Peter Jackson: In 1969 that film had a quite chunky, grainy desaturated look to it. One of the purposes was to try to restore it sort of making it look as natural as possible. Suddenly the colors were just unbelievable. People say, ‘So how did you do all those colors?’ And I’m saying, we didn’t do the colors, they were there.

It was very,very,very good! I enjoyed all of it.

Poplife88 said:

MickyDolenz said:

Paul & John did try to record some songs in the early 1970s. Stevie Wonder & Linda McCartney are on it too. Nothing became of it because John & Harry Nilsson were too high or drunk. This was during the period John & Yoko were separated and he was with girlfriend May Pang. The songs came out on a bootleg called Toot & Snore In '74.

There's a song John released called How Do You Sleep (about Paul's adult contemporary hits), which has George & Ringo playing on it. Paul replied with Silly Love Songs. George once said in the 1970s that he would be in a band with John & Ringo, but not with Paul.

I never heard about them recording in 74. That's interesting...esp with Stevie Wonder being involved.

Paul actually started the whole song feud thing with Too Many People on Ram (You took your lucky break and broke it in two...). Then John responded, of course being way more direct, on How Do You Sleep? which George contributed slide guitar on (Ringo wasn't involved on that song). Then Paul responded one more time with Silly Love Songs. But like all close friends they all got over it and moved on. Who knows what would've happened if John wasn't killed.

Lennon was producing the Harry Nilsson album so he was already there at the sessions and Paul and Linda dropped in and played on it. Paul was on drums and vocals and Lennon guitar and vocals, Ringo was playing with Nilsson but he was not there for this session and rumor is complained that Paul always messes up my drum kit. So despite this bitterness and money fights and petty things, they still goofed off a lot. And again I think people still forget how young these guys were when the arguments started or at least the strain started.

lastdecember said:

Poplife88 said:

I never heard about them recording in 74. That's interesting...esp with Stevie Wonder being involved.

Paul actually started the whole song feud thing with Too Many People on Ram (You took your lucky break and broke it in two...). Then John responded, of course being way more direct, on How Do You Sleep? which George contributed slide guitar on (Ringo wasn't involved on that song). Then Paul responded one more time with Silly Love Songs. But like all close friends they all got over it and moved on. Who knows what would've happened if John wasn't killed.

Lennon was producing the Harry Nilsson album so he was already there at the sessions and Paul and Linda dropped in and played on it. Paul was on drums and vocals and Lennon guitar and vocals, Ringo was playing with Nilsson but he was not there for this session and rumor is complained that Paul always messes up my drum kit. So despite this bitterness and money fights and petty things, they still goofed off a lot. And again I think people still forget how young these guys were when the arguments started or at least the strain started.

Exactly.

They were hardly in their mid twenties when 'The Beatles' actually were 'over' in their own minds. Though Paul wanted to keep it going. And still they had two albums to be released.

And it is now known that 'The White Album' was a hard nut to crack for all four.

Don't forget that they were pushed and shoved by a very young record industry too.

They were kind of burned out when they really became serious as a band.

But when it came to agree on ideas they obviously stood in eachother's way, being so young.

Plus the lack of a mature approach.

But once they had it going, they were the fierce guys they've always been.

Vannormal said:

lastdecember said:

Lennon was producing the Harry Nilsson album so he was already there at the sessions and Paul and Linda dropped in and played on it. Paul was on drums and vocals and Lennon guitar and vocals, Ringo was playing with Nilsson but he was not there for this session and rumor is complained that Paul always messes up my drum kit. So despite this bitterness and money fights and petty things, they still goofed off a lot. And again I think people still forget how young these guys were when the arguments started or at least the strain started.

Exactly.

They were hardly in their mid twenties when 'The Beatles' actually were 'over' in their own minds. Though Paul wanted to keep it going. And still they had two albums to be released.

And it is now known that 'The White Album' was a hard nut to crack for all four.

Don't forget that they were pushed and shoved by a very young record industry too.

They were kind of burned out when they really became serious as a band.

But when it came to agree on ideas they obviously stood in eachother's way, being so young.

Plus the lack of a mature approach.

But once they had it going, they were the fierce guys they've always been.

and also though people hate when it's said, artists were a lot more talented because of the limitations they had to do creative things, it forced them to grow. If they wanted something it was there at their fingertips or just by clicking on a mouse or pressing a button, they had to play it or learn to play it. If an artist today wants a new sound or instrument they download a file or press a button or alter their voice with auto tune, I mean come on there is no comparison to what you could do when you actually don't have it there to do it, and you have to think or learn that's how you grow. At one point the Beatles had four albums in one year, Help, Yesterday and Today, Rubber Soul and Revolver I mean we are lucky today if an artist can have four songs in a year.

lastdecember said:

At one point the Beatles had four albums in one year, Help, Yesterday and Today, Rubber Soul and Revolver I mean we are lucky today if an artist can have four songs in a year.

Why would someone put out 4 albums a year today when they don't sell much? You can't compare today to the 1960s. There's more competition for entertainment today than there was back then. There were only 3 major networks (in the USA), plus PBS and a few local UHF channels. There was no home video, video games, internet, cell phones, etc. They had board games and some had a pinball machine (if they had room for it). The multiple albums in a year were not unique to The Beatles, that was a common practice of that era. James Brown had released 9 or 10 albums in a 2 year period in the late 1960s.

Anyway the multiple albums a year (in some cases with additional non-album singles) was mostly phased out in the mid 1970s when labels came up with the blockbuster album that they would milk for 1-2 years like with Boston, Fleetwood Mac, Saturday Night Fever, etc. Even more so with the huge success of Thriller in the early 1980s. Thriller & Bad are pretty much Greatest Hits albums.

MickyDolenz said:

Peter Jackson: In 1969 that film had a quite chunky, grainy desaturated look to it. One of the purposes was to try to restore it sort of making it look as natural as possible. Suddenly the colors were just unbelievable. People say, ‘So how did you do all those colors?’ And I’m saying, we didn’t do the colors, they were there.

I believe it. It was very true to every still photograph I have seen from that era of the men, studio and wardrobe.

Cinny said:

I believe it. It was very true to every still photograph I have seen from that era of the men, studio and wardrobe.

I don't recall any photos of them where they look like video game characters. I've seen on another site that said Peter Jackson does not like grain. Which is kinda implied in the statement, where he mentions the original was "grainy". It's film, it's supposed to look like that. It was originally shot for a TV special (like Magical Mystery Tour) and was later decided to make Let It Be a theatrical movie. That's why most of it was shot in 16mm. Theatrical movies of the time are usually 35mm or higher, unless it is really low budget. 16 is usually going to be grainier. Restoring film does not mean taking out the grain, it's supposed to remove scratches & other types of damage or fixing the color if it's faded or turned green or something. It's an expensive & time consuming process. Something filmed or edited on videotape can't really be restored or made into HD or 4K. As far as desaturation, that seems to be more common with British filmed stuff. Although Hollywood started to do that more in the 1970s.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

At one point the Beatles had four albums in one year, Help, Yesterday and Today, Rubber Soul and Revolver I mean we are lucky today if an artist can have four songs in a year.

Why would someone put out 4 albums a year today when they don't sell much? You can't compare today to the 1960s. There's more competition for entertainment today than there was back then. There were only 3 major networks (in the USA), plus PBS and a few local UHF channels. There was no home video, video games, internet, cell phones, etc. They had board games and some had a pinball machine (if they had room for it). The multiple albums in a year were not unique to The Beatles, that was a common practice of that era. James Brown had released 9 or 10 albums in a 2 year period in the late 1960s.

Anyway the multiple albums a year (in some cases with additional non-album singles) was mostly phased out in the mid 1970s when labels came up with the blockbuster album that they would milk for 1-2 years like with Boston, Fleetwood Mac, Saturday Night Fever, etc. Even more so with the huge success of Thriller in the early 1980s. Thriller & Bad are pretty much Greatest Hits albums.

not the point I'm not comparing eras, I'm talking about you get better at what you do by doing it, that's very simple and that's not defined to an era and that's not a comparison. Why do sports teams practice? To get better and beat the other team, one team doesn't say we will practice once a week and everyone else practices everyday and then wonder why they lose. Also multiple albums was not unique to the Beatles and I never said it was, take Princes comments early on when he said artists got better because they challenged each other every month James had something then someone else had to outdo that. I get that music doesn't sell, and that's why artists don't make it, but don't tell me someone cutting a single once every six months is on par with having to write 20-30 songs a year and record them and play them live. I don't compare the eras but I also don't accept the old ass argument of there's crap in every era blah blah blah and therefore everything is equal, sorry doesn't work.

lastdecember said:

I get that music doesn't sell, and that's why artists don't make it, but don't tell me someone cutting a single once every six months is on par with having to write 20-30 songs a year and record them and play them live.

Most acts back then didn't write songs. The Supremes didn't write anything, they had songs writen for them by the Motown staff writers like HDH and they also remade songs by other non-Motown acts. Having albums with cover songs was the usual thing of that era. In other cases a single became a big hit and an album was quickly recorded to capitalize on it like The Twist by Chubby Checker. Many of those doo-wop acts & girl groups didn't even have albums, they had singles contracts. The same song could become a hit for multiple acts around the same time period, like I Heard It Through The Grapevine by Marvin Gaye & Gladys Knight And The Pips. The CCR version was popular too. That won't happen today.

The average concert was shorter than the ones today. The Beatles only had a 25 minute show (which couldn't be heard because of the screaming girls and the technology of the time ) and other acts were on package shows like those tours Dick Clark had or The Motortown Revue. Each act would perform 3 or 4 songs, usually whatever was the current hit was. At places like the Apollo Theater, acts might have 3-5 separate performances in one day.

lastdecember said:

Vannormal said:

Exactly.

They were hardly in their mid twenties when 'The Beatles' actually were 'over' in their own minds. Though Paul wanted to keep it going. And still they had two albums to be released.

And it is now known that 'The White Album' was a hard nut to crack for all four.

Don't forget that they were pushed and shoved by a very young record industry too.

They were kind of burned out when they really became serious as a band.

But when it came to agree on ideas they obviously stood in eachother's way, being so young.

Plus the lack of a mature approach.

But once they had it going, they were the fierce guys they've always been.

and also though people hate when it's said, artists were a lot more talented because of the limitations they had to do creative things, it forced them to grow. If they wanted something it was there at their fingertips or just by clicking on a mouse or pressing a button, they had to play it or learn to play it. If an artist today wants a new sound or instrument they download a file or press a button or alter their voice with auto tune, I mean come on there is no comparison to what you could do when you actually don't have it there to do it, and you have to think or learn that's how you grow. At one point the Beatles had four albums in one year, Help, Yesterday and Today, Rubber Soul and Revolver I mean we are lucky today if an artist can have four songs in a year.

Fully agree on it all !

Well said.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

At one point the Beatles had four albums in one year, Help, Yesterday and Today, Rubber Soul and Revolver I mean we are lucky today if an artist can have four songs in a year.

Why would someone put out 4 albums a year today when they don't sell much? You can't compare today to the 1960s. There's more competition for entertainment today than there was back then. There were only 3 major networks (in the USA), plus PBS and a few local UHF channels. There was no home video, video games, internet, cell phones, etc. They had board games and some had a pinball machine (if they had room for it). The multiple albums in a year were not unique to The Beatles, that was a common practice of that era. James Brown had released 9 or 10 albums in a 2 year period in the late 1960s.

Anyway the multiple albums a year (in some cases with additional non-album singles) was mostly phased out in the mid 1970s when labels came up with the blockbuster album that they would milk for 1-2 years like with Boston, Fleetwood Mac, Saturday Night Fever, etc. Even more so with the huge success of Thriller in the early 1980s. Thriller & Bad are pretty much Greatest Hits albums.

I agree on how you see it (too).

-.

But Last december pointed out that being creative then, had a complete different search than it is today.

On every phone, every computere, there is a program where you can make basic music without even know how to make or play an instrument.

And with some luck, you push a button and you go 'that's it'.

Nothing more than an 'aha-erlebnis'.

Creativity had as different meaning now. Originality too.

But not it is less of quality or output. Just different.

MickyDolenz said:

lastdecember said:

I get that music doesn't sell, and that's why artists don't make it, but don't tell me someone cutting a single once every six months is on par with having to write 20-30 songs a year and record them and play them live.

Most acts back then didn't write songs. The Supremes didn't write anything, they had songs writen for them by the Motown staff writers like HDH and they also remade songs by other non-Motown acts. Having albums with cover songs was the usual thing of that era. In other cases a single became a big hit and an album was quickly recorded to capitalize on it like The Twist by Chubby Checker. Many of those doo-wop acts & girl groups didn't even have albums, they had singles contracts. The same song could become a hit for multiple acts around the same time period, like I Heard It Through The Grapevine by Marvin Gaye & Gladys Knight And The Pips. The CCR version was popular too. That won't happen today.

The average concert was shorter than the ones today. The Beatles only had a 25 minute show (which couldn't be heard because of the screaming girls and the technology of the time ) and other acts were on package shows like those tours Dick Clark had or The Motortown Revue. Each act would perform 3 or 4 songs, usually whatever was the current hit was. At places like the Apollo Theater, acts might have 3-5 separate performances in one day.

Well most artists today rarely even tour even before COVID, some consider tours five shows. That is the difference in artists and musicians to just straight out performers. YES Many motown acts did write the songs, they were performers, Whitney Houston never wrote a song, most of her hits were forgotten songs of other artists and she put her twist on it, which makes her a performer, same can be said of Sinatra and Mathis etc....But they still got better at the craft of performing and singing because they constantly had to do it. Shows were shorter but also back then there were a lot of shows you went on and performed on to. But the reason people like Stevie Wonder Prince, Bowie, Elton got better was because they kept doing it, thats how you improve and try things and grow as an artist, also the limitations that had forced them to try and create new ways. If you cant sing now, wait a minute click the mouse press the button and now you can sing. Now thats not all, but that is many especially in the mainstream which is why you look at some of the album nominees this year for a grammy, and you see someone Like Justin Beiber had almost 100 people listed to make that album, from writers to producers, if it takes 100 people to write a song like Peaches that is beyond sad

Watched the first hour. WOW.

Just hearing Paul sing "The Mighty Quinn" for a few seconds was so cool. I love the restoration of the video. Its crystal clear and even if a little photoshopped made me feel like it was shot damn near today.

As well just letting them speak without cut ins was like being at the rehearsals yourself...a fly on the wall. Down to hearing them talk about why The Beach Boys gets 8 tracks to record and they only get 4. "Well, Beach Boys are from the USA...so". Paul was looking like...

[Edited 12/9/21 8:12am]

MickyDolenz said:

Cinny said:

I believe it. It was very true to every still photograph I have seen from that era of the men, studio and wardrobe.

I don't recall any photos of them where they look like video game characters. I've seen on another site that said Peter Jackson does not like grain. Which is kinda implied in the statement, where he mentions the original was "grainy". It's film, it's supposed to look like that. It was originally shot for a TV special (like Magical Mystery Tour) and was later decided to make Let It Be a theatrical movie. That's why most of it was shot in 16mm. Theatrical movies of the time are usually 35mm or higher, unless it is really low budget. 16 is usually going to be grainier. Restoring film does not mean taking out the grain, it's supposed to remove scratches & other types of damage or fixing the color if it's faded or turned green or something. It's an expensive & time consuming process. Something filmed or edited on videotape can't really be restored or made into HD or 4K. As far as desaturation, that seems to be more common with British filmed stuff. Although Hollywood started to do that more in the 1970s.

The colours were correct in the end.