(SPOILER ALERT - THIS IS GOING TO REALLY GO INTO DETAILS)
I went to see the new Batman movie over the weekend. I wanted to go when it came out, but just never had the opportunity until now. I really ~loved~ "The Dark Knight" (much of the credit goes to Heath Ledger, greatest Joker ever), and wanted to see the "Rise".
Let me start by saying that if you are a Christian Bale Batman series fan, you have to see this one. That said, don't expect it to be as good as "Dark Knight". I blame the writers/directors for that - I thought they really blew it. Here's how it could have been much better:
First, don't use someone with a retread of Sean Connery's voice as Bane. Totally wrong. And I only understood about %80 of his lines. And the excuse they gave for the mouth thing was totally lame. Use a little more imagination, like he's really on the point of dying and feeding him a pcp-type mixture is the only thing that keeps him alive. Also lame, but at least it's better than "gee, he really hurts without it".
A few other issues:
a. Flipping back and forth to the underground prison in a foreign country? What the heck was that? How did they just get back and forth from there at a moments notice? Absolutely bad...
My rewrite: Bane ~builds~ a prison there in Gotham. He built all sorts of everything else underground. And he talk about how there will be courts and trials - a prison seems only natural. Of course he would build it like the one he was in. He traps/throws everyone in there - the police, the rich folks, etc. Much more convenient to have your prison right there where you need it. All of the original prison "shots" would be in history/memory/etc.
b. What was the deal with the Professor? Bane knows him, saves him, he arms the weapon, and then gets killed. Really?
My rewrite: Merge the "professor" character with the "caregiver in prison" character. The Professor serves as a guy that Bane was in prison with originally (which helps explain their connection) and also as the guy who weaponizes the reactor. Instead of being killed, he gets thrown back in prison. He can just tell the world that the weapon ~can't~ be defused - no need to kill him. Then he'd be pissed off at Bane, have more medical and scientific background to heal Bruce, and know the whole backstory to explain the whole thing.
c. "I grew up in the dark." Really? Seemed like there was a whole lot of light in that dark prison where you grew up. Dark - maybe at night, like the rest of the world. Guess there was no such thing as "fire" in that prison, either.
d. Ummm.... there's a rope? I suppose no one ever thought to climb to wherever the rope was anchored? No, why would you do that when you could climb the crumbling walls instead....
e. How does an escaped prisoner in a foreign country with no money - and no money anywhere - get back to Gotham? Sorry, that deserved more than one mention here.
f. "There's only one police in Gotham" - and they are idiots. March down a single street all in one big group? Oh, yeah - that's how the English handled things in the American Revolution. See: Cannon Fodder
g. "Shoot them all"? If she can casually say "Shoot them all" and they shoot them all, why couldn't they just "shoot them all" before?
h The directors really botched the death of Bane. Seriously. If you are going to build this guy up, at least give us the satisfaction of letting us enjoy his finale. How about Catwoman rides up the steps in the tumbler, bursts through the doors, flies across the room mid-air (maybe even in slow motion) and THEN fires the cannon right into the mouthpiece of a shocked looking Bane when he turns her direction, landing then on the remains of his body? That is a finale.
i. I didn't realize that Batman was also clairvoyant. How the heck did he know where to go to find Catwoman every time she got into a fight, or Catwoman after he escaped from the prison, or Catwoman apparently after he bailed from the "bat" towing the bomb, OR... the exact table that Alfred would face when he went off to "have his drink"? Oy.
So many ways to make it better... Doesn't anyone give these guys feedback???
Monday, August 27, 2012
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Which Candidate is Pro-Life?
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/which-presidential-candidate-truly-pro-life
That's about all that needs to be said.
That's about all that needs to be said.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
An independent's cry of sorrow...
Well said words from a good friend:
"As an Independent, it is in my best interest to have two or more parties presenting candidates that are so awesome it's hard to make a decision. The last election didn't have that and neither does this. It's a damned shame, too. It's been an easy choice for me, though I have tried to hold out til the end. I'm not even seeing that option and it saddens me. There are so many positives that could come out of our election at this time. I don't believe they will. And I think that no matter which party wins, the Republican party is going to really lose out in the long run. Their stance toward women's issues and religious intolerance are too divisive and controlling. Maybe a third party will try to rise. I don't know. Sigh.
I know there are friends who will be thrilled with this ticket - and that's great for them. They are certainly entitled to have candidates that they can get behind too.
I try to keep an open mind and do my homework - though I admittedly fail sometimes - to spend as much time as I should. Biden scared me and Palin terrified me. Biden, had experience and to a large degree, managed to keep his mouth shut most of the time. Palin - no such luck - enough said. More than enough was said. Way. More.
I am glad Ryan has some facility with numbers and an interest in the intricacies of policy, but - well. Won't go there. No point. Very tired of the Super PAC and PAC systems, just tired of money running the race on both sides. And I see it getting worse instead of better.
I feel like there's a video game mentality to our elections. I don't see or hear people looking at what benefits our country, so much as who can win, what prize can be obtained, notching a reward, a "What is it gonna get me" mentality. I'm sick of it all the way around. It's getting hard to find someone with a goal of serving the people instead of forcing others to a particular way of thinking - on both sides, btw. Tolerance has really taken a hit. And it's not just at the federal level. The goal of forcing an agenda has overridden service.
There is a part of me that is soooo thrilled to see an election where we have a Mormon candidate running with a Catholic candidate (I've always been a JFK fan by the way), an older candidate (though God knows that's not new, but remains representative) and a candidate of color. That's a HUGE, huge step forward in some ways. Or could be. And yet...I see a poverty of service and tolerance.
Obama is the only one that I see working toward that - even though I don't always agree with him, his administration or party. At least I see an effort being made. A focus toward representing everyone in ways that will give them a better life and better chance instead of a pre-determined religious belief or financially self-serving boost.
Frankly, I can't see any of that from the others, no matter which way I look at it. I have tried to look at it from many different angles and through my friend's eyes.
I don't think they are rotten human beings or anything of the sort. I'd like to think we would get along just fine as human beings. I suspect they try to be good parents and pet owners and responsible partners to their spouses. I just don't think they have the focus on service, tolerance and acceptance that I expect from a civil servant.
I have been leaning toward Obama because I see it from him. Romney's choice of a running mate makes the decision for me. It makes me mourn the lack of centrism that keeps our national cohesion a priority."
"As an Independent, it is in my best interest to have two or more parties presenting candidates that are so awesome it's hard to make a decision. The last election didn't have that and neither does this. It's a damned shame, too. It's been an easy choice for me, though I have tried to hold out til the end. I'm not even seeing that option and it saddens me. There are so many positives that could come out of our election at this time. I don't believe they will. And I think that no matter which party wins, the Republican party is going to really lose out in the long run. Their stance toward women's issues and religious intolerance are too divisive and controlling. Maybe a third party will try to rise. I don't know. Sigh.
I know there are friends who will be thrilled with this ticket - and that's great for them. They are certainly entitled to have candidates that they can get behind too.
I try to keep an open mind and do my homework - though I admittedly fail sometimes - to spend as much time as I should. Biden scared me and Palin terrified me. Biden, had experience and to a large degree, managed to keep his mouth shut most of the time. Palin - no such luck - enough said. More than enough was said. Way. More.
I am glad Ryan has some facility with numbers and an interest in the intricacies of policy, but - well. Won't go there. No point. Very tired of the Super PAC and PAC systems, just tired of money running the race on both sides. And I see it getting worse instead of better.
I feel like there's a video game mentality to our elections. I don't see or hear people looking at what benefits our country, so much as who can win, what prize can be obtained, notching a reward, a "What is it gonna get me" mentality. I'm sick of it all the way around. It's getting hard to find someone with a goal of serving the people instead of forcing others to a particular way of thinking - on both sides, btw. Tolerance has really taken a hit. And it's not just at the federal level. The goal of forcing an agenda has overridden service.
There is a part of me that is soooo thrilled to see an election where we have a Mormon candidate running with a Catholic candidate (I've always been a JFK fan by the way), an older candidate (though God knows that's not new, but remains representative) and a candidate of color. That's a HUGE, huge step forward in some ways. Or could be. And yet...I see a poverty of service and tolerance.
Obama is the only one that I see working toward that - even though I don't always agree with him, his administration or party. At least I see an effort being made. A focus toward representing everyone in ways that will give them a better life and better chance instead of a pre-determined religious belief or financially self-serving boost.
Frankly, I can't see any of that from the others, no matter which way I look at it. I have tried to look at it from many different angles and through my friend's eyes.
I don't think they are rotten human beings or anything of the sort. I'd like to think we would get along just fine as human beings. I suspect they try to be good parents and pet owners and responsible partners to their spouses. I just don't think they have the focus on service, tolerance and acceptance that I expect from a civil servant.
I have been leaning toward Obama because I see it from him. Romney's choice of a running mate makes the decision for me. It makes me mourn the lack of centrism that keeps our national cohesion a priority."
Saturday, July 7, 2012
An alternate universe?
While I don't think that most conservatives believe that black is white, or that up is down, I do think they sometimes stare straight at the truth and see something different:
Free Market: Giving the uninsured taxpayer-funded health care at the emergency room
Socialism: Requiring individuals to be responsible for their own health insurance
http://www.gocomics.com/bensargent/2012/07/06
Free Market: Giving the uninsured taxpayer-funded health care at the emergency room
Socialism: Requiring individuals to be responsible for their own health insurance
http://www.gocomics.com/bensargent/2012/07/06
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Objecting to RomneyCare, pt 5
''No more 'free riding,' if you will, where an individual says: 'I'm not going to pay, even though I can afford it. I'm not going to get insurance, even though I can afford it. I'm instead going to just show up and make the taxpayers pay for me,' " Romney told reporters after a healthcare speech at the John F. Kennedy Library.
Google that, folks.
Also, Romney says that he is against revised health care of the Massachusetts type at the federal level. Then why did he write an editorial article in 2009 encouraging the president to adopt his plan?
Google "romney 2009 usa today op ed" .
Google that, folks.
Also, Romney says that he is against revised health care of the Massachusetts type at the federal level. Then why did he write an editorial article in 2009 encouraging the president to adopt his plan?
Google "romney 2009 usa today op ed" .
Friday, June 29, 2012
Objecting to DoleORomneyCare - pt 4: A New Low
What they're saying isn't the truth, but the fact that they are saying it is...
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/29/508761/conservatives-claim-roberts-upheld-obamacare-because-of-cognitive-problems-due-to-his-epilepsy-medicine/
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/29/508761/conservatives-claim-roberts-upheld-obamacare-because-of-cognitive-problems-due-to-his-epilepsy-medicine/
Objecting to Dolebamacare, pt 3
"With regards to the mandate, the 'Individual Responsibility' program which I proposed, I was very pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the 'personal responsibility' principle. That is essential for bringing health costs down for everyone and getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need. So I was very, very pleased with that development." - Miit Romney, March 2006
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Objecting to Obamacare, pt 2
"In 1993, 23 Republican senators, including then-Minority Leader Robert Dole, cosponsored a bill introduced by Senator John Chafee that sought to achieve universal coverage through a mandate that is, a mandate on individuals to buy insurance." - Just Google the whole quote.
Blame the Democratic-led congress for passing what the Republicans wanted 20 years earlier, but don't blame Obama for the idea...
Maybe we should call it Dolebamacare.
Blame the Democratic-led congress for passing what the Republicans wanted 20 years earlier, but don't blame Obama for the idea...
Maybe we should call it Dolebamacare.
Objecting to Obamacare, pt 1
I'm sure I will come up with other things to say on the subject so I'll call this part 1.
I'm glad they upheld Obamacare. The republicans can object all they want, but this was their idea in the first place. Does anyone even remember the ninety's? And Romney doesn't have a leg to stand on. Screw all his talk about the forefathers, he is the one who put this into Massachusetts. Try to imagine what his response would be if all the sudden the polls said that everyone liked Obamacare. He would take full credit for that faster than he took false credit for saving the auto industry.
As for the decision itself I think the supreme court did exactly the right thing and did it wisely. They had a split decision but not along the same lines as usual. That way they tried to keep the appearance of being a little more nonpartisan. They upheld the idea that the government can make you pay for things that support the greater good. They also called that a tax which is really what it is.
The republicans are going ape over the idea this is an unprecedented tax and government control. If that's the case, what the hell is medicare? If the supreme court had struck down this law, they in essence would have struck down medicare. I think they get that. Smart thing not to go there.
Republicans are little children that like to say "we won so thats the way things are". (See: Wisconsin, or the House). In this case, you lost - suck it up.
I'm glad they upheld Obamacare. The republicans can object all they want, but this was their idea in the first place. Does anyone even remember the ninety's? And Romney doesn't have a leg to stand on. Screw all his talk about the forefathers, he is the one who put this into Massachusetts. Try to imagine what his response would be if all the sudden the polls said that everyone liked Obamacare. He would take full credit for that faster than he took false credit for saving the auto industry.
As for the decision itself I think the supreme court did exactly the right thing and did it wisely. They had a split decision but not along the same lines as usual. That way they tried to keep the appearance of being a little more nonpartisan. They upheld the idea that the government can make you pay for things that support the greater good. They also called that a tax which is really what it is.
The republicans are going ape over the idea this is an unprecedented tax and government control. If that's the case, what the hell is medicare? If the supreme court had struck down this law, they in essence would have struck down medicare. I think they get that. Smart thing not to go there.
Republicans are little children that like to say "we won so thats the way things are". (See: Wisconsin, or the House). In this case, you lost - suck it up.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Liar-in-Chief?
This is not only a blog, it's a well-referenced blog. And damn scary...
http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief?post_gdp=true
http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/2012/jun/21/mendacious-mitt-romney-bid-liar-in-chief?post_gdp=true
Friday, June 22, 2012
A horse is a horse, of course, of course...
unless it's an olympic athlete. Hey, I think that it's cool that the horse can perform. I don't think it's cool that the Romney's can take a SEVENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLAR tax deduction as a "business loss" for owning the horse.
I ~know~ that Ann Romney has used horse riding - don't know if it is ~that~ horse - as a treatment for her MS. Awesome, I'm glad that helps. That is a deduction - medical treatment. I have friends who have done the same. Of course, insurance doesn't cover horse riding, generally, so you have to have some financial dedication to take that on. And I doubt - very, very seriously doubt - that most MS sufferers actually BUY an olympic-trained show horse for their treatment.
That's the kind of thing that, I'd guess, maybe %1 of the people in the country would think of doing.
I ~know~ that Ann Romney has used horse riding - don't know if it is ~that~ horse - as a treatment for her MS. Awesome, I'm glad that helps. That is a deduction - medical treatment. I have friends who have done the same. Of course, insurance doesn't cover horse riding, generally, so you have to have some financial dedication to take that on. And I doubt - very, very seriously doubt - that most MS sufferers actually BUY an olympic-trained show horse for their treatment.
That's the kind of thing that, I'd guess, maybe %1 of the people in the country would think of doing.
Always good to know where people stand
http://money.msn.com/investing/where-companies-stand-on-gay-rights
A few ideas on where I'll be trying not to spend money.
A few ideas on where I'll be trying not to spend money.
What the Hell Is Goin' On
Paul Thorn Band - What the Hell Is Goin' On
A few years ago, my wife wanted to drag me to some dump to see a guy play that I'd never heard of and whose only song she could remember was something about "whup' somebody's ass". Sounded ~real~ pleasant.
Boy, was I in for a surprise.
Not only was it the best concert experience I'd ever had (my apologies for ever disparaging "Knuckleheads" in Kansas City), but I absolutely LOVE the music!
Check this guy out if you have any adventurous spirit left. Hope you love it, too!
A few years ago, my wife wanted to drag me to some dump to see a guy play that I'd never heard of and whose only song she could remember was something about "whup' somebody's ass". Sounded ~real~ pleasant.
Boy, was I in for a surprise.
Not only was it the best concert experience I'd ever had (my apologies for ever disparaging "Knuckleheads" in Kansas City), but I absolutely LOVE the music!
Check this guy out if you have any adventurous spirit left. Hope you love it, too!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Headline: Bush-era agents started "Fast and Furious" technique
What the hell will the Republicans come up with next? Obviously, not the truth. To quote Uncle Jack, they "can't handle the truth". The TRUTH is that the investigative technique of allowing guns to get to bad guys was experimented with at least twice under George Bush. Hello?
So, when a someone like Republican Representative Darrell Issa accuses the White House of intentionally letting the guns go in order to "promote an assault weapons ban", you know that he's completely talking out of his ass. He backs that up by saying "Many think so. And they haven't come up with an explanation that would cause any of us not to agree," I say this:
The ATF agents FUCKED UP. That's the explanation. They thought they were doing something clever, which they had done before under GW, and it didn't work. That's the explanation. Or maybe....
My new theory: The Republicans tipped off the drug cartels to the ATF operation in order to undermine Obama. The plan went bad when border agent Brian Terry was killed, so they had to back off in order to avoid being exposed. Now, enough time has passed for them to cover their tracks, and it's an election year, so they are pulling this back out at this point. I'd believe it, and no one has said that it wasn't a vast Republican conspiracy against Obama, and the Republicans are known for conspiring against Obama, so it must be true. Right?
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Fighting fire...
... with Free Enterprise. Why do we let big government fight fires? They can't do anything right, and why should we all pay for it? Darn Socialist-leaning good for nothings, all those people who let big brother do their firefighting for them! Right, Republicans?
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Just thinking
I downloaded the android app so I could post more stream of consciousness. We'll have to see how much more consciousness I have ...
Saturday, March 31, 2012
The Beatles Best Three: Picking the Impossible
My brother called today for my birthday, and while talking about one of our shared interests, he casually laid down a simple challenge that belies its complexity - "what are your favorite three Beatles songs?"
If someone took you outside to look at a clear night sky, and asked you to pick your three favorite stars from the whole vista, how could you do it? You could at least get a start by identifying the things that aren't stars - the moon, planets, other galaxies. But you'd still have a LOT of stars to choose from.
Ok, so what could I eliminate? When is a Beatles song ~not~ a Beatles song? The only answer I could come up with is when the song is obviously mostly written and reflecting only one of the mop tops. The Beatles were a band, so I tried to focus on my favorite songs that show how great a band they were together.
I can't put these three in a least-to-most favorite order- my head would probably explode trying to come up with that. I will put them, at least, in chronological order, and try to offer some insights into my thinking:
First up, "She Loves You" (yeah, yeah, yeah). Recorded July 1st, 1963 (when I was a wee lad of 3 months old), "She Loves You" was a huge hit in the UK (one of the best selling singles ever). Although it was mostly ignored when initially released in the US, it got its second wind after "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was released, went on to hold the top spot on the US charts, and was one of the songs that set the US record when the Beatles held all five of the top singles spots in April 1964.
I love the way "She Loves You" bucks convention - opening with the chorus, the unorthodox "third party" viewpoint for a love song, and of course, the "yeahs" and "wooo"! Everyone's great on the record, with awesome harmonies and driving rhythm. What puts it over the top for me is the reflected greatness of "the fifth Beatle", George Martin, who helped shape the song to be the hit it was, and helped shape The Beatles to become the legends they are.
Next stop - "Nowhere Man" from the Rubber Soul album. The fabulous three-part harmonies from John, Paul and George, Paul's ever-moving bass guitar, George's tasty guitar accents and solo, and Ringo's more sophisticated rhythms are nothing short of fabulous. The song was also a departure from the love and romance songs written by the group to that point, and set the stage for the more philosophical songs to come. It was a #3 hit in the US in early 1966 (I was almost 3 at that point), and reached #1 in other parts of the globe. "Nowhere Man" is joined on Rubber Soul by many other songs that showed the strength of the band along with their evolving musicality, all of which could fill this spot, but "Nowhere Man" is unique among them.
Since I could only pick 3, and I limited myself to "band" songs, I have to jump right over all the amazing, breathtaking, and revolutionary songs from Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, and (although recorded last but released next to last) Abbey Road. That...is a leap equal to the best Superman would have to offer. On the other hand, it becomes more and more obvious in the music that the band was producing mostly "John songs", "Paul songs", and "George songs" in those years, and biographies, interviews, and the film "Let It Be" backs that up. And so, my final pick is....
"Get Back" from the Let It Be album. One of the 1969 "roof top session" songs, it stands out as one of the last complete original Beatles songs perfected by the entire band working together. Working over two days with Billy Preston on keyboards, the group tightened their ensemble to deliver the driving punchy rocker. "Get Back" was one of only two Beatles singles mixed in what today is considered "true stereo", with Ringo's drum kit spread between both left and right channels. Although the tracks for the Let It Be album (originally titled "Get Back" as well) were recorded prior to the recording of the Abbey Road album, they were abandoned until after Abbey Road had been released, and then pieced together and released around the time the band announced their break up. Regardless of the order of its recording, "Get Back" once again shows the ensemble strength of The Beatles and serves as a fitting end to their final released album.
As honorable mentions, I have to give a shout out to a few "non-band" songs that can't go ignored: "Blackbird" is my favorite Beatles song played for me by my brother Scott, and one of the few I've attempted to play myself. Of the "solo" songs, I also have to give a nod to "Yesterday", "Revolution", "Something", "Octopus's Garden", "A Day in the Life", and of course "Golden Slumbers"/"Carry That Weight"/"The End", delivering the fitting epitaph, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
If someone took you outside to look at a clear night sky, and asked you to pick your three favorite stars from the whole vista, how could you do it? You could at least get a start by identifying the things that aren't stars - the moon, planets, other galaxies. But you'd still have a LOT of stars to choose from.
Ok, so what could I eliminate? When is a Beatles song ~not~ a Beatles song? The only answer I could come up with is when the song is obviously mostly written and reflecting only one of the mop tops. The Beatles were a band, so I tried to focus on my favorite songs that show how great a band they were together.
I can't put these three in a least-to-most favorite order- my head would probably explode trying to come up with that. I will put them, at least, in chronological order, and try to offer some insights into my thinking:
First up, "She Loves You" (yeah, yeah, yeah). Recorded July 1st, 1963 (when I was a wee lad of 3 months old), "She Loves You" was a huge hit in the UK (one of the best selling singles ever). Although it was mostly ignored when initially released in the US, it got its second wind after "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was released, went on to hold the top spot on the US charts, and was one of the songs that set the US record when the Beatles held all five of the top singles spots in April 1964.
I love the way "She Loves You" bucks convention - opening with the chorus, the unorthodox "third party" viewpoint for a love song, and of course, the "yeahs" and "wooo"! Everyone's great on the record, with awesome harmonies and driving rhythm. What puts it over the top for me is the reflected greatness of "the fifth Beatle", George Martin, who helped shape the song to be the hit it was, and helped shape The Beatles to become the legends they are.
Next stop - "Nowhere Man" from the Rubber Soul album. The fabulous three-part harmonies from John, Paul and George, Paul's ever-moving bass guitar, George's tasty guitar accents and solo, and Ringo's more sophisticated rhythms are nothing short of fabulous. The song was also a departure from the love and romance songs written by the group to that point, and set the stage for the more philosophical songs to come. It was a #3 hit in the US in early 1966 (I was almost 3 at that point), and reached #1 in other parts of the globe. "Nowhere Man" is joined on Rubber Soul by many other songs that showed the strength of the band along with their evolving musicality, all of which could fill this spot, but "Nowhere Man" is unique among them.
Since I could only pick 3, and I limited myself to "band" songs, I have to jump right over all the amazing, breathtaking, and revolutionary songs from Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, and (although recorded last but released next to last) Abbey Road. That...is a leap equal to the best Superman would have to offer. On the other hand, it becomes more and more obvious in the music that the band was producing mostly "John songs", "Paul songs", and "George songs" in those years, and biographies, interviews, and the film "Let It Be" backs that up. And so, my final pick is....
"Get Back" from the Let It Be album. One of the 1969 "roof top session" songs, it stands out as one of the last complete original Beatles songs perfected by the entire band working together. Working over two days with Billy Preston on keyboards, the group tightened their ensemble to deliver the driving punchy rocker. "Get Back" was one of only two Beatles singles mixed in what today is considered "true stereo", with Ringo's drum kit spread between both left and right channels. Although the tracks for the Let It Be album (originally titled "Get Back" as well) were recorded prior to the recording of the Abbey Road album, they were abandoned until after Abbey Road had been released, and then pieced together and released around the time the band announced their break up. Regardless of the order of its recording, "Get Back" once again shows the ensemble strength of The Beatles and serves as a fitting end to their final released album.
As honorable mentions, I have to give a shout out to a few "non-band" songs that can't go ignored: "Blackbird" is my favorite Beatles song played for me by my brother Scott, and one of the few I've attempted to play myself. Of the "solo" songs, I also have to give a nod to "Yesterday", "Revolution", "Something", "Octopus's Garden", "A Day in the Life", and of course "Golden Slumbers"/"Carry That Weight"/"The End", delivering the fitting epitaph, "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)