I, too, find the new song underwhelming. This is a great explanation of why. But the good news for me is the belated discovery of Hey Dullblog, which I will now race to consume before it someday fades away. And I second Tim Harrod's idea about a book.
Oh @Greg, you will love Dullblog. It's a real haven for a certain kind of fan. There's a Greatest Hits post, where you can access some of our favorites. Devin McKinney's post on Diz Gillespie is particularly great.
I was a bit underwhelmed, too, and I think it was because if George had been involved in the final product, he would have pushed for some kind of recognizable riff on the piano or guitar to open the song. And the guitar solo would have had more life to it. It is a bit haunting in a way. But what if they had tried it more uptempo and bouncy, like “Thank You Girl” or “I’m Happy Just to Dance with You?” Some new Beatles is better than no new Beatles, I guess. But if the song doesn’t grab you as much as even their lesser songs on their studio albums, why mess with the legacy?
I have now listened to the song a few times and I have watched the official video four or five times. The video makes the song better, and after a few listens I realize I do like the song. If you haven't seen the official video, look for it on YouTube. There is creative use of AI and John is very goofy. At the end, they go back in time and it is very good.
The problem with demos is that by definition they are scraps—not finished songs. One of the clear takeaways of Get Back! is that one can see the that the scraps that go into the collective grinder often diverge wildly once they make it into album fodder. I honestly like the melody and idea of Now and Then. I just don’t think there’s quite enough meat in the casing. For that requires the headbanging destructive give and take Northern Songs in particular had been long noted. That dynamic is obviously missing posthumously. But then, folks, after all, McCartney is no longer in his prime, and Ringo is simply too ready steady to rock the boat. Those uncomfortable truths aside, they’re the fucking Beatles, dammit! I’d happily listen to their flatulence without too much complaint.
Yes, this is the nubbin of my complaint--there's just not enough in the original demo of "Now & Then" to make a proper song without big contributions from Paul. And if THAT's what's necessary--and if you're also using AI to pick out Lennon's voice and strengthen it--there are a lot of other scraps on that Dakota Beatle Demos CD to make a great piece of a song. I'm sitting here listening to "Gone From This Place" and "Across the River" and thinking both have much more pep than "Now and Then."
What did you think of the orchestrated version of Grow Old With Me? It's the only one of his "produced" demos I truely like. Otherwise I prefer them undercooked, as they were.
Great post Mike - as usual, you're not content to repeat some cliché like "ineffable Beatle magic" and leave it at that, instead trying to get at *why* and *how* their music seems magic. I sort of agree and disagree with you at the same time - basically, I disagree on the specific song while agreeing with the broader point. To me, NAT fails because Paul changed the original too *much*. For starters he removed the only truly interesting part of the song, the bridge, with all its beautifully bizzare ahead-of-their-time only-John-could-do-this chord sequences. He also took the wistful melancholia of the feel and grafted his trademark Macca bounce onto it, creating this weird Frankenstein that fails to be satisfyingly happy or sad. It's just sorta there.
Where we're totally in agreement is that the Beatles, together, would have made something really good out of this. They pulled off the happy-and-sad-at-once trick countless times as a team, often implausibly (Misery, You Won't See Me, you already mentioned Getting Better). And if they'd tried out NAT in a room together, John would've insisted on keeping the weird chords and Paul would have insisted on making the thing cohere and move more, and you would have gotten another I Am the Walrus. Well OK, the song was never gonna be that good, but you know what I mean.
How many times have I heard Maybe I'm Amazed and thought 'This would be as famous as Let It Be if it had been produced properly, taken slower and Ringo had played drums?' Imagine how good Gimme Some Truth would be if the bassline and general arrangement had some of that Macca bite to it...think how much more some of the overrated ATMP woulda popped with George Martin overseeing the songs and J&P providing harmonies...
Ah well. They gave what they gave, and it was beautiful.
P. S. She Said She Said is the honorable exception to the 'If it ain't got Paul on it don't bother' rule - and even then I bet he helped arrange it before storming out 🙂
Aw thank you, @wabisabi. As ever, I wish I were a better more insightful writer.
What I love about Beatle Music is something that I don't really have words for -- nor did they; they called it "the middle eight," but it wasn't always that. I call it "the third part." In Beatle Music, in addition to great voices, every song has at least three GREAT parts, each interesting and expansive.
Let's look at "She Said She Said," a perfectly good Beatles song we've all listened to a zillion times, but not one of their absolute classics. If it had been produced by a band from Sheboygan and ended up on Nuggets, it would be a classic, but for The Beatles it's just a tune.
First, it starts off with a great, lacerating guitar riff, and that guitar sound continues throughout the song. Great drumming from Ritchie. You're listening.
Second, Lennon comes in with interesting lyrics, ones we have to decode, and he's got a very interesting voice, as ever.
Then, there's a little bridging part, "I said, 'You don't understand what I said/I said 'No no no you're wrong"
Then what I'd call "the third part": "When I was a boy--everything was right; everything was right...." This is the emotional core of the song; and it's practically another song. You could write another song from the seed of this part, it's so distinct and strong.
The problem with "Now and Then" is Lennon's fundamental post-acid, post-India, post-Yoko, post-Beatles, post-McCartney problem, and it's that he simply *doesn't have enough musical ideas*. And so he can't indulge in the enlivening, energizing juxtaposition that is fundamental to Beatle Music. Lennon Music, when it works, that one piece is so haunting that it sticks with you. "Isolation," for example. But Isolation also has a shitload of energy, and that "third part."
With solo Lennon, it's only when he "sells himself out to write a pop tune" (in his way of thinking about it)--whether that's Instant Karma or Imagine or Whatever Gets You Through the Night or Starting Over. He thinks he's adhering to some meaningless pop convention, when what he's doing is forcing himself back into a format that insists you come up with more than one idea. "Now and Then" is a demo from a burnt-out, anxious dude who doesn't get out much. It's one idea stretched to four minutes. It needs more ENERGY.
1:06-1:34 -- Both musically and lyrically, this is simply too obvious.
"Now and then…I miss you" [FUCK! This is the love of your life? You "miss her" occasionally? Shitty weak lyric that makes no sense and simply restates!]
And Paul's contribution, because he's 81 and doesn't want to step on a dead man's toes, is
"Now and then…I want you to be there for me
Always to return to me"
oh my god.
FUCK! PAUL! You are a BEATLE. Sing BACK at John; give us an image, a story, a strong voice! Don't just give us more of the same! Tell us something about the singer, the situation, the love of his life. What's she like? What's he like? Where is he? Where is she? Why are they apart? What does he want? What does she want?
Then, give us that "third part." Not just a meandering solo.
The problem here is the Dakota-era John is so utterly hollowed out as a human being, so passive, that the entire POV of this demo is…supplication. "If I somehow survive the living hell that is being the most successful songwriter of my generation, with a child, living in exactly the place I want to live, etc etc, it will only because you, Yoko, love me. When you are not isolating the shit out of me." And while that POV may be true to John Lennon in 1977, it's just not interesting enough for a song. N&T's a scrap.
Wistful--but precise--opening lyric. We know exactly who's talking, and we're surprised. ["Yeah I do think you've got it made. But you're AFRAID? Tell me more. Why?"]
GREAT BIT, the yodel--"so laayyyyyyy TION!" [Oh you're isolated! Makes sense.]
Then the "third part" -- angry, full of energy -- "I DONT EXPECT YOU..."
Bonus bit--"vic-tim ofthe in-sannnnnnne" [that's more than we bargained for, a nice little surprise. Thanks, John!]
Interesting lyric; well sung; and many distinct musical parts, each well done. N&T's lyric isn't interesting; it offers no interesting turns of phrase, no vignettes, no characters. The rest of the song builds off of the first bit, which is simply not energetic enough to support that; it needed building out, not worship.
I heard the song and saw the video Peter Jackson made for it this morning. In all honesty, the song is mediocre schmaltz that sounds more like an ELO demo. The weirdness of the video is downright disturbing. It looked like it was trying to appeal to Adderall addicted GenZers as ghosts of the John and George are mixed with their youthful selves to nonsensically jump around the elderly Ringo and Paul. The overall effect makes it painfully obvious that this is a move of desperation to cash in on the tattered remnants of the past.
My reaction on hearing this song was Beatles's songs never ended up sounding like their demos, and the starting point for "Now and Then" is essentially a demo, the vocal of which ain't never gonna change and the piano accompaniment is an exact copy (according to what I've read anyway) of the demo. It may be by 4 Beatles but (for me) by no stretch of the imagination is this a "Beatles" song.
Well put. Also, I think I owe you a belated thank you to introducing me to "The Rutles" in the post about mockumentaries several weeks (months?) back. I was always aware of the movie, but for some reason never sought it out until I read that post (despite being a big Beatles fan since at least high school.) If I only knew what I had been missing
In the course of that ill-fated Beatle Noir novel, I wrote an unsolicited email to Neil Innes, asking if there were any unreleased Rutles tracks I could incorporate into my comic novel, as inside jokes. He never responded--why would he?--but it was a fun thought.
At one time I considered writing an entire skeleton key to the novel, it was so crammed with references, allusions, and Beatle inside jokes, but then grew too ill. Now, I suspect I've forgotten most of them!
I think there'd be a robust market for a book called something like "Start to Make it Better: What the Beatles Teach Us About the Creative Process."
I, too, find the new song underwhelming. This is a great explanation of why. But the good news for me is the belated discovery of Hey Dullblog, which I will now race to consume before it someday fades away. And I second Tim Harrod's idea about a book.
Oh @Greg, you will love Dullblog. It's a real haven for a certain kind of fan. There's a Greatest Hits post, where you can access some of our favorites. Devin McKinney's post on Diz Gillespie is particularly great.
I was a bit underwhelmed, too, and I think it was because if George had been involved in the final product, he would have pushed for some kind of recognizable riff on the piano or guitar to open the song. And the guitar solo would have had more life to it. It is a bit haunting in a way. But what if they had tried it more uptempo and bouncy, like “Thank You Girl” or “I’m Happy Just to Dance with You?” Some new Beatles is better than no new Beatles, I guess. But if the song doesn’t grab you as much as even their lesser songs on their studio albums, why mess with the legacy?
I have now listened to the song a few times and I have watched the official video four or five times. The video makes the song better, and after a few listens I realize I do like the song. If you haven't seen the official video, look for it on YouTube. There is creative use of AI and John is very goofy. At the end, they go back in time and it is very good.
The problem with demos is that by definition they are scraps—not finished songs. One of the clear takeaways of Get Back! is that one can see the that the scraps that go into the collective grinder often diverge wildly once they make it into album fodder. I honestly like the melody and idea of Now and Then. I just don’t think there’s quite enough meat in the casing. For that requires the headbanging destructive give and take Northern Songs in particular had been long noted. That dynamic is obviously missing posthumously. But then, folks, after all, McCartney is no longer in his prime, and Ringo is simply too ready steady to rock the boat. Those uncomfortable truths aside, they’re the fucking Beatles, dammit! I’d happily listen to their flatulence without too much complaint.
Yes, this is the nubbin of my complaint--there's just not enough in the original demo of "Now & Then" to make a proper song without big contributions from Paul. And if THAT's what's necessary--and if you're also using AI to pick out Lennon's voice and strengthen it--there are a lot of other scraps on that Dakota Beatle Demos CD to make a great piece of a song. I'm sitting here listening to "Gone From This Place" and "Across the River" and thinking both have much more pep than "Now and Then."
I’m intrigued! Also, why exactly is this the LAST Beatles song? No explanation. I’ll believe it when I see it. 🤷🏻
What did you think of the orchestrated version of Grow Old With Me? It's the only one of his "produced" demos I truely like. Otherwise I prefer them undercooked, as they were.
That song is much, much too connected with the grief of that time for me to enjoy it, regardless of form.
But yeah, I prefer them undercooked, too. I generally DON'T like solo Lennon, as I said many times on Dullblog, but I do like his Dakota demos.
Great post Mike - as usual, you're not content to repeat some cliché like "ineffable Beatle magic" and leave it at that, instead trying to get at *why* and *how* their music seems magic. I sort of agree and disagree with you at the same time - basically, I disagree on the specific song while agreeing with the broader point. To me, NAT fails because Paul changed the original too *much*. For starters he removed the only truly interesting part of the song, the bridge, with all its beautifully bizzare ahead-of-their-time only-John-could-do-this chord sequences. He also took the wistful melancholia of the feel and grafted his trademark Macca bounce onto it, creating this weird Frankenstein that fails to be satisfyingly happy or sad. It's just sorta there.
Where we're totally in agreement is that the Beatles, together, would have made something really good out of this. They pulled off the happy-and-sad-at-once trick countless times as a team, often implausibly (Misery, You Won't See Me, you already mentioned Getting Better). And if they'd tried out NAT in a room together, John would've insisted on keeping the weird chords and Paul would have insisted on making the thing cohere and move more, and you would have gotten another I Am the Walrus. Well OK, the song was never gonna be that good, but you know what I mean.
How many times have I heard Maybe I'm Amazed and thought 'This would be as famous as Let It Be if it had been produced properly, taken slower and Ringo had played drums?' Imagine how good Gimme Some Truth would be if the bassline and general arrangement had some of that Macca bite to it...think how much more some of the overrated ATMP woulda popped with George Martin overseeing the songs and J&P providing harmonies...
Ah well. They gave what they gave, and it was beautiful.
P. S. She Said She Said is the honorable exception to the 'If it ain't got Paul on it don't bother' rule - and even then I bet he helped arrange it before storming out 🙂
Aw thank you, @wabisabi. As ever, I wish I were a better more insightful writer.
What I love about Beatle Music is something that I don't really have words for -- nor did they; they called it "the middle eight," but it wasn't always that. I call it "the third part." In Beatle Music, in addition to great voices, every song has at least three GREAT parts, each interesting and expansive.
Let's look at "She Said She Said," a perfectly good Beatles song we've all listened to a zillion times, but not one of their absolute classics. If it had been produced by a band from Sheboygan and ended up on Nuggets, it would be a classic, but for The Beatles it's just a tune.
First, it starts off with a great, lacerating guitar riff, and that guitar sound continues throughout the song. Great drumming from Ritchie. You're listening.
Second, Lennon comes in with interesting lyrics, ones we have to decode, and he's got a very interesting voice, as ever.
Then, there's a little bridging part, "I said, 'You don't understand what I said/I said 'No no no you're wrong"
Then what I'd call "the third part": "When I was a boy--everything was right; everything was right...." This is the emotional core of the song; and it's practically another song. You could write another song from the seed of this part, it's so distinct and strong.
The problem with "Now and Then" is Lennon's fundamental post-acid, post-India, post-Yoko, post-Beatles, post-McCartney problem, and it's that he simply *doesn't have enough musical ideas*. And so he can't indulge in the enlivening, energizing juxtaposition that is fundamental to Beatle Music. Lennon Music, when it works, that one piece is so haunting that it sticks with you. "Isolation," for example. But Isolation also has a shitload of energy, and that "third part."
With solo Lennon, it's only when he "sells himself out to write a pop tune" (in his way of thinking about it)--whether that's Instant Karma or Imagine or Whatever Gets You Through the Night or Starting Over. He thinks he's adhering to some meaningless pop convention, when what he's doing is forcing himself back into a format that insists you come up with more than one idea. "Now and Then" is a demo from a burnt-out, anxious dude who doesn't get out much. It's one idea stretched to four minutes. It needs more ENERGY.
We'll use this video as a guide and I tell you exactly where I wanted more--where N&T quailed at the jump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDQ6kFxIgg
1:06-1:34 -- Both musically and lyrically, this is simply too obvious.
"Now and then…I miss you" [FUCK! This is the love of your life? You "miss her" occasionally? Shitty weak lyric that makes no sense and simply restates!]
And Paul's contribution, because he's 81 and doesn't want to step on a dead man's toes, is
"Now and then…I want you to be there for me
Always to return to me"
oh my god.
FUCK! PAUL! You are a BEATLE. Sing BACK at John; give us an image, a story, a strong voice! Don't just give us more of the same! Tell us something about the singer, the situation, the love of his life. What's she like? What's he like? Where is he? Where is she? Why are they apart? What does he want? What does she want?
Then, give us that "third part." Not just a meandering solo.
The problem here is the Dakota-era John is so utterly hollowed out as a human being, so passive, that the entire POV of this demo is…supplication. "If I somehow survive the living hell that is being the most successful songwriter of my generation, with a child, living in exactly the place I want to live, etc etc, it will only because you, Yoko, love me. When you are not isolating the shit out of me." And while that POV may be true to John Lennon in 1977, it's just not interesting enough for a song. N&T's a scrap.
Go listen to Isolation, that's how to do it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8lOLNfnCBg
Wistful--but precise--opening lyric. We know exactly who's talking, and we're surprised. ["Yeah I do think you've got it made. But you're AFRAID? Tell me more. Why?"]
GREAT BIT, the yodel--"so laayyyyyyy TION!" [Oh you're isolated! Makes sense.]
Then the "third part" -- angry, full of energy -- "I DONT EXPECT YOU..."
Bonus bit--"vic-tim ofthe in-sannnnnnne" [that's more than we bargained for, a nice little surprise. Thanks, John!]
Interesting lyric; well sung; and many distinct musical parts, each well done. N&T's lyric isn't interesting; it offers no interesting turns of phrase, no vignettes, no characters. The rest of the song builds off of the first bit, which is simply not energetic enough to support that; it needed building out, not worship.
Does this make more sense?
Sorry everybody, I'm Dullblogging again. :-)
I heard the song and saw the video Peter Jackson made for it this morning. In all honesty, the song is mediocre schmaltz that sounds more like an ELO demo. The weirdness of the video is downright disturbing. It looked like it was trying to appeal to Adderall addicted GenZers as ghosts of the John and George are mixed with their youthful selves to nonsensically jump around the elderly Ringo and Paul. The overall effect makes it painfully obvious that this is a move of desperation to cash in on the tattered remnants of the past.
After Paul and Ringo die, the heirs will sell Apple lock stock and barrel to Disney, and...I don't know what will happen after that.
"Carnival of Light" maybe?
Eek. Thank god I listen mainly to Garage rock. There's no profit in it for corporate vampires like Disney.
My reaction on hearing this song was Beatles's songs never ended up sounding like their demos, and the starting point for "Now and Then" is essentially a demo, the vocal of which ain't never gonna change and the piano accompaniment is an exact copy (according to what I've read anyway) of the demo. It may be by 4 Beatles but (for me) by no stretch of the imagination is this a "Beatles" song.
"Now and Then" is roughly as close to a finished Beatles song as this demo is to "Hey Bulldog."
https://youtu.be/2DFnIeT38kk?si=FQdRMiU-z3QkpfbK
Correct. Soup to nuts correct. Impressed.
Well put. Also, I think I owe you a belated thank you to introducing me to "The Rutles" in the post about mockumentaries several weeks (months?) back. I was always aware of the movie, but for some reason never sought it out until I read that post (despite being a big Beatles fan since at least high school.) If I only knew what I had been missing
In the course of that ill-fated Beatle Noir novel, I wrote an unsolicited email to Neil Innes, asking if there were any unreleased Rutles tracks I could incorporate into my comic novel, as inside jokes. He never responded--why would he?--but it was a fun thought.
At one time I considered writing an entire skeleton key to the novel, it was so crammed with references, allusions, and Beatle inside jokes, but then grew too ill. Now, I suspect I've forgotten most of them!
Rutles forever. :-)
Innes was a great one, and his fans need to know that all 18 episodes of "The Innes Book of Records" are on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU3UM0vJUAY&list=PLXTC3ILMsCEhwF1wUuPqQXK2WfmZ17IA7
Innes, the best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMCpYXyEPN0
Anytime I can hear the four of them playing together (even with AI help), it's a win for me.
This is probably the most sensible opinion one could have. ;-)