at times was smokescreen bluster. 

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Harrison was upset with McCartney for his "Lennon posturing".  I meant to reference exactly what you did with his "I am The Beatles" attitude and also his attitude of using The Beatles as a method of promoting his own agendas.  Also from what I understand Harrison didn't exactly want to do the Japanese tour but was talked into it by Clapton.  Although Harrison was a fine songwriter I think even he wasn't oblivious to the fact that his solo catalog was for the most part was considerably weaker than his Beatles catalog which is why he filled his set full of his Beatle tracks.  I honestly think that for the most part by the end of his life, Harrison really resented the fact that he was ever as famous as he once was.  I think he just wanted to be forgotten and left alone by the world at large.  I honestly believe that was his sincerest wish.   

[KittyKat]

I'm going to weigh in on the Paul thing in that I really think he's sincere in his love for John and mentioning of him.   He doesn't want John to be forgotten.  I know that sounds ridiculous to most Beatles fans, that John would be forgotten, but plenty of younger people don't even know who Paul himself is.  If Paul is going to do Beatles music, he's going to mention John and George.  I don't have a problem with it.  I've seen Paul a couple of times myself and really enjoyed it.  He does the Beatles songs justice and I'm glad he's out there doing it.  If you don't want to hear it, don't go to his shows or buy his solo albums.  I don't really care for much of Paul's later solo work after "Flowers in the Dirt."

[GhostyTMRS]

At the risk of this turning into a Beatles thread I agree with part of what you're saying here but I think your interpretation is way off base. It's not a case of Paul capitalizing off John, it's Paul capitalizing off the Beatles as a phenomenon. It's not like he goes out there and front loads the setlist with songs John wrote. He front loads it with Beatles songs that HE wrote (it's no secret that John and Paul rarely collaborated after 1964 and the majority of Paul's songs like "Yesterday", "Get Back", "Let It Be" etc. feature no input from John whatsoever outside of him giving a thumbs up to it). He has every right to do that, of course. He wrote them. They're Beatles songs but they're more his than they are John's, Paul's and Ringo's. The fact that he doesn't go out and play the "Band On The Run" album in it's entirety is the problem. It's a classic album and it sold in the multi-millions but Paul has resigned himself to being "Beatle Paul" and whooping it up onstage like it's the 60's again. No shame in that, really, but from a fan point of view I'd love to see him give a little more respect to his solo catalog but as Paul puts it "If I were a fan going to a Paul McCartney show and he didn't play "Hey Jude" I'd be upset". That's his thinking and as we all know, Paul is a bit of a control freak so I doubt he can be talked out of it.

Believe me, John brought up the Beatles as much as Paul does now in interviews. Despite the whole idea of "I'm John Lennon and I'm my own man and  could care less about living in the past", it was just typical Lennon posturing. Every interview he gave after 1970 is loaded with Beatles talk (and he usually contradicted himself John was motivated more by emotion than getting the facts right). Heck, he brought up the Beatles and discussed them constantly more than any ex-member back in the 70's, including Paul.  

As for George, he never criticized Paul for anything to do with John. It was always Paul's "I am the Beatles" attitude that rankled him. Of course, George would go on to his own Beatles-heavy concert tour in 1990 in Japan (cough cough).  Keep in mind that George harbored a lot of bitterness for both John and Paul for how they "carved up the empire between them" (John's own words) and dismissed his songwriting. Paul had no reason to begrudge his association with the Beatles while George had a big chip on his shoulder and rightly so. Some of the mot caustic criticism of George' songwriting came from John who told him "I'm loathe to play any of your songs" during what would be the Let It Be sessions (a bigger diss than Paul famously telling George what solo to play) Sadly, John and George were sniping at each other in the press right before Lennon was killed in 1980. People forget that.

It's a complicated situation between those guys to say the least.

I totally agree about Yoko. She's turned John into a mini-industry, turning any doodle he made into designer ties and some such nonsense. That's an entirely different animal compared to what Paul does.    

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I find Paul's constant posturing regarding Lennon in his interviews since John's passing in my opinion have been particularly distasteful.  Let the man rest in peace.

For me at least in the seventies it was a different game.  All four Beatles roamed the earth and if they wanted to use their legacy as a means of enhancing what they were currently up to that was their prerogative and John could also be extremely negative regarding The Beatles during the seventies.  Whether it was posturing or not is almost irrelevant because most of the media back then took his anger towards the group as fact.  It's only been in years after the fact that through research we've learned that a lot of what Lennon said in interviews at times was smokescreen bluster. 

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Harrison was upset with McCartney for his "Lennon posturing".  I meant to reference exactly what you did with his "I am The Beatles" attitude and also his attitude of using The Beatles as a method of promoting his own agendas.  Also from what I understand Harrison didn't exactly want to do the Japanese tour but was talked into it by Clapton.  Although Harrison was a fine songwriter I think even he wasn't oblivious to the fact that his solo catalog was for the most part was considerably weaker than his Beatles catalog which is why he filled his set full of his Beatle tracks.  I honestly think that for the most part by the end of his life, Harrison really resented the fact that he was ever as famous as he once was.  I think he just wanted to be forgotten and left alone by the world at large.  I honestly believe that was his sincerest wish.   

You're right about George.

I still don't know what about Paul's comments about John you find distasteful. If anything, he's practically reverent about him. Again, I don't hear him using Lennon's memory to promote his new material. He uses the Beatles as a whole or more accurately our fond memories of the Beatles. It's because Paul's become the "professional ex-Beatle" which I guess could be seen as distasteful. I just see it as a) reality...he IS an ex-Beatle and b) using his Beatle status to plug his own solo work. That said, it hasn't worked. There have been no hit singles and the album sales are low (despite his material being so much better than his Wings days). Paul is driven to succeed (always has been).

There's another thing too..and one that Lennon didn't get the chance to experience and that's the passage of time. Paul talks as much about growing up in Liverpool as much as he does the Beatles. Obviously he looks back at that period of youth with rose-colored glasses as we all do after we hit 40.

We also know that ever since Lennon was canonized to near "sainthood" after his death, his contributions to the Beatles have been blown way out of proportion while McCartney's have been diminished (at least they were in the 80's and 90's). Paul was NOT happy about that and while he could have taken the high road and not said a word about it, the truth is he DID more or less lead the Beatles from 1967 onwards (Lennon couldn't be bothered). In a way, he may have been right to try to restore the balance as that seems to have worked and we don't see too many Beatle fans who are under the impression that John wrote everything and the others were glorified sidemen like we heard so much in the 80's.

[JohnMill]

At the risk of this turning into a Beatles thread I agree with part of what you're saying here but I think your interpretation is way off base. It's not a case of Paul capitalizing off John, it's Paul capitalizing off the Beatles as a phenomenon. It's not like he goes out there and front loads the setlist with songs John wrote. He front loads it with Beatles songs that HE wrote (it's no secret that John and Paul rarely collaborated after 1964 and the majority of Paul's songs like "Yesterday", "Get Back", "Let It Be" etc. feature no input from John whatsoever outside of him giving a thumbs up to it). He has every right to do that, of course. He wrote them. They're Beatles songs but they're more his than they are John's, Paul's and Ringo's. The fact that he doesn't go out and play the "Band On The Run" album in it's entirety is the problem. It's a classic album and it sold in the multi-millions but Paul has resigned himself to being "Beatle Paul" and whooping it up onstage like it's the 60's again. No shame in that, really, but from a fan point of view I'd love to see him give a little more respect to his solo catalog but as Paul puts it "If I were a fan going to a Paul McCartney show and he didn't play "Hey Jude" I'd be upset". That's his thinking and as we all know, Paul is a bit of a control freak so I doubt he can be talked out of it.

Believe me, John brought up the Beatles as much as Paul does now in interviews. Despite the whole idea of "I'm John Lennon and I'm my own man and  could care less about living in the past", it was just typical Lennon posturing. Every interview he gave after 1970 is loaded with Beatles talk (and he usually contradicted himself John was motivated more by emotion than getting the facts right). Heck, he brought up the Beatles and discussed them constantly more than any ex-member back in the 70's, including Paul.  

As for George, he never criticized Paul for anything to do with John. It was always Paul's "I am the Beatles" attitude that rankled him. Of course, George would go on to his own Beatles-heavy concert tour in 1990 in Japan (cough cough).  Keep in mind that George harbored a lot of bitterness for both John and Paul for how they "carved up the empire between them" (John's own words) and dismissed his songwriting. Paul had no reason to begrudge his association with the Beatles while George had a big chip on his shoulder and rightly so. Some of the mot caustic criticism of George' songwriting came from John who told him "I'm loathe to play any of your songs" during what would be the Let It Be sessions (a bigger diss than Paul famously telling George what solo to play) Sadly, John and George were sniping at each other in the press right before Lennon was killed in 1980. People forget that.

It's a complicated situation between those guys to say the least.

I totally agree about Yoko. She's turned John into a mini-industry, turning any doodle he made into designer ties and some such nonsense. That's an entirely different animal compared to what Paul does.    

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I find Paul's constant posturing regarding Lennon in his interviews since John's passing in my opinion have been particularly distasteful.  Let the man rest in peace.

For me at least in the seventies it was a different game.  All four Beatles roamed the earth and if they wanted to use their legacy as a means of enhancing what they were currently up to that was their prerogative and John could also be extremely negative regarding The Beatles during the seventies.  Whether it was posturing or not is almost irrelevant because most of the media back then took his anger towards the group as fact.  It's only been in years after the fact that through research we've learned that a lot of what Lennon said in interviews at times was smokescreen bluster.  

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Harrison was upset with McCartney for his "Lennon posturing".  I meant to reference exactly what you did with his "I am The Beatles" attitude and also his attitude of using The Beatles as a method of promoting his own agendas.  Also from what I understand Harrison didn't exactly want to do the Japanese tour but was talked into it by Clapton.  Although Harrison was a fine songwriter I think even he wasn't oblivious to the fact that his solo catalog was for the most part was considerably weaker than his Beatles catalog which is why he filled his set full of his Beatle tracks.  I honestly think that for the most part by the end of his life, Harrison really resented the fact that he was ever as famous as he once was.  I think he just wanted to be forgotten and left alone by the world at large.  I honestly believe that was his sincerest wish.  

You're right about George.

I still don't know what about Paul's comments about John you find distasteful. If anything, he's practically reverent about him. Again, I don't hear him using Lennon's memory to promote his new material. He uses the Beatles as a whole or more accurately our fond memories of the Beatles. It's because Paul's become the "professional ex-Beatle" which I guess could be seen as distasteful. I just see it as a) reality...he IS an ex-Beatle and b) using his Beatle status to plug his own solo work. That said, it hasn't worked. There have been no hit singles and the album sales are low (despite his material being so much better than his Wings days). Paul is driven to succeed (always has been).

There's another thing too..and one that Lennon didn't get the chance to experience and that's the passage of time. Paul talks as much about growing up in Liverpool as much as he does the Beatles. Obviously he looks back at that period of youth with rose-colored glasses as we all do after we hit 40.

We also know that ever since Lennon was canonized to near "sainthood" after his death, his contributions to the Beatles have been blown way out of proportion while McCartney's have been diminished (at least they were in the 80's and 90's). Paul was NOT happy about that and while he could have taken the high road and not said a word about it, the truth is he DID more or less lead the Beatles from 1967 onwards (Lennon couldn't be bothered). In a way, he may have been right to try to restore the balance as that seems to have worked and we don't see too many Beatle fans who are under the impression that John wrote everything and the others were glorified sidemen like we heard so much in the 80's.

I just don't see why he has to bring up John Lennon's name every time he is interviewed.  For example he just put out this recent oldies albums in the vein of "The Great American Songbook" thing that Rod Stewart has been doing for the past several years.  The first thing out of his mouth was "These were the songs that John and I used to talk about when we were young songwriters in Liverpool" or something to that affect.  I'm not denying that isn't true and I'm also not going to deny Kitty's comments that Paul may legitimately not want John to be forgotten by the public.  That being said I think that Paul interjects John into all his interviews as a means of using the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership as a means of drumming up interest into whatever his current product.  In fact it's almost the identical behavior that George took him to task on in the late eighties where he said he found it odd that every time Paul had a new record out he somehow brought up in the press that he was thinking of somehow reconnecting with either him or Ringo on some potential project.  I believe that Harrison saw these attempts by Paul as merely an attempt to drum up some media interest, nothing more which is exactly how I view this situation.

In my opinion actually this whole thing might go a bit deeper than what we are discussing here.  A few weeks ago I was at a book store and thumbed through Paul DuNoyer's latest book on John Lennon and towards the end he speaks a bit about the acrimonious relationship between Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney that apparently exists to this day.  He compared the Ono/McCartney relationship since Lennon's passing to essentially being like the Capulets/Montagues but without any great love story.    I really keyed in on that statement because I believe that both Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney have used to Lennon legacy to promote their own agendas since his passing and there is legitimate resentment on both sides as to the other's use of John's legacy.  I'm not entirely sure what Paul's beef would be with Yoko but I think Yoko still harbors a lot of resentment towards Paul McCartney perhaps due to some of the stuff I've already mentioned here.  I know she was quick to snap at him a few years back when he mentioned in passing that some of the song credits in the Beatles catalog should read McCartney/Lennon.

Either way I'm pretty much in the camp now that believes that what is keeping any worthwhile new Beatles projects from hitting the shelves is the fact that Ono and McCartney can't agree on much of anything these days despite the fact that they are forever going to be irrevocably linked to one another due to John Lennon and The Beatles.  The bottom line: I just see as two people trying to lay sole claim on the Lennon legacy thirty or so years after the man's passing and they both seem to have very divergent viewpoints on how history should be written.  From where I stand, Paul works almost too hard an overemphasizing The Beatles brand as a happy go lucky foursome when the reality is far from that while Yoko Ono seems to promote a version of the story where The Beatles were almost irrelevant in John's life in comparison to their own personal love story.  

That all being said as I mentioned in the onset, I wish they would both just let the man rest in peace.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Ahhh...this is turning into a Beatles thread.

I've seen my share of Brian solo concerts, and honestly, I walk away giving him an "A" for effort. As you pointed out, I understand where he came from and what he is facing, and I appreciate him giving it his best shot. And, frankly he misses very few words and his voice is never totally crap. It's not unlistenable (is that a word?).

However, I do get a sense of not being fulfilled, or not being moved. On so many Beach Boys' songs he performs, he is singing Mike Love's leads, and not doing them as well, IMO. When he sings background, he is again usually singing the lower parts, again not as well as Mike. And, there are those classic songs where Brian has that beautiful, soaring, high part - only to be sung by Jeff.

That, in a nutshell, is my biggest problem with Brian's live shows. He doesn't play an instrument, he doesn't dance Cheesy, so basically you are there to hear him sing. But, if you can't enjoy the singing (the way you would like), what's the point of going. Like I said in an earlier post, it used to be for the spectacle and the music, but...

I saw Brian on 23 Oct 2004, and he was pretty good vocally, all things considered. With his solo shows, there's always that disclaimer. When I saw the band on 8 June of this year, he was pretty good vocally...period. No asterisk, no apologies/excuses needed. He hit a *few* duff notes, but otherwise his leads and (especially) his backups were outstanding. He was singing with more confidence then I've ever heard him sing with since the 60s. He freakin' tore up Sail on Sailor and IJWMFTT, just for two instances. So, yeah, now I don't think I'll be as enthused with a solo show now.

If Mike, Bruce, Dave, and Al continue on with the Beach Boys live, I'll be there, even if Brian isn't involved. But...I really want a new studio album.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Also, unlike KittyKat and some of you, I don't consider Brian's voice to be that bad and enjoy every decade of his voice change, including the 21st century. Imo he still sounds fab. As do others.

Me too.

[EgoHanger1966]

Also, unlike KittyKat and some of you, I don't consider Brian's voice to be that bad and enjoy every decade of his voice change, including the 21st century. Imo he still sounds fab. As do others.

Me too.

Me three. On record, his voice sounds very mature, he sounds wonderful on the suite.
The first show I saw, a couple times I was thinking, he sounds just like he did on BW'88! Which is a different Brian sound all together, but one I really like.

[GhostyTMRS]

At the risk of this turning into a Beatles thread I agree with part of what you're saying here but I think your interpretation is way off base. It's not a case of Paul capitalizing off John, it's Paul capitalizing off the Beatles as a phenomenon. It's not like he goes out there and front loads the setlist with songs John wrote. He front loads it with Beatles songs that HE wrote (it's no secret that John and Paul rarely collaborated after 1964 and the majority of Paul's songs like "Yesterday", "Get Back", "Let It Be" etc. feature no input from John whatsoever outside of him giving a thumbs up to it). He has every right to do that, of course. He wrote them. They're Beatles songs but they're more his than they are John's, Paul's and Ringo's. The fact that he doesn't go out and play the "Band On The Run" album in it's entirety is the problem. It's a classic album and it sold in the multi-millions but Paul has resigned himself to being "Beatle Paul" and whooping it up onstage like it's the 60's again. No shame in that, really, but from a fan point of view I'd love to see him give a little more respect to his solo catalog but as Paul puts it "If I were a fan going to a Paul McCartney show and he didn't play "Hey Jude" I'd be upset". That's his thinking and as we all know, Paul is a bit of a control freak so I doubt he can be talked out of it.

Believe me, John brought up the Beatles as much as Paul does now in interviews. Despite the whole idea of "I'm John Lennon and I'm my own man and  could care less about living in the past", it was just typical Lennon posturing. Every interview he gave after 1970 is loaded with Beatles talk (and he usually contradicted himself John was motivated more by emotion than getting the facts right). Heck, he brought up the Beatles and discussed them constantly more than any ex-member back in the 70's, including Paul.  

As for George, he never criticized Paul for anything to do with John. It was always Paul's "I am the Beatles" attitude that rankled him. Of course, George would go on to his own Beatles-heavy concert tour in 1990 in Japan (cough cough).  Keep in mind that George harbored a lot of bitterness for both John and Paul for how they "carved up the empire between them" (John's own words) and dismissed his songwriting. Paul had no reason to begrudge his association with the Beatles while George had a big chip on his shoulder and rightly so. Some of the mot caustic criticism of George' songwriting came from John who told him "I'm loathe to play any of your songs" during what would be the Let It Be sessions (a bigger diss than Paul famously telling George what solo to play) Sadly, John and George were sniping at each other in the press right before Lennon was killed in 1980. People forget that.

It's a complicated situation between those guys to say the least.

I totally agree about Yoko. She's turned John into a mini-industry, turning any doodle he made into designer ties and some such nonsense. That's an entirely different animal compared to what Paul does.    

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I find Paul's constant posturing regarding Lennon in his interviews since John's passing in my opinion have been particularly distasteful.  Let the man rest in peace.

For me at least in the seventies it was a different game.  All four Beatles roamed the earth and if they wanted to use their legacy as a means of enhancing what they were currently up to that was their prerogative and John could also be extremely negative regarding The Beatles during the seventies.  Whether it was posturing or not is almost irrelevant because most of the media back then took his anger towards the group as fact.  It's only been in years after the fact that through research we've learned that a lot of what Lennon said in interviews at times was smokescreen bluster.  

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Harrison was upset with McCartney for his "Lennon posturing".  I meant to reference exactly what you did with his "I am The Beatles" attitude and also his attitude of using The Beatles as a method of promoting his own agendas.  Also from what I understand Harrison didn't exactly want to do the Japanese tour but was talked into it by Clapton.  Although Harrison was a fine songwriter I think even he wasn't oblivious to the fact that his solo catalog was for the most part was considerably weaker than his Beatles catalog which is why he filled his set full of his Beatle tracks.  I honestly think that for the most part by the end of his life, Harrison really resented the fact that he was ever as famous as he once was.  I think he just wanted to be forgotten and left alone by the world at large.  I honestly believe that was his sincerest wish.  

You're right about George.

I still don't know what about Paul's comments about John you find distasteful. If anything, he's practically reverent about him. Again, I don't hear him using Lennon's memory to promote his new material. He uses the Beatles as a whole or more accurately our fond memories of the Beatles. It's because Paul's become the "professional ex-Beatle" which I guess could be seen as distasteful. I just see it as a) reality...he IS an ex-Beatle and b) using his Beatle status to plug his own solo work. That said, it hasn't worked. There have been no hit singles and the album sales are low (despite his material being so much better than his Wings days). Paul is driven to succeed (always has been).

There's another thing too..and one that Lennon didn't get the chance to experience and that's the passage of time. Paul talks as much about growing up in Liverpool as much as he does the Beatles. Obviously he looks back at that period of youth with rose-colored glasses as we all do after we hit 40.

We also know that ever since Lennon was canonized to near "sainthood" after his death, his contributions to the Beatles have been blown way out of proportion while McCartney's have been diminished (at least they were in the 80's and 90's). Paul was NOT happy about that and while he could have taken the high road and not said a word about it, the truth is he DID more or less lead the Beatles from 1967 onwards (Lennon couldn't be bothered). In a way, he may have been right to try to restore the balance as that seems to have worked and we don't see too many Beatle fans who are under the impression that John wrote everything and the others were glorified sidemen like we heard so much in the 80's.

I just don't see why he has to bring up John Lennon's name every time he is interviewed.  For example he just put out this recent oldies albums in the vein of "The Great American Songbook" thing that Rod Stewart has been doing for the past several years.  The first thing out of his mouth was "These were the songs that John and I used to talk about when we were young songwriters in Liverpool" or something to that affect.  I'm not denying that isn't true and I'm also not going to deny Kitty's comments that Paul may legitimately not want John to be forgotten by the public.  That being said I think that Paul interjects John into all his interviews as a means of using the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership as a means of drumming up interest into whatever his current product.  In fact it's almost the identical behavior that George took him to task on in the late eighties where he said he found it odd that every time Paul had a new record out he somehow brought up in the press that he was thinking of somehow reconnecting with either him or Ringo on some potential project.  I believe that Harrison saw these attempts by Paul as merely an attempt to drum up some media interest, nothing more which is exactly how I view this situation.

In my opinion actually this whole thing might go a bit deeper than what we are discussing here.  A few weeks ago I was at a book store and thumbed through Paul DuNoyer's latest book on John Lennon and towards the end he speaks a bit about the acrimonious relationship between Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney that apparently exists to this day.  He compared the Ono/McCartney relationship since Lennon's passing to essentially being like the Capulets/Montagues but without any great love story.    I really keyed in on that statement because I believe that both Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney have used to Lennon legacy to promote their own agendas since his passing and there is legitimate resentment on both sides as to the other's use of John's legacy.  I'm not entirely sure what Paul's beef would be with Yoko but I think Yoko still harbors a lot of resentment towards Paul McCartney perhaps due to some of the stuff I've already mentioned here.  I know she was quick to snap at him a few years back when he mentioned in passing that some of the song credits in the Beatles catalog should read McCartney/Lennon.

Either way I'm pretty much in the camp now that believes that what is keeping any worthwhile new Beatles projects from hitting the shelves is the fact that Ono and McCartney can't agree on much of anything these days despite the fact that they are forever going to be irrevocably linked to one another due to John Lennon and The Beatles.  The bottom line: I just see as two people trying to lay sole claim on the Lennon legacy thirty or so years after the man's passing and they both seem to have very divergent viewpoints on how history should be written.  From where I stand, Paul works almost too hard an overemphasizing The Beatles brand as a happy go lucky foursome when the reality is far from that while Yoko Ono seems to promote a version of the story where The Beatles were almost irrelevant in John's life in comparison to their own personal love story.  

That all being said as I mentioned in the onset, I wish they would both just let the man rest in peace.

Well, Paul and Yoko's strained relationship is a bit of "ditched lovers" syndrome if you catch my drift. I'm not suggesting that Paul and John were actually lovers but they WERE best friends and Paul felt like he was ditched for Yoko in '67. John admitted as much in one of his interviews, boasting that the only two people he ever chose to have an artistic collaboration with were Paul and Yoko "and that's a pretty damn track record". Is it any wonder that when John split from Yoko for that year and a half starting in 1974 that he suddenly reconnected with Paul again and they hung out and jammed?

The bitterness with Yoko goes all the way back to when she and John first met and John withdrew from the Beatles. In the years since his death, it's only gotten worse since now they're forced to work together. Paul's resentment really started when the Lennon/McCartney songwriting catalog was up for sale and Paul wanted to pair up with her and buy it (legally he had to). She held out, insisting that the price would go down and Michael Jackson swooped in and bought it. He bitches at her in the press over it and to this day has never gotten over that. She retaliated by claiming that Paul was nothing but a Salieri to John's Mozart (which is a profoundly stupid comment to make) and so on and so on.

As for the songwriting credits, they were "McCartney/Lennon" on the first Beatle album and then after that they switched to "Lennon/McCartney" for the next album and stayed that way. Feeling self-conscious about it, Paul asked John if he could switch it back to "McCartney/Lennon" on the Wings Over America album and John said sure. Years later, after John died, he asked Yoko if he could do the same thing on his "Back In The U.S." album but this time she said no which caused another fight.  In a way, they really are like two ex-girlfriends arguing. lol

But we'll agree to disagree here. I don't think what Paul does is anywhere near the sleaziness of what Yoko does...not even close. When Paul starts turning scraps of Lennon's artwork into socks, decorative plates, builds a "Peace Tower", etc. then I'll say he's leeching off his old partner, George's comments notwithstanding (he was fairly grumpy anyway). 

       

[JohnMill]

Ahhh...this is turning into a Beatles thread.

I'll call it a day here.  Just had to get some stuff off my chest.  Sorry gang.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

No worries...thread seems dead now anyway.

[Wirestone]

Also, unlike KittyKat and some of you, I don't consider Brian's voice to be that bad and enjoy every decade of his voice change, including the 21st century. Imo he still sounds fab. As do others.

Me too.

Me three. On record, his voice sounds very mature, he sounds wonderful on the suite.
The first show I saw, a couple times I was thinking, he sounds just like he did on BW'88! Which is a different Brian sound all together, but one I really like.

I'm always surprised by how powerful BW's voice is in a live setting. It has a real edge.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yes it does, esp. on this tour. For some reason, his voice was lower in the mix on his solo tours than this one!