The Beatles - Now and Then ("final" song)

Iguana

Iguana

If I only could...
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
35,575
Location
Between war and denial
I think it's really good :o



The Beatles have released what is being described as their final new song together, entitled Now and Then.

It completes a series of Lennon-penned songs handed in demo form to Paul McCartney in 1994 by Yoko Ono, with “For Paul” written on the cassette. McCartney and the remaining Beatles created two new songs from the recordings, Free As a Bird and Real Love – each was a Top 5 hit in the UK, with Free As a Bird reaching No 2 in December 1995 and Real Love at No 4 in March 1996.

But the band struggled to complete a song from the demo of Now and Then, and abandoned their attempt. Now, enabled by AI technology that has better isolated John Lennon’s vocal from the demo, the song has finally been completed. McCartney and Ringo Starr recorded new parts for it, while the late George Harrison features via guitar parts kept from that shelved 1995 session.

www.google.com

Now and Then: listen to the ‘final’ Beatles song

Fab Four are reunited on track that pieces together performances by the late John Lennon and George Harrison with fresh recordings by Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr
www.google.com www.google.com
 
Oh that's quite lovely. Interesting story behind it, and the fans seems happy. Well done, The Beatles.
 
I've never been a HUGE Beatles fan despite loving guitar music, don't hate them, just didn't get OBSESE at any point.

It's a nice enough tune that sounds like The Beatles. Don't really need to hear Craig Charles play it all fucking afternoon though.
 
I had a massive Beatles phase from about 1993 until the Anthology quenched my thirst and then Britpop spoiled it with a pile of shonky knock-offs. I ended up buying most of the 2009 remasters and adding bits and pieces hither and thither when the prices came down. I think they achieved a remarkable amount in such a short period as a recording band (only 7 years) and I still love them.
 
God, The One Show didn’t half go OTT yesterday with their ridiculous Beatles love-in. I don’t mind hearing stories from people who were there at the time. But going on about how special they were to the country because some disabled kid got named Jude after the song, as some kind of barometer of importance is a bit weird. I’m sure there are humans all over the country named after hundreds of famous songs. What’s so special about this one?

And as much as I like Lauren Laverne, you weren’t born. Just cos your mum was a fan, it doesn’t make your “close personal connection” to their history relevant in any way whatsoever.
 
I love The Beatles but it’s a recent discovery really. I always thought they were shite and a student wank fest band. I managed to get all their albums on vinyl in a load of records I bought dirt cheap and the rest is history. Definitely a band I’ve loved discovering.
 
Sheena said:
I love The Beatles but it’s a recent discovery really. I always thought they were shite and a student wank fest band. I managed to get all their albums on vinyl in a load of records I bought dirt cheap and the rest is history. Definitely a band I’ve loved discovering.
Click to expand...

This is me. Plus I rebelled about growing up surrounding by them thinking it was a Liverpool thing, only to discover the fandom was just as rabid elsewhere, and even moreso in places like the US and Japan. Their US sales are, quite franky, insane

I've loved discovering them in recent years. I even find myself having nostalgia for their early stuff because I heard so much of their big early pop hits growing up. Their second half era is leagues and leagues better, and I actively seek some of their stuff out now, rather than just put up with hearing them on the radio.

The new one is OK. Might take a couple of listens.
 
#1 on iTunes and YouTube Worldwide

I'm not sure how @lolly gets his lists but it's #1 in a gazillion countries including UK, US, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Africa...
 
 
It’s really interesting that a song by old men can get exposure like this and yet the misogyny of the industry means much more youth- aimed records by younger “old” women don’t get afforded the same luxury.
 
Sheena said:
It’s really interesting that a song by old men can get exposure like this and yet the misogyny of the industry means much more youth- aimed records by younger “old” women don’t get afforded the same luxury.
Click to expand...
Would this if it were newly recorded and more youth aimed though? Or would people point and laugh at "Bitch, I'm the Beatles".
 
  • Like
Reactions: GNL
Tisch said:
Would this if it were newly recorded and more youth aimed though? Or would people point and laugh at "Bitch, I'm the Beatles".
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of Kylie. It wasn’t like Padam Padam was embarrassing or out of sync with what societal expectation of what she “should” be doing at her age.
 
I think The Beatles have a very particular place in Britain's post WWII culture, one that none of their peers have, even the Rolling Stones. Part of that place was created by the death of John Lennon and, of course, the way he died. It made them permanently unreachable, set them in stone.

Of course, people don't like full-stops and the fantasy of 'one last Beatles song' has been played out time and time again with reunion claims in the 70s, excavations from recording sessions, the BBC recordings being salvaged from off-air tapes, people begging for a complete fuck-about called Carnival Of Light that George Harrison refused to allow daylight...the peak was the Anthology, of course but watching fans going wild for scraps on the box sets and remixes has bordered on the unedifying.

It feels as if this was an itch McCartney had to scratch. He wanted this finished and was narked when it was vetoed in '95. He's 81, I'm happy to let him have it.
 
Not heard it yet. I'm not purposely avoiding it, but I may try a Whamageddon style thing with it.
 
I wouldn't worry, it's tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers. It'll be old news and stale buns by Sunday, if that.
 
This is rather nice.

However, I see they want twenty five pounds for each double revised red and blue CD, and SEVENTY FIVE for the triple vinyls. Fleecing I say.
 
octophone said:
I think The Beatles have a very particular place in Britain's post WWII culture, one that none of their peers have, even the Rolling Stones. Part of that place was created by the death of John Lennon and, of course, the way he died. It made them permanently unreachable, set them in stone.

Of course, people don't like full-stops and the fantasy of 'one last Beatles song' has been played out time and time again with reunion claims in the 70s, excavations from recording sessions, the BBC recordings being salvaged from off-air tapes, people begging for a complete fuck-about called Carnival Of Light that George Harrison refused to allow daylight...the peak was the Anthology, of course but watching fans going wild for scraps on the box sets and remixes has bordered on the unedifying.

It feels as if this was an itch McCartney had to scratch. He wanted this finished and was narked when it was vetoed in '95. He's 81, I'm happy to let him have it.
Click to expand...
I agree and I would say are Nirvana parallels here for the 90s generation
 
Definitely see the Nirvana parallels, albeit on a much smaller scale.

This came up in pub conversation not long ago, but for all the wealth of solo icons that America has given us from Elvis onwards, they have seemingly never given us a band close to the same level as the Beatles in terms of impact, influence, sales and legacy. Not one! All of the megabands that come close - Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Queen, The Who - are British.

Metallica and Nirvana are/were very genre specific. Aerosmith didn't have the same critical love, Guns n Roses likewise and seemingly lasted 5 minutes. ACDC and U2.... not American. Fleetwood Mac, mostly British, doesn't count.

Nothing post-Nirvana even qualifies because megabands just don't exist anymore. Maybe Coldplay, and they're British! Still not in the same league though.

The only ones I could think of are The Eagles and The Beach Boys, but they had something Beatles didn't have to worry about - diminishing returns. In fact on that note maybe it's the Rolling Stones that deserve the greatest credit, for being able to remain relevant for 60 years, even if they did have patchy periods (who doesn't)...
 
Do they have a physical single? They've opened on Spotify with 2m+ streams which is pretty incredible for a 60s act... and considering their downloads will be Kylie levels of topsided.
 
Loads of them, but only 3 will be Chart eligible

4 different coloured 7" singles, 2 (red and black) 12" singles, a black 10" single, a CD and a cassette
 
I've just noticed they charted on THIS week's chart at #42 from a few hours' worth of sales and streams on Thursday??

Not the downloads chart, the official chart, where so many current artists struggle to chart at all

That's crazy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom