*****Paul McCartney*****

[sime]

55 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

He said "Glastonburger" a few times, which I loved.

"Glastonbergians". That was his name for us that night 

Edited December 17, 2018 by sime

[stuartbert two hats]

49 minutes ago, Woffy said:

The universe certainly seems to be inferring as much. 

In other news:

I’m still intrigued and want to hear more about @stuartbert two hats ‘complicated’ theory / forumula thing that demonstrates Macca’s ‘one third’ contribution to the Beatles.

Lets have it, Hat Man. 

Ah bollocks, been called on my bullshit.  Turns out "complicated" = "not very well thought through".  It goes something like this:

• 1 John is equivalent to 1 Paul.
• 1 George is equivalent to 0.5 John or Paul equivalents (JPEs)
• 1 Ringo is equivalent to 0.5 George, so Ringo = 0.25 JPEs
• So we get 1 + 1 +0.5 +0.25 = 2.75 JPEs in the band.
• Then you divide 1 by 2.75 to get the decimal contribution of Paul McCartney (and John Lennon) at .36 recurring, which turns out is pretty close to 1/3, but that was a guess.
• Ringo is .09 recurring.
• George is .1818 recurring.
• I'm sure there is a nicer fractional way of expressing these values.
• Pablo Honey

[shuttlep]

2 hours ago, Woffy said:

I remember a questionable Jamaican accent at one point...but smarm? Hmn. 

at some point he started going on about how him and his friends started a band, saying we may have heard of them

 

I don't buy his nice guy routine,  he's not for me. 

 

can't argue with his music, 

[Pinkman]

The cure / kylie.

[Ayrshire Chris]

2 hours ago, Wooderson said:

He made a pithy ref to leylines but what else sounded off to you?

Now the Leylines are a Somerset band who played Glastonbury last time out and their best known song is called sat in a field, a tribute to the glastonbury festival .  So obviously Macca knows about this. 

I wonder if he’s heard  beans on toasts glasto song?

Edited December 17, 2018 by Ayrshire Chris

[Quark]

46 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Ah bollocks, been called on my bullshit.  Turns out "complicated" = "not very well thought through".  It goes something like this:

• 1 John is equivalent to 1 Paul.
• 1 George is equivalent to 0.5 John or Paul equivalents (JPEs)
• 1 Ringo is equivalent to 0.5 George, so Ringo = 0.25 JPEs
• So we get 1 + 1 +0.5 +0.25 = 2.75 JPEs in the band.
• Then you divide 1 by 2.75 to get the decimal contribution of Paul McCartney (and John Lennon) at .36 recurring, which turns out is pretty close to 1/3, but that was a guess.
• Ringo is .09 recurring.
• George is .1818 recurring.
• I'm sure there is a nicer fractional way of expressing these values.
• Pablo Honey

Nothing I like more than utter insanity built out of fully logical components.

This is on the same basis as my "Brownian Theory of Human Motion" that I cobbled together one afternoon sat in a bar on campus as student.  Can't remember the full details, but it worked along the lines of x being the number of students on campus, y being the number of people coming through the door on a 15 minute period, and z being the number of people I knew well enough to join me for a beer. Based on that I worked out how long it would take for someone to join me at the bar so I wouldn't be drinking alone.

5 hours later and with nary a fellow drinker to be seen, I fell off my stool and was escorted from the premises.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Quark

[stuartbert two hats]

3 minutes ago, Quark said:

Nothing I like more than utter insanity built out of fully logical components.

This is on the same basis as my "Brownian Theory of Human Motion" that I cobbled together one afternoon sat in a bar on campus as student.  Can't remember the full details, but it worked along the lines of x being the number of students on campus, y being the number of people coming through the door on a 15 minute period, and z being the number of people I knew well enough to join me for a beer. Based on that I worked out how long it would take for someone to join me at the bar so I wouldn't be drinking alone.

5 hours later and with nary a fellow drinker to be seen, I fell off my stool and was escorted from the premises.

Sounds very Dirk Gently.

[Quark]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Sounds very Dirk Gently.

I most certainly did not land gently.

So back to your Beatles theory.  Is the indexing based on songwriting, musicianship or what?  If it's songwriting then probably fair enough, but musically I'd think of George as more than a 0.5 JPE.

[clarkete]

37 minutes ago, shuttlep said:

 

I don't buy his nice guy routine,  he's not for me. 

 

Have you experience which differs from those who have met him?

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, Quark said:

I most certainly did not land gently.

So back to your Beatles theory.  Is the indexing based on songwriting, musicianship or what?  If it's songwriting then probably fair enough, but musically I'd think of George as more than a 0.5 JPE.

Actual musical contribution to the band. They didn't let George record many songs, so he gets a low score.  Sorry George, playing guitar over someone else's songs only gets you so far.  Lennon and McCartney were very good, after all.

[Woffy]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Ah bollocks, been called on my bullshit.  Turns out "complicated" = "not very well thought through".  It goes something like this:

• 1 John is equivalent to 1 Paul.
• 1 George is equivalent to 0.5 John or Paul equivalents (JPEs)
• 1 Ringo is equivalent to 0.5 George, so Ringo = 0.25 JPEs
• So we get 1 + 1 +0.5 +0.25 = 2.75 JPEs in the band.
• Then you divide 1 by 2.75 to get the decimal contribution of Paul McCartney (and John Lennon) at .36 recurring, which turns out is pretty close to 1/3, but that was a guess.
• Ringo is .09 recurring.
• George is .1818 recurring.
• I'm sure there is a nicer fractional way of expressing these values.
• Pablo Honey

This is wonderful Stu. Excellent work. 

1 hour ago, Quark said:

Nothing I like more than utter insanity built out of fully logical components.

This is on the same basis as my "Brownian Theory of Human Motion" that I cobbled together one afternoon sat in a bar on campus as student.  Can't remember the full details, but it worked along the lines of x being the number of students on campus, y being the number of people coming through the door on a 15 minute period, and z being the number of people I knew well enough to join me for a beer. Based on that I worked out how long it would take for someone to join me at the bar so I wouldn't be drinking alone.

5 hours later and with nary a fellow drinker to be seen, I fell off my stool and was escorted from the premises.

This is why I always carry a book at all times. I always feel you look less of a loner reading a book in a pub - almost as if it conveys a conscious decision to be having a few beers alone - than if you’re just looking at your phone. 

1 hour ago, shuttlep said:

at some point he started going on about how him and his friends started a band, saying we may have heard of them

 

I don't buy his nice guy routine,  he's not for me. 

 

can't argue with his music, 

The Philip Norman book very clearly shows him as incredibly ambitious and determined, controlling even - compared to John who was arguably quite lazy when not compelled to be doing something - and on occasion quite ruthless at times (Epstein ‘clearing up’ more than one paternity claim in Hamburg for example).

I doubt you get to be that successful without being a little bit like that.

But it doesn’t mean you can’t also be genuinely nice too. He probably took more interest in a young Julian than John did. And adopted one of Linda’s kids IIRC.

This is what also personally fascinates me about the Beatles. They’re ‘just a band’ but we can ‘study’ them - and disagree about them - to the same historical, intellectual degree you would, say, a famous dictator or a country or a significant battle in antiquity.

The story is as incredible as the music. 

[mcshed]

2 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Ah bollocks, been called on my bullshit.  Turns out "complicated" = "not very well thought through".  It goes something like this:

• 1 John is equivalent to 1 Paul.
• 1 George is equivalent to 0.5 John or Paul equivalents (JPEs)
• 1 Ringo is equivalent to 0.5 George, so Ringo = 0.25 JPEs
• So we get 1 + 1 +0.5 +0.25 = 2.75 JPEs in the band.
• Then you divide 1 by 2.75 to get the decimal contribution of Paul McCartney (and John Lennon) at .36 recurring, which turns out is pretty close to 1/3, but that was a guess.
• Ringo is .09 recurring.
• George is .1818 recurring.
• I'm sure there is a nicer fractional way of expressing these values.
• Pablo Honey

You get a similar number for Paul's contribution using a much simpler formula:

Simply divide the total by the number of Beatles not called Ringo and hey presto Paul's contribution is 1/3.

[zico martin]

52 minutes ago, mcshed said:

You get a similar number for Paul's contribution using a much simpler formula:

Simply divide the total by the number of Beatles not called Ringo and hey presto Paul's contribution is 1/3.

Surely that is really wide of the mark. George was always my fave Beatle when I was a kid but it would hugely complimentary to say he was one third of the Beatles (equal to John and Paul).

What about : 40p+40j+10g+7gm*+3r=the Beatles 

*the fifth beatle

 

[stuartbert two hats]

20 minutes ago, zico martin said:

Surely that is really wide of the mark. George was always my fave Beatle when I was a kid but it would hugely complimentary to say he was one third of the Beatles (equal to John and Paul).

What about : 40p+40j+10g+7gm*+3r=the Beatles 

*the fifth beatle

 

Show your workings.

[Woffy]

21 minutes ago, zico martin said:

Surely that is really wide of the mark. George was always my fave Beatle when I was a kid but it would hugely complimentary to say he was one third of the Beatles (equal to John and Paul).

What about : 40p+40j+10g+7gm*+3r=the Beatles 

*the fifth beatle

 

Can we have the following added as variables please:

**Billie Preston

***Stu Sutcliffe

****Jimmy Nicol

*****Pete Best

******Andrew White

*******Geoff Emerick

 

[stuartbert two hats]

6 minutes ago, Woffy said:

Can we have the following added as variables please:

**Billie Preston

***Stu Sutcliffe

****Jimmy Nicol

*****Pete Best

******Andrew White

*******Geoff Emerick

 

******** Ken Scott

[Woffy]

10 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

******** Ken Scott

I mean, yeah, we could go on and on. 

When I say we, I mean you. 

Do the math, Stu. Inc. Astrid, Klaus, Mimi...

[stuartbert two hats]

1 minute ago, Woffy said:

I mean, yeah, we could go on and on. 

When I say we, I mean you. 

Do the math, Stu. Inc. Astrid, Klaus, Mimi...

If we're talking about their recorded output, there's someone far more eligible than those - Yoko Ono.  Which kinda proves we're scraping the barrel. 

I have to agree though, George Martin aside, Billy Preston probably has the strongest claim to being the 5th Beatle.  No other musician has played on so many Beatles songs outside of the core quartet and their producer.  I don't count the Hamburg days since although Stu Sutcliffe was actually an official member of the band, they weren't recording music.  And he wasn't very good apparently.

Hmm, I feel I need to mathematically quantify the importance of appearing on record vs featuring on a live recording.    I guess Eric Clapton is probably 0.000000001 of a Beatle.  Should I divide the number of recorded appearances by the total number of tracks recorded by the band?

 

 

[stuartbert two hats]

Ah shit, Get Back was credited to "The Beatles with Billy Preston" - does that invalidate his claim to be a Beatle on that track, since we would be double accounting?

Time to start writing on my calculator!

[Woffy]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If we're talking about their recorded output, there's someone far more eligible than those - Yoko Ono.  Which kinda proves we're scraping the barrel. 

I have to agree though, George Martin aside, Billy Preston probably has the strongest claim to being the 5th Beatle.  No other musician has played on so many Beatles songs outside of the core quartet and their producer.  I don't count the Hamburg days since although Stu Sutcliffe was actually an official member of the band, they weren't recording music.  And he wasn't very good apparently.

Hmm, I feel I need to mathematically quantify the importance of appearing on record vs featuring on a live recording.    I guess Eric Clapton is probably 0.000000001 of a Beatle.  Should I divide the number of recorded appearances by the total number of tracks recorded by the band?

 

 

I can’t do maths. Even when it’s got letters in it it makes no sense to me. So I defer to your expertise. 

Include Yoko. 

And fudge the whole fucking thing and keep Clapton out of it. 

[Wooderson]

Weed was the 6th Beatle.

[Woffy]

28 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Weed was the 6th Beatle.

This is very, very right indeed. 

(Plus even that is a fucking great story:

”Tried weed for the first time yesterday”

”Really? Where did you get it?”

”Off Bob Dylan”)

[Woffy]

We could also probably add Royston Ellis (Benzedrine from inhalers - very Kerouacian / Beat] and pretty much most of the staff in the Kaiserkeller, Indra, Jacaranda(?) (Preludin (sp?). Even Tony Sheridan, perhaps. 

[Wooderson]

 

[priest17]

26 minutes ago, Woffy said:

This is very, very right indeed. 

(Plus even that is a fucking great story:

”Tried weed for the first time yesterday”

”Really? Where did you get it?”

”Off Bob Dylan”)