Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log Insp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Should "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" count as canon Beatles Songs?
5 October 2015
10.02pm
Avatar
trcanberra
Oz
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 6064
Member Since:
29 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ahhh Girl said
My answer to the question is still, “No they *shouldn’t*.” They are add-ons, curosities, footnotes…not the core/the main text.

Dozens of famous bands have these sorts of “curiosities” and they are usually considered “core” – what makes The Beatles different?

Examples include The Rolling Stones, Queen. AC/DC, Genesis and the list goes on.

==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==

6 October 2015
5.06am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 12534
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

@Wigwam makes an interesting argument, however it is contradictory.

He points to how certain teachings of the church have changed over the centuries (to varying degrees in different branches of the faith), and posits this supports his and others arguments that things can change.

Whilst undoubtedly true, but it has nothing to do with the Christian canon other than the arguments it can and can’t be used to uphold. The Christian canon used by the majority of Christian churches remains the same as it ever was, the same twenty-seven books that were agreed upon and were collated at the New Testament in the 4th and 5th centuries AD are the same twenty-seven books that make up the New Testament.

These “lost gospels” and early writings are better known now, as the church is no longer in the all-powerful position of being able to suppress them, but not one of the major branches of Christianity have argued that any of them should now be considered “canon” and added to the New Testament.

Wigwam makes the argument that the changes in the teachings of various branches of Christianity show a facility for change, and that this somehow relates to the “canon”. It palpably doesn’t as the “canon” remains identical to the one agreed around fifteen-hundred years ago. The lessons to be taken from the “canon” may have changed over those fifteen-hundred as society and understanding have changed, but the text, the Christian “canon”, remains the twenty-seven books agreed upon at a Synod all those years ago. Only the interpretation of that “canon” has changed.

Exactly the same can be said of The Beatles’ “canon”, that the opinions on, and understanding of, has changed over the years, but that the recordings that make up that “canon” are (in the opinion of many) unchanged by any of the post-1970 releases.

Wigwam says to look to the teachings of the Christian churches and how they have changed, while I say look at the texts considered “canon” and see how they remain exactly the same.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

6 October 2015
5.19am
Avatar
trcanberra
Oz
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 6064
Member Since:
29 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
123sp_Permalink sp_Print

^ A wonderful discussion – and like any analogy (see my Pet Peeve) it completely distracts attention from the arbitrary arguments used by many of the supporters of this supposed canon.

Which basically boils down to “I and some of my mates decided these are in and these are out based on an arbitrary set of rules”.

Rather than the, to me, much more logical – “these items are released on the official label and have The Beatles attributed as the artists”.

==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==

6 October 2015
6.28am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 12534
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
124sp_Permalink sp_Print

But who decides what is arbitrary?

To my mind it is arbitrary to consider a song they rejected, such as If You’ve Got Trouble , or them goofing around in the studio, such as Step Inside Love/Los Paranoias, or the many songs taped only for the BBC, should be approached as if they are no different to those recordings that made up the albums, singles and EPs they released while they were an active band.

Should the rejected early take of Norwegian Wood  on Anthology, for instance, be viewed in the same way as the approved master on Rubber Soul ? Obviously, in my opinion, not. I love the rejected take, I often marvel at how they could record such a wonderful version and then reject it, scrap it, rearrange it, believing they could do it better. Should an abandoned work be viewed in the same way as the one they decided they’d got right? Nice as it is to have the alternate version, only the version they considered the version is “canon”, “core catalogue”, or whatever other term you use, so far as I’m concerned.

You suggest that our approach is arbitrary, @trcanberra, even though it follows a set inviolable rule that has left the canon unchanged since May 1970, whereas you have a fluid view which I view as much more arbitrary. What is logical, for instance, based on your statement above, about the Polydor (not their “official” label) Ain’t She Sweet , available legally for decades before it appeared on an album (Anthology 1 ) on the official album? On the bare bones of your statement, it only became “canon” when it was released on Anthology. In my world it remains non-canon.

Another example, based on your definition as stated above, the once legal Star Club recordings remain non-canon for both of us. Were the upcoming Live project to include any of it on any soundtrack, would whatever tracks they chose to include suddenly become “canon”? To me they wouldn’t. A release on Apple wouldn’t have any impact on the rule I use to define the “canon”, yet your definition seems to suggest you make any of the Star Club recordings issued suddenly “canon”.

Which is more “arbitrary”? A canon that follows a clear set of rules, or one that suggests that legally-available recordings, even hits under their name (Ain’t She Sweet  was a minor hit when released as a single in the UK and US in 1964), do not become “canon” until they feature on an EMI/Apple release? That seems incredibly arbitrary to me.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

6 October 2015
6.30am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1913
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
125sp_Permalink sp_Print

Nasty says:

“Wigwam says to look to the teachings of the Christian churches and how they have changed, while I say look at the texts considered “canon” and see how they remain exactly the same.”

 

They remain the same even though many of the views contained within them are no longer considered to be …..er……..gospel.

By the way I love your use of the word ‘palpably’ 

6 October 2015
6.38am
Avatar
trcanberra
Oz
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 6064
Member Since:
29 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
126sp_Permalink sp_Print

“Which is more “arbitrary”? A canon that follows a clear set of rules, or one that suggests that legally-available recordings, even hits under their name (Ain’t She Sweet was a minor hit when released as a single in the UK and US in 1964), do not become “canon” until they feature on an EMI/Apple release? That seems incredibly arbitrary to me.”

If it was legal on release then it’s canon – easy. You are stretching your case beyond breaking point. The “clear set of rules” is severely flawed as it is dealing poorly with new releases across the years – the fact that you consider it inviolable is proof of that.

Anyway. The discussion has gone around in circles enough for me – like any religious debate between belief and evidence. Nice discussion but I’m out of it for another six months or so. Let me know if I break my rule.

The following people thank trcanberra for this post:

Wigwam

==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==

6 October 2015
7.25am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 12534
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
127sp_Permalink sp_Print

@trcanberra said
Rather than the, to me, much more logical – “these items are released on the official label and have The Beatles attributed as the artists”.

I don’t believe I stretched it at all. I merely responded to what you said was your view, and pointed to the contradictions in it.

I am still not sure what your rule is, or even if you have one.

I would point again to the Star Club recordings. The Beatles totally objected to their release, taking it so far as the High Court, where they lost, making them legally available against The Beatles wishes. Twenty years later they took it back to the High Court, where they won, and the releases were deemed illegal.

So, are they canon against The Beatles because they were legally available for twenty years, or are they non-canon because they finally got them banned? And now we are seeing releases of things that have fallen out of copyright (there have been two legal releases of EMI outtakes, BBC recordings, etc., that they object to but haven’t been able to stop), are you suggesting that The Beatles themselves no longer matter when it comes to what is and isn’t viewed as “canon”?

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

6 October 2015
7.30am
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 16105
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
128sp_Permalink sp_Print

Nasty says:

“Wigwam says to look to the teachings of the Christian churches and how they have changed, while I say look at the texts considered “canon” and see how they remain exactly the same.”

I don’t think any of the things in the Leviticus are considered canon by Christian. When I talk to Christians about the laws in the Leviticus they say “that’s old testament, that doesn’t count” so canon has changed since the way Christians look at the Bible has changed.

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

6 October 2015
7.47am
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 12534
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
129sp_Permalink sp_Print

Afraid not, @Starr Shine?. The Old Testament is, pretty much, the Jewish teachings, while the New Testament is the Christian. The early founders of the Christian church merely chose not to wholly reject the Jewish teachings, but they immediately said the New Testament was the important one.

And, again, even if the teachings and understanding of both canons (Old and New Testament) have changed along with society, that does not change the contents of the canon. Get hold of a thousand year old Bible and one printed yesterday, while the language (translation) may be different, the contents are identical.

You have to remember that the Christian tradition is based, largely, on a rejection of the Jewish tradition.

Time for a bacon sandwich, I think!

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

6 October 2015
8.36am
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Thankfully not where I am.
Moderator
Members

Reviewers


Moderators
Forum Posts: 24944
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Annadog40 said

Nasty says:

“Wigwam says to look to the teachings of the Christian churches and how they have changed, while I say look at the texts considered “canon” and see how they remain exactly the same.”

I don’t think any of the things in the Leviticus are considered canon by Christian. When I talk to Christians about the laws in the Leviticus they say “that’s old testament, that doesn’t count” so canon has changed since the way Christians look at the Bible has changed.

Christian believe that Jesus did not nullify all the of the Old Testament laws but fullfilled them (or most of them). For a Christian there is much still to be learnt from the OT. Leviticus is every bit as relevant for a Christian as John, Mark, Acts etc; they are all viewed as the word of God .

The Old Testament teachings is basically about how man (meaning all humans) can cleanse his life and live so (s)he is pleasing to God ; the New Testament is how every effort to do so still fell short so Christ had to come and die.

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)

6 October 2015
10.39am
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1913
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
131sp_Permalink sp_Print

I’m sorry I started this up again………….

No one has changed or will change their stance………We’re wasting more effort than Ricky Martin’s girlfriend.

 

Fun though………Until someone brought religion into it.

6 October 2015
12.00pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Thankfully not where I am.
Moderator
Members

Reviewers


Moderators
Forum Posts: 24944
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Wigwam said
I’m sorry I started this up again………….

No one has changed or will change their stance………We’re wasting more effort than Ricky Martin’s girlfriend.

 

Fun though………Until someone brought religion into it.

Here is some Calvin and Hobbes to lighten the thread

ch120914.gifImage Enlarger

The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:

Beatlebug, Wigwam

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)

6 October 2015
6.21pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1913
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
133sp_Permalink sp_Print

I’ve been having fun in this thread and shall resurrect it in around April.

I shall leave you hanging until then. 

6 October 2015
6.49pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 12534
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
134sp_Permalink sp_Print

I always enjoy this thread when it crops up.

Though always passionately argued, it is (nearly) always respectful and I believe both sides understand each other’s arguments to a degree. It’s good to see it remain a discussion and not drop into the disrespect seen in other threads.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

Starr Shine?, Bongo

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

6 October 2015
9.23pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1913
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
135sp_Permalink sp_Print

Ron Nasty said
I always enjoy this thread when it crops up.

Though always passionately argued, it is (nearly) always respectful and I believe both sides understand each other’s arguments to a degree. It’s good to see it remain a discussion and not drop into the disrespect seen in other threads.

That’s palpably true……….

 

 

 

Love that word.

8 October 2015
6.17am
Avatar
PokerMan
Junior's Farm
The Kaiserkeller
Members
Forum Posts: 51
Member Since:
15 May 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
136sp_Permalink sp_Print

Free As A Bird ” and “Real Love ” do count as Beatles songs, but they do belong as part of the essential catalog, much like the rest of Anthology as well as Live at the Hollywood Bowl and Live At The BBC .

8 October 2015
8.19am
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 22198
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
137sp_Permalink sp_Print

^ Did you you mean to write “…but they do not belong as part…”? That makes more sense since you used the conjunction “but”.

8 October 2015
8.21pm
Wigwam
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1913
Member Since:
17 October 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Last night on my android tv box I came across Mr Blue Sky a film about Jeff Lynne……

It was very well done……..Of course it went through Idle Race…..ELO and the Wilburies but almost a quarter of it was devoted to his work producing FAAB and RL.

The love and care and sense of history. The fun he had listening to Paul,George and Ringo pal-up again. The place of honour of John’s vocal to be reverently treated and so on…..Paul and Ringo chip in throughout. As does Dani and Olivier………But it was Olivier that said it best…..Along the lines of: ‘if they were not completely happy with what they’d done they’d never have released it.’

 

I can see the argument it sits outside……..But for me……well you know. 

 

Anyway if you get a chance to watch this you’ll enjoy it.

The following people thank Wigwam for this post:

Beatlebug
13 October 2015
4.29pm
Avatar
Zig
The Toppermost of the Poppermost
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 9832
Member Since:
14 April 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
139sp_Permalink sp_Print

Wigwam said

Last night on my android tv box I came across Mr Blue Sky a film about Jeff Lynne……

[Snippety snappety snoop]

I saw that @Wigwam – on the Palladia network I believe. When I recorded it, I thought I would enjoy it. It was better than I had hoped. He is one talented S.O.B.

To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.

13 October 2015
10.46pm
Avatar
Into the Sky with Diamonds
New York
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1979
Member Since:
10 August 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
140sp_Permalink sp_Print

Since the word ‘canon’ seems problematic, why not just do away with it?

In sports, if there’s a statistic that everyone argues about, it gets an asterisk. Everybody then knows that it’s subject to debate. Period.

We can simply say that we’re evaluating songs recorded by the Beatles in the studio from 1962 through 1969 in their officially released form.

The advantage of that is that we can compare our poll with that of others.

But of course, we’re not bound by any rules. We can also decide to include all Beatle recordings regardless of when, where or how they were made as long as they were released under the “Beatles” name. Of course, the list becomes much longer. (And I think that’s the plan for the next poll, no?)

So there. No canon.

The following people thank Into the Sky with Diamonds for this post:

Zig, Starr Shine?, Mademoiselle Kitty >^..^<

"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)

Forum Timezone: Europe/London
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 1
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 16105
Ron Nasty: 12534
Zig: 9832
50yearslate: 8759
Necko: 8043
AppleScruffJunior: 7583
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6402
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 88
Members: 2857
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 5508
Posts: 380272
Newest Members:
jsullivan2112_1, catadorademusica, Slowhand, mirrortime, Julie
Moderators: Joe: 5690, meanmistermustard: 24944, Ahhh Girl: 22198, Beatlebug: 18181, The Hole Got Fixed: 8410
Administrators: Joe: 5690