This sounds absolutely brilliant; three cheers for Peter Jackson. I was there in 1969 remember; my huge memory of the 60s was how happy and creative we all were, making music, having fun, enjoying ourselves, loving that brilliant decade.

I'm two episodes in and finding it absolutely fascinating. I do like George but his passive-aggressive tendency really does irritate at times. He sits there strumming Dylan songs, and saying they should sing other people's songs 'cos they're better than ours' (meaning Lennon and McCartneys') - then he flounces off. At least after they broke up he got that longed-for creative freedom to write 'Ding Dong,' 'adapt' The Shirelles and hastily re-write an old Ringo song as a 'tribute' to John. He'd hardly played a guitar for over a year because of his Indian interests - by his own admission - and yet he reacted way over the top when McCartney (who in the past was good enough to play the lead solo on such songs as Taxman) tried to push him a bit to do himself justice.

I thought George was actually the best when Solo though John could be brilliant (#9 Dream) and was my friend.

JK2006 wrote:
I thought George was actually the best when Solo though John could be brilliant (#9 Dream) and was my friend.

People say this but surely, aside from the great start with All TThings Must Pass (and even that needed a 'jam' to pad it out), he didn't produce anything like the quality of John or Paul. McCartney's output gets examined according to impossibly high standards, whereas George's seems to just get waved through with a vague appreciation. For all the myth that The Beatles stifled his creativity, most of his albums needed covers to fill up the space (and one album even got rejected by his record company), and who really raved about, say. You, or Faster, or Blood from a Clone, or the awful remake of True Love? There are a few nice ones - Blow Away for example - but he gets as easy a ride as McCartney gets a ridiculously hard one.

George seemed very complicated, but far more neurotic than his 'I'm at peace with the universe' self-image suggested. He did one tour, coudn't cope with being a front man, lost his voice, alienated the press, lectured his own audience and then sneered at McCartney for having successful tours! He put out albums until they failed to sell, then sneered at McCartney for continuing to put out albums that did sell! He sneered at the others for writing 'fruity' songs, but happily put out 'Ding Dong'.

At his best I loved his stuff but he's become the Beatle whom people love to say was the 'really' great one without backing it up by looking at what he actually did.

And look at your own fall-out with him. He was happy to dish it out but couldn't take it.

All true Rick but we all have different musical tastes.

Rick wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I thought George was actually the best when Solo though John could be brilliant (#9 Dream) and was my friend.

People say this but surely, aside from the great start with All TThings Must Pass (and even that needed a 'jam' to pad it out), he didn't produce anything like the quality of John or Paul. McCartney's output gets examined according to impossibly high standards, whereas George's seems to just get waved through with a vague appreciation. For all the myth that The Beatles stifled his creativity, most of his albums needed covers to fill up the space (and one album even got rejected by his record company), and who really raved about, say. You, or Faster, or Blood from a Clone, or the awful remake of True Love? There are a few nice ones - Blow Away for example - but he gets as easy a ride as McCartney gets a ridiculously hard one.

George seemed very complicated, but far more neurotic than his 'I'm at peace with the universe' self-image suggested. He did one tour, coudn't cope with being a front man, lost his voice, alienated the press, lectured his own audience and then sneered at McCartney for having successful tours! He put out albums until they failed to sell, then sneered at McCartney for continuing to put out albums that did sell! He sneered at the others for writing 'fruity' songs, but happily put out 'Ding Dong'.

At his best I loved his stuff but he's become the Beatle whom people love to say was the 'really' great one without backing it up by looking at what he actually did.

And look at your own fall-out with him. He was happy to dish it out but couldn't take it.

I have 3 friends who were on 'Dark Hoarse' tour they went to various concerts. My best friend was Nassau Coliseum afternoon and evening shows. George was very patronising to his fans and one fan yelled back saying "hypocrite" "If you're a Hare Krishna, then give up your hair and music" "We pay for your new car that you crashed."

George apparently skulked and glared back - when Ravi Shankar appeared people were going to the bathroom our outside. Another friend went see George at Philly, Pennsylvania and by the tour was near over, his voice for shot and people booed and guitar playing was way off it was also felt rushed.

I have heard a bootleg and listened to a friend's story when he saw George in Chicago. When Ravi plays on the bootleg you hear people talking and one yells "This sucks" which is picked on the recording. When George did his second set people were saying "This is worse" the latter is not heard on the bootleg but it's apparently what people were saying.

'Crackerjack Palace' is a very corny song.

Beatlesfest is a big event in America however George did take the organisers to court over the use of the name.

Didn't George also bang Ringo's girlfriend or wife ?

Green Man wrote:
Rick wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I thought George was actually the best when Solo though John could be brilliant (#9 Dream) and was my friend.

People say this but surely, aside from the great start with All TThings Must Pass (and even that needed a 'jam' to pad it out), he didn't produce anything like the quality of John or Paul. McCartney's output gets examined according to impossibly high standards, whereas George's seems to just get waved through with a vague appreciation. For all the myth that The Beatles stifled his creativity, most of his albums needed covers to fill up the space (and one album even got rejected by his record company), and who really raved about, say. You, or Faster, or Blood from a Clone, or the awful remake of True Love? There are a few nice ones - Blow Away for example - but he gets as easy a ride as McCartney gets a ridiculously hard one.

George seemed very complicated, but far more neurotic than his 'I'm at peace with the universe' self-image suggested. He did one tour, coudn't cope with being a front man, lost his voice, alienated the press, lectured his own audience and then sneered at McCartney for having successful tours! He put out albums until they failed to sell, then sneered at McCartney for continuing to put out albums that did sell! He sneered at the others for writing 'fruity' songs, but happily put out 'Ding Dong'.

At his best I loved his stuff but he's become the Beatle whom people love to say was the 'really' great one without backing it up by looking at what he actually did.

And look at your own fall-out with him. He was happy to dish it out but couldn't take it.

I have 3 friends who were on 'Dark Hoarse' tour they went to various concerts. My best friend was Nassau Coliseum afternoon and evening shows. George was very patronising to his fans and one fan yelled back saying "hypocrite" "If you're a Hare Krishna, then give up your hair and music" "We pay for your new car that you crashed."

George apparently skulked and glared back - when Ravi Shankar appeared people were going to the bathroom our outside. Another friend went see George at Philly, Pennsylvania and by the tour was near over, his voice for shot and people booed and guitar playing was way off it was also felt rushed.

I have heard a bootleg and listened to a friend's story when he saw George in Chicago. When Ravi plays on the bootleg you hear people talking and one yells "This sucks" which is picked on the recording. When George did his second set people were saying "This is worse" the latter is not heard on the bootleg but it's apparently what people were saying.

'Crackerjack Palace' is a very corny song.

Beatlesfest is a big event in America however George did take the organisers to court over the use of the name.

Didn't George also bang Ringo's girlfriend or wife ?


Yes, Maureen Starkey. Actually, I think the band George had on that tour was fantastic, but Billy Preston held it together rather than George. But even on that later Japan tour he did with Clapton, you can see he just wasn't suited to being the 'lead' figure in a live show. No shame in that, of course. It was just funny how, if the others were better than him at something he'd sneer about the worthlessness of it. And treating everything Dylan did as genius-like whilst dismissing what The Beatles did - that was just silly.

Rick wrote:
Green Man wrote:
Rick wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I thought George was actually the best when Solo though John could be brilliant (#9 Dream) and was my friend.

People say this but surely, aside from the great start with All TThings Must Pass (and even that needed a 'jam' to pad it out), he didn't produce anything like the quality of John or Paul. McCartney's output gets examined according to impossibly high standards, whereas George's seems to just get waved through with a vague appreciation. For all the myth that The Beatles stifled his creativity, most of his albums needed covers to fill up the space (and one album even got rejected by his record company), and who really raved about, say. You, or Faster, or Blood from a Clone, or the awful remake of True Love? There are a few nice ones - Blow Away for example - but he gets as easy a ride as McCartney gets a ridiculously hard one.

George seemed very complicated, but far more neurotic than his 'I'm at peace with the universe' self-image suggested. He did one tour, coudn't cope with being a front man, lost his voice, alienated the press, lectured his own audience and then sneered at McCartney for having successful tours! He put out albums until they failed to sell, then sneered at McCartney for continuing to put out albums that did sell! He sneered at the others for writing 'fruity' songs, but happily put out 'Ding Dong'.

At his best I loved his stuff but he's become the Beatle whom people love to say was the 'really' great one without backing it up by looking at what he actually did.

And look at your own fall-out with him. He was happy to dish it out but couldn't take it.

I have 3 friends who were on 'Dark Hoarse' tour they went to various concerts. My best friend was Nassau Coliseum afternoon and evening shows. George was very patronising to his fans and one fan yelled back saying "hypocrite" "If you're a Hare Krishna, then give up your hair and music" "We pay for your new car that you crashed."

George apparently skulked and glared back - when Ravi Shankar appeared people were going to the bathroom our outside. Another friend went see George at Philly, Pennsylvania and by the tour was near over, his voice for shot and people booed and guitar playing was way off it was also felt rushed.

I have heard a bootleg and listened to a friend's story when he saw George in Chicago. When Ravi plays on the bootleg you hear people talking and one yells "This sucks" which is picked on the recording. When George did his second set people were saying "This is worse" the latter is not heard on the bootleg but it's apparently what people were saying.

'Crackerjack Palace' is a very corny song.

Beatlesfest is a big event in America however George did take the organisers to court over the use of the name.

Didn't George also bang Ringo's girlfriend or wife ?


Yes, Maureen Starkey. Actually, I think the band George had on that tour was fantastic, but Billy Preston held it together rather than George. But even on that later Japan tour he did with Clapton, you can see he just wasn't suited to being the 'lead' figure in a live show. No shame in that, of course. It was just funny how, if the others were better than him at something he'd sneer about the worthlessness of it. And treating everything Dylan did as genius-like whilst dismissing what The Beatles did - that was just silly.

I haven't heard stuff from George's Japan tour so I can't comment. There are bootleg records circulating from the various concerts from his 70's tour but they are expensive, my friends were lucky to know people who had them in stock.


I am not a Beatles fan I have albums by Lennon and the all Harrison stuff. I found Macca music so cold and dreary especially some of the Wings stuff and Ringo's solo music is just bizarre.

I saw Let It Be - on a CED player. Movies played on vinyl format.

The series will be too long for some, but if you're a fan it's absolutely astonishing.

There's a moment where McCartney, fed up after a row, sits playing his bass and suddenly improvises a riff and you realise it's the actual moment when the song 'Get Back' starts being written. You're just there, watching, this incredible moment of creativity.

McCartney's form as a songwriter at that point is just astonishing - he just seems to casually turn up with Get Back, Let It Be, Oh Darling, She Came in through the Bathroom Window, The Long and Winding Road, Another Day, Golden Slumbers - he just keeps them flowing out. Whereas John, on heroin and distracted by Yoko, basically has about four bits and pieces he needs help with.

The there's the moment after George has flounced off, and John hasn't arrived, and Paul sits there, stares into space and then says, 'And then there were two,' and his eyes fill up at the thought of it. Amazing scene.

You also see John come back enthusing about meeting Alan Klein for the first time, and Glyn Johns trying tactfully to suggest that the guy isn't to be trusted, but John not wanting to know.

Then there's the amusing trivia. I particularly enjoyed George (who gets through toast at positively Olympian rates), sitting at the piano working on the lyrics to Old Brown Shoe, suddenly look up and say, 'Mal, are there any good shoe shops around here? Cos I never go in them, but I've just thought I haven't got any black shoes...' Then he goes back to the song.

It's an unmissable series.

I'm looking forward to seeing this series, however I wish that it was edited and shown as a film at the cinema, as was the original intention. Instead the series is behind a paywall, so I will have to subscribe to Disney+ for a month just to watch this.

I haven't really liked Peter Jackson's previous films, mainly because I'm not a fan of fantasy films or stories, however anyone can stitch together lots of unseen footage. I'm just amazed that no one has decided to use this 56 hours of unseen footage anytime in the last 52 years.

robbiex wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing this series, however I wish that it was edited and shown as a film at the cinema, as was the original intention. Instead the series is behind a paywall, so I will have to subscribe to Disney+ for a month just to watch this.

I haven't really liked Peter Jackson's previous films, mainly because I'm not a fan of fantasy films or stories, however anyone can stitch together lots of unseen footage. I'm just amazed that no one has decided to use this 56 hours of unseen footage anytime in the last 52 years.

The concept hasn't wowed me. I saw Eight Days A Week the Beatles documentary from a few years back. I found it a chore to sit through. The Anthology series from the early 90's was good but I had to watch it in segments. I thought Help was the best of their films and it's superb on Blu-Ray.

I am conflicted also, I love George Harrison solo stuff but I don't think I could watch him for hours on end recording and writing demos.

Netflix will be showing the KISS documentary but I would not subscribe to Netflix or any other streaming service. It was good when music documentaries were only released on home media or aired on VH1 (When VH1 was great) as exclusives on a cycle.

I remember seeing the "Let it be" film on bbc2 on a Saturday afternoon about 25 - 30 years ago. I remember finding it a bit boring, seeing lots of clips of the Beatles doing small talk, and finding it bizarre that it was shown on a Saturday afternoon in the days before streaming services or satellite tv. I believe that the new series are outtakes and unseen footage from the "Let it be" film. However, seeing the trailer brings a different perspective on the story with the group enjoying each other's company and still having a lot of chemistry. I guess the passage of time increases the significance of this footage as a historical document. I'm just disappointed that a free-to-air channel wasn't given access to this footage as it is surely a work of historical significance.

robbiex wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing this series, however I wish that it was edited and shown as a film at the cinema, as was the original intention. Instead the series is behind a paywall, so I will have to subscribe to Disney+ for a month just to watch this.



I wouldn't dream of paying these channels for this kind of one-off attraction. It's easy enough to, er, acquire the episodes elsewhere for free.

I'd also recommend the Rick Rubin/McCartney programmes - once you get beyond Rubin's 'just slept in a hedge' look it's a fascinating set of discussions.

Rick wrote:
robbiex wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing this series, however I wish that it was edited and shown as a film at the cinema, as was the original intention. Instead the series is behind a paywall, so I will have to subscribe to Disney+ for a month just to watch this.



I wouldn't dream of paying these channels for this kind of one-off attraction. It's easy enough to, er, acquire the episodes elsewhere for free.

I'd also recommend the Rick Rubin/McCartney programmes - once you get beyond Rubin's 'just slept in a hedge' look it's a fascinating set of discussions.

I'd rather just pay the small fee for a month than get a pirate copy. I'll probably watch it over xmas. I really enjoyed the Paul McCartney inside the songs podcast, which gives a great insight into what several of McCartneys songs were about and why he wrote them. www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09zfgch

robbiex wrote:
I remember seeing the "Let it be" film on bbc2 on a Saturday afternoon about 25 - 30 years ago. I remember finding it a bit boring, seeing lots of clips of the Beatles doing small talk, and finding it bizarre that it was shown on a Saturday afternoon in the days before streaming services or satellite tv. I believe that the new series are outtakes and unseen footage from the "Let it be" film. However, seeing the trailer brings a different perspective on the story with the group enjoying each other's company and still having a lot of chemistry. I guess the passage of time increases the significance of this footage as a historical document. I'm just disappointed that a free-to-air channel wasn't given access to this footage as it is surely a work of historical significance.





The BBC funds are minuscule compared to Disney. Sky could of shown it but with their ad breaks it would be much longer and even worse on USA TV. Also isn't Apple Corp now part of Disney ? I know Disney bought a lot of Fox properties.

I can't mention the content of Get Back because I haven't seen it; I heard about 50 different bootlegs over the years of Let It Be; at my friends house. Many of the bootlegs have recorded conversations that aren't on the Let It Be film.

If Ken Burns did Get Back the film would be even longer, Ken Burns is a master of documentaries.

'adapt' The Shirelles

Which Shirelles adaptation is that?

Finally forked out the £7.99 subscription fee to watch this series. There seems to be nothing else on Disney+ to watch unless you are a child or an infantilized adult (star wars, marvel, etc.). It's an interesting insight into how the Beatles worked, but I couldn't really watch more than 1 hour at a time. The picture quality is superb, it's unbelievable that this was made over 50 years ago. Paul and George seem to do most of the talking, whilst John is much quieter and Ringo barely utters a word, from what I have seen so far.

It would be interesting to see the original "Let it Be" film again, as I haven't seen it for decades. Is it just an edited version of what we are seeing here.

Rumble and Youtube had or have lots of clips.

It dosen't appeal to me in the slightest nor wants to make take out a subscription. I watched Let It Be back in the 80's on a CED at a mates house and found it quite dull. However that's only my opinion.

I thought Eight Days A Week doc was appaling most of the footage was taken from the Anthology tapes in which most Beatles would of seen. Whoopi and Eddie Izzard added nothing to the rockumentary.