MAX W writes...
Yes, definitely. It illustrated how intimately close John and Paul were; how isolated and insecure George clearly felt (not just set against John and Paul, but also against his peers like Clapton) and how much of a junior partner he was considered by the two main songwriters; how surprisingly important and stabilising Ringo was to the whole thing; how absurdly versatile and flawless Paul was creatively and musically; how sweet John was most of the time, in spite of his edgy reputation; how much making each other laugh underpinned the group’s creativity; how un-precious and down-to-earth they all were (most of the time); how they came to life the most when they were performing to an audience; and how little Yoko really had to do with the break-up of the group.
I watched Get Back twice in quick succession when it came out and I’m feeling the need to do so again. Nothing has ever taken us closer to what those guys were really like and why they are still the greatest band in history.
SN REED writes ...
Agree with the majority of takes in the thread: Lennon was not the sarcastic, cutting, snide massive arsehole he was often presented as (at least not with the other Beatles). Along with Ringo, he came across as a thoroughly nice bloke, eager to please and placate and even mediate. He just seemed absolutely chill. Mind you, I suppose heroin will do that.
McCartney was, as the lore has it, clearly ‘the boss’ by 69 but was not overbearing. He looked close to tears at times when his one plain desire to just play with his mates like they used to looked to be derailing.
Harrison was the biggest eye opener for me. All ill-feeling, sourness and strife seemed to emanate from him. I’m not saying I don’t know why: he’d clearly fallen out of love with being a Beatle waaaay more than the other three. He’s brusque to the point of petulance at times. He’s on autodestruct mode almost the whole time. I knew that he’d been wanting more songs per album and a chance to spread his wings as a solo artist but I had no idea he - once the funniest Beatle - had totally lost all sense of humour. There’s an air of arrogance when he sends Mal (I think) out to bring him a selection of shoes to peruse because he wants to buy a new pair. I just found him the least likeable by ‘69 and I now no longer put rifts between McCartney and Lennon, Yoko’s presence in the studio (Linda and loads of others seem to be in and out constantly in Get Back), or McCartney becoming a control freak in pole position as reasons why the Beatles broke up. Reason one is now Harrison.
M MUNSON writes ...
Short answer is ‘yes,’ though for me, it’s about more subtle things, and more sociological things.
First, above all, having this much relatively unfiltered and unscripted material about them, made it even more rivetingly clear to me just how pervasively oppressive and distorting the Beatles fan base has always been. Every tiny flinch, gesture, and casual utterance from any of them has long been pounced on by the most intense fans and self-appointed “Beatles Priesthood,” as though everything any of them did was crafted either by them, or by some unseen “Beatles” spirit.
I saw throughout the hours, how intensely and deeply the non-stop observation and commentary on their lives, infested every moment. That they managed in spite of that, to produce such wonderful art, impressed me about all of them all the more.
The mention I made of “more sociological things” is related to that. Even many the fans who try today to watch this series with sympathy, overlook the fact that they are starting from a mindset that assumes the early promotional version of “the Beatles story,” that of the magically fated brotherhood of mop-top geniuses, was the true back story for these moments.
So many people watched this release, not simply to learn, but to try to confirm or deny which of the various conspiracy-theory-like stories of why the beloved clan broke up, were actually correct.
Was it Bossy Paul?
Was it Drug Addled John?
Was it evil greedy Yoko?
Was it Petulant Resentful Jealous George?
It couldn’t be Third Best Drummer Ringo, could it?
All of those theories of the Beatles demise, assume the same Perfectly Matched And Linked Destiny concept of what the Beatles Once Were. And that, I have long known (my historians training here) was always bollocks.
Now for the more subtle things. I learned only with this release, more of what was actually going on with the Get Back sessions.
There is still more to be discovered, but this release made it more obvious that the Get Back project was never enthusiastically supported by all of them. Harrison was well known to have given up on live performing altogether, as early as 1966, and yet Get Back was very clearly entirely designed to be preparation for a live performance.
All four had become used to studio-only work, for the previous three years, and only Paul appeared to me to have any real enthusiasm for going live again.
I was struck especially, by their surprising lack of resources at that point. Most fans back then, assumed that the four were so insanely wealthy and popular, that they ought to have been able to snap their fingers and get whatever they chanced to desire within moments.
And yet, the horrifying warehouse they were initially set up to try to work in, had lousy sound equipment, no heat, and frankly made no sense at all for the overall plan they supposedly were pursuing.
After struggling there in relative misery for a while, they decided to transfer back to their as yet incomplete Apple Studio, but then too, had to borrow Harrison’s personal recording equipment to get things going.
Thus, the lack of a dedicated business manager (they’d opted to manage themselves, after Epstein died) was tragically apparent.
Another subtle thing I think I saw, that hadn’t occurred to me before watching the entire release, was one significant and ironic negative dynamic that was being played out amongst them.
That is, that it wasn’t Paul being “bossy” that the interactions on that project revealed; it was the fact that while Paul still thought that the way back to the Beatles of old was more playfulness and fun, that George and John, each in different ways of their own, were of the opposite mindset.
George’s offered songs which were rejected, were all very seriously focused, as George himself seemed to be. Only For You Blue was eventually accepted, and wasn’t performed on the roof at the end. Similarly, John offered some very intense songs, such as “Gimme Some Truth,” which again didn’t gain traction with the others.
Most tragically, Paul seemed to try to join John in writing serious commentary material with his early take on the title song, “Get Back” itself; which early on, had lyrics highlighting racial and cultural struggles in Britain between immigrants and local Brits. But Paul rapidly and rather eagerly redirected it into the overall nonsense song that it became.
So it wasn’t just Paul telling George how to play lead that drove George to leave the group, it was the entire apparent lack of purpose of being in the Beatles at all, that got to him.
I got the sense similarly that John’s general reticence wasn’t due to drugs, it was more due to a sense that he was just going along with the Get Back project to mark time, while he struggled to find a greater sense of purpose and value in his life. It was lots of fun to be silly with Paul, but not really rewarding as a primary role to live in overall.
Finally, a few musical things I learned. One was how very important Billy Preston’s input into the songs he played on was, another was how wonderful George could play and contribute to my favorite song from the original Let It Be album: Don’t Let Me Down.
Preston didn’t just serve as a fill-in replacement performing keyboard parts that Paul or George Martin crafted, he put his own very necessary mark on the works he contributed to.
