My thoughts before watching the movie:
*This movie gives him more fame, which is supposedly one of the reasons why he did what he did in the first place, and I obviously don't approve. Why are they giving him more fame? That's what he allegedly wanted.
*Not only are they giving him fame, but they're turning him into a star...like they're glamorizing him and what he did! Are they going to be inaccurate? Are they going to alter the truth to make things better for the movie?
*Why are they glamorizing the event by making a movie about it? What are the intentions behind this?
*It's inspired by a book I haven't read. Is the book accurate? Is the book on John's side? What does this mean for the movie's accuracy and stance?
*I can't judge the movie until I've watched the movie, so it's about time I just do it since it came on television.
***
My thoughts after watching the movie:
*I'm glad that it wasn't a biography of the murderer's life. It's only about his trip to New York. Even though his life story may be important to "understanding what he did," there's still no real understanding of what he did...and plus, making it a biography would have been the way to make him a star. The movie's just about the event and it doesn't exactly take sides. It's just there to show the event and that's that.
*There were many details I didn't know about one way or the other. I don't know if they're true or false. In order to make a movie, I assume they have to make up some fiction to fill in the gaps that no one knows, and that's a problem for someone like me who would appreciate being able to see any kind of truth-based movie and know that everything is fact. I don't think that's ever happened and unfortunately it's probably not even possible...which makes making movies based on truth so tricky.
*They did an excellent job capturing his thought process, I think. They clearly portray how he was at war with himself, very confused, and not in a stable mindset. They don't just make him out to be some purely bad guy with no thoughts, feelings, or hesitations.
***
As much as I want to have a firm opinion, I can't. I know he loved John. I know he was not in a correct state of mind when he did it. I know that he's supposedly sorry. I know that I definitely don't want to see him ever be released, of course! I know that it's an important story, so making a movie about it could just be for educational purposes and/or to show what happened. I don't know what to think. I think they did a good job from what I can tell, but I still feel weird about approving the existence of a movie about this event. It's not as though I can actually "LIKE" it or "ENJOY" it, you know? I want to hear your thoughts, everyone!
07 November, 2010
10 October, 2010
John's Last Autograph
There's been a recent debate over what should be done with John's last autograph. The problem is, as special as it may be, it played a huge role in his death. Should it be destroyed? Should it be sold? Should it be in a museum? Should it remain wherever it currently is? Should they do something else with it?
It's his very last autograph. I can't imagine destroying anything John-related, but especially something as sacred as his last autograph...but who did he sign it for? Who owned that album that got signed? What happened later that day? There's a very ugly connection between the tragedy of John's murder and that darn autograph. It's not just an autograph. It represents something horrific.
I'm going to do something I don't often do and share some opinions of mine to inspire thought:
If it's sold, someone is making money off John's murder. NO!
If it's destroyed, something very precious [the fact that it is John's autograph] and historically significant [though it's significant in a bad way] is gone. That's way too permanent of a decision too. NO.
If it's displayed in a museum, it may or may not be sold...which goes back to the money-making point. Even if it's donated, though, it's kind of disturbing that people would stare at that album with some kind of admiration or interest. It's something so important AND so horrible, I don't know if that people being interested in paying it a visit is a good thing or not! If I knew that it was on display at a museum nearby, would I go see it? I really am not even sure. It's so tricky, being something both so important and horrible. The bottom line is that, if it's on display, it's giving his murderer the fame he wanted. For that reason, NO!
If it's locked away out of sight until the end of time, does that really do anything? It may be in existence that way, but it almost might as well be destroyed...well, not really, but close. Ehh...no.
Would it do any good to take it on tour with people who speak about gun safety or something kind of anti-violence? Would people looking at that album before their eyes create so much reality and sympathy about the situation that it would make a difference? I don't know. It would still be giving the murderer fame, but for a good cause. Ehh...I don't know.
There's been talk about just giving it to Yoko/his children/family, but I doubt they would want that hanging around. No.
CAN ANYONE THINK OF A GOOD IDEA!? I can't.
It's his very last autograph. I can't imagine destroying anything John-related, but especially something as sacred as his last autograph...but who did he sign it for? Who owned that album that got signed? What happened later that day? There's a very ugly connection between the tragedy of John's murder and that darn autograph. It's not just an autograph. It represents something horrific.
I'm going to do something I don't often do and share some opinions of mine to inspire thought:
If it's sold, someone is making money off John's murder. NO!
If it's destroyed, something very precious [the fact that it is John's autograph] and historically significant [though it's significant in a bad way] is gone. That's way too permanent of a decision too. NO.
If it's displayed in a museum, it may or may not be sold...which goes back to the money-making point. Even if it's donated, though, it's kind of disturbing that people would stare at that album with some kind of admiration or interest. It's something so important AND so horrible, I don't know if that people being interested in paying it a visit is a good thing or not! If I knew that it was on display at a museum nearby, would I go see it? I really am not even sure. It's so tricky, being something both so important and horrible. The bottom line is that, if it's on display, it's giving his murderer the fame he wanted. For that reason, NO!
If it's locked away out of sight until the end of time, does that really do anything? It may be in existence that way, but it almost might as well be destroyed...well, not really, but close. Ehh...no.
Would it do any good to take it on tour with people who speak about gun safety or something kind of anti-violence? Would people looking at that album before their eyes create so much reality and sympathy about the situation that it would make a difference? I don't know. It would still be giving the murderer fame, but for a good cause. Ehh...I don't know.
There's been talk about just giving it to Yoko/his children/family, but I doubt they would want that hanging around. No.
CAN ANYONE THINK OF A GOOD IDEA!? I can't.
18 September, 2010
Re-Released...& Re-Released
I want to know how everyone feels about remastering, reissuing, re-releasing, etc...
I own vinyl. I own 8-tracks. I own cassettes. I own CDs. I own MP3s. That's one issue, but another issue is when bigger and better versions of the same medium comes out. John is coming out remastered this year, which many feel is overdue. However, it seems like only yesterday that the 25th anniversary of "Band On The Run" was released. In November, "BOTR" is coming out AGAIN. I assume that means the 3rd generation CD version of this album. Also, why would they want to remaster the Red Album & Blue Album when it's only a greatest hits series and their entire catalogue was redone and re-released only last year?
The Beatles' complete catalogue was a pretty big deal being remastered and released on 09.09.09 in the eyes of most people because we hadn't got them out on CD since CDs were a brand new medium! There's also a particularly big difference! Their solo work already had improved technology than The Beatles' music first did, so it will never be quite as critical.
There are many people who buy every new release. There are some who stick to only vinyl and older mediums they prefer. There are some who are willing to buy CDs or the latest medium but not every few years when it's been redone and improved. What do you think? Does it always make a huge difference? Are you okay with buying the same thing over and over? Do you think it's only to make more money off of us dedicated fanatics that are willing to buy the same thing repeatedly? Do you think they should keep releasing everything as technology continues to improve?
I can easily see both sides of the situation. How about you?
I own vinyl. I own 8-tracks. I own cassettes. I own CDs. I own MP3s. That's one issue, but another issue is when bigger and better versions of the same medium comes out. John is coming out remastered this year, which many feel is overdue. However, it seems like only yesterday that the 25th anniversary of "Band On The Run" was released. In November, "BOTR" is coming out AGAIN. I assume that means the 3rd generation CD version of this album. Also, why would they want to remaster the Red Album & Blue Album when it's only a greatest hits series and their entire catalogue was redone and re-released only last year?
The Beatles' complete catalogue was a pretty big deal being remastered and released on 09.09.09 in the eyes of most people because we hadn't got them out on CD since CDs were a brand new medium! There's also a particularly big difference! Their solo work already had improved technology than The Beatles' music first did, so it will never be quite as critical.
There are many people who buy every new release. There are some who stick to only vinyl and older mediums they prefer. There are some who are willing to buy CDs or the latest medium but not every few years when it's been redone and improved. What do you think? Does it always make a huge difference? Are you okay with buying the same thing over and over? Do you think it's only to make more money off of us dedicated fanatics that are willing to buy the same thing repeatedly? Do you think they should keep releasing everything as technology continues to improve?
I can easily see both sides of the situation. How about you?
04 August, 2010
Beatles Trivial Deception
Please read my previous blog entry regarding Beatles Trivial Pursuit here: http://beatlenut9.blogspot.com/2009/12/beatles-trivial-pursuit.html
Okay...unfortunately, I've probably played this game around only ten times. Yes, I'm depressed about that too! Well, I reported to friends back in December [which is when I finally got the game] that I had found a mistake regarding the song "Jet." It says that it was about a dog, but three summers ago in Las Vegas, I heard Denny Laine address this common myth at Beatlefest. It was about a HORSE. As brilliant as Bruce Spizer is, Denny would know. He was right there...in the band...when it all happened. He was directly involved with Paul and the song! I'm sure he even KNEW the horse!
Well...today I did something I've always said I wouldn't do. I've been reading the playing cards from the game for fun. I never wanted to before because I knew it would give me an even bigger advantage over people I play with than there usually already is. The thing is, I've not played the game since 28 January! [Don't ask me how I remember the date, but I DO!] My "sod it" attitude is coming out now since I never get to play the game anyway. I might as well still enjoy it alone by reading some trivia, right?
I've found another mistake...and like I said, I've only played the game maybe ten little times! [That means there's probably loads of mistakes, then!] This one is just RIDICULOUS too. It wouldn't require any real research or anything! You could figure out how wrong this one is within ten seconds spent on Google, seriously! I'm dying to know who edited this game...and how many things I've learned wrong because I didn't know the information before and assumed the game is correct! ACK! The game mentions that the lads recorded THREE songs with "honey" in the title. The answer is: Honey Don't / Honey Pie / Wild Honey Pie
WHAT ABOUT "A TASTE OF HONEY?" They didn't leave it out because they didn't write it because "Honey Don't" is a Perkins song. Plus, the question clearly asks for the three songs they RECORDED...and they definitely recorded "A Taste Of Honey." I'm baffled, disappointed, and frustrated. I should have been the bloody editor, hahaha! I bow down to Bruce Spizer, his incredible work, and his incredible knowledge...but who was the fool that checked for mistakes? Something that simple is unforgivable, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, though...I still can't help but adore the game.
Okay...unfortunately, I've probably played this game around only ten times. Yes, I'm depressed about that too! Well, I reported to friends back in December [which is when I finally got the game] that I had found a mistake regarding the song "Jet." It says that it was about a dog, but three summers ago in Las Vegas, I heard Denny Laine address this common myth at Beatlefest. It was about a HORSE. As brilliant as Bruce Spizer is, Denny would know. He was right there...in the band...when it all happened. He was directly involved with Paul and the song! I'm sure he even KNEW the horse!
Well...today I did something I've always said I wouldn't do. I've been reading the playing cards from the game for fun. I never wanted to before because I knew it would give me an even bigger advantage over people I play with than there usually already is. The thing is, I've not played the game since 28 January! [Don't ask me how I remember the date, but I DO!] My "sod it" attitude is coming out now since I never get to play the game anyway. I might as well still enjoy it alone by reading some trivia, right?
I've found another mistake...and like I said, I've only played the game maybe ten little times! [That means there's probably loads of mistakes, then!] This one is just RIDICULOUS too. It wouldn't require any real research or anything! You could figure out how wrong this one is within ten seconds spent on Google, seriously! I'm dying to know who edited this game...and how many things I've learned wrong because I didn't know the information before and assumed the game is correct! ACK! The game mentions that the lads recorded THREE songs with "honey" in the title. The answer is: Honey Don't / Honey Pie / Wild Honey Pie
WHAT ABOUT "A TASTE OF HONEY?" They didn't leave it out because they didn't write it because "Honey Don't" is a Perkins song. Plus, the question clearly asks for the three songs they RECORDED...and they definitely recorded "A Taste Of Honey." I'm baffled, disappointed, and frustrated. I should have been the bloody editor, hahaha! I bow down to Bruce Spizer, his incredible work, and his incredible knowledge...but who was the fool that checked for mistakes? Something that simple is unforgivable, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, though...I still can't help but adore the game.
18 July, 2010
Let It Bes
I don't care how many times you've heard "Let It Be." I want you to participate in this little exercise before you move on to the rest of the blog entry:
LISTEN TO EACH FROM 1:50-2:29
Single version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bsv9cSn0_c
Album version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLnUS9QwOh4
Feel free to listen to each of these segments a few times in a row so that you hear both versions very well and then also back-to-back! Now...which segment do you prefer? I'm breaking it down and sharing opinions.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SINGLE:
*The organ is louder, but it's also more straight-forward.
ALBUM:
*The organ is softer, but it echoes more and has a more gospel sound.
SINGLE:
*The tone of the guitar and actual melody go better with the rest of the song, especially the organ, and has more groove.
ALBUM:
*The tone of the guitar and actual melody stand out more and has a sound that comes out of nowhere.
SINGLE:
*It's much more laid back.
ALBUM:
*It's harder and more intense.
I love and adore both versions. I think both serve a very important purpose. I am VERY glad they released both versions. I guess maybe they couldn't decide which one they liked better either! :]
It's impossible to confirm a final decision, but if I had to pick a favorite, I *think* I would overall prefer the album version. The first one fits better, the organ is louder on it, it's more groovy and relaxed...but the album version really rips! It takes you by surprise, evokes more emotion, is both very gospel and hard rock rather than one soft groove. I've chosen this one because it seems to make a bigger impression. I don't know...I could be wrong. Yeah, it is the infamously over-produced work of Phil Spector, but as fantastic as the single is, hearing the album version makes the single version seem a little pale.
I want to hear YOUR thoughts! Go have another listen!
PS: I was familiar with the single version before the album version as a kid, so for me to favor the album version hurts...it's so sentimental to me. I LOVE THEM BOTH SO VERY MUCH! :[
LISTEN TO EACH FROM 1:50-2:29
Single version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bsv9cSn0_c
Album version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLnUS9QwOh4
Feel free to listen to each of these segments a few times in a row so that you hear both versions very well and then also back-to-back! Now...which segment do you prefer? I'm breaking it down and sharing opinions.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SINGLE:
*The organ is louder, but it's also more straight-forward.
ALBUM:
*The organ is softer, but it echoes more and has a more gospel sound.
SINGLE:
*The tone of the guitar and actual melody go better with the rest of the song, especially the organ, and has more groove.
ALBUM:
*The tone of the guitar and actual melody stand out more and has a sound that comes out of nowhere.
SINGLE:
*It's much more laid back.
ALBUM:
*It's harder and more intense.
I love and adore both versions. I think both serve a very important purpose. I am VERY glad they released both versions. I guess maybe they couldn't decide which one they liked better either! :]
It's impossible to confirm a final decision, but if I had to pick a favorite, I *think* I would overall prefer the album version. The first one fits better, the organ is louder on it, it's more groovy and relaxed...but the album version really rips! It takes you by surprise, evokes more emotion, is both very gospel and hard rock rather than one soft groove. I've chosen this one because it seems to make a bigger impression. I don't know...I could be wrong. Yeah, it is the infamously over-produced work of Phil Spector, but as fantastic as the single is, hearing the album version makes the single version seem a little pale.
I want to hear YOUR thoughts! Go have another listen!
PS: I was familiar with the single version before the album version as a kid, so for me to favor the album version hurts...it's so sentimental to me. I LOVE THEM BOTH SO VERY MUCH! :[