The Last Bass Outpost
Main Forums => The Outpost Cafe => Topic started by: westen44 on November 04, 2023, 10:42:10 AM
-
I think Rick Beato has the best review. However, he says he is glad the song was released and I'm not so sure. I think the other two of those last songs were better. Also, I think AI may have changed John Lennon's voice to sound a little like Paul McCartney's. I was watching a video of someone who said he had experimented once with AI on a song. It changed one voice on the song to sound more like what it considered the dominant voice. In this case, Paul's voice would have been considered the dominant voice, in spite of the fact that this was John's song.
This just happened to be almost a random song which ended up as the Beatles' last song. I don't think it should be considered an official swan song. There were others that might have been better, IMO. I just got a FedEx delivery of Philip Norman's book "George Harrison: The Reluctant Beatle." Personally, I'm more interested in this book than the Beatles final song. It's supposed to be pretty good, although I have a feeling it's unnecessarily harsh. I'll know soon.
https://youtu.be/Opxhh9Oh3rg
-
IMO, it doesn't matter much whether John's voice is slightly different because of how it was processed. To me the important thing is that it was possible for it to BE processed. The near-miracle is that the song could be produced at all.
-
I like it.
It's not the best Beatles song. But who cares.
And I don't agree with Rick Beato that it sounds too modern.
Why on earth would you want it to sound a like a crappy recording? To make it sound like a genuine 1974 recording?
-
It's not The Beatles. It's a crappy late 70s John song with other band members' voices added. Pathetic. But I guess Paul isn't rich enough and needed to make another buck. It tarnished their legacy.
-
It has all 4 Beatles playing on it. Not just their voices.
Don't be such a sour puss Dave ;)
-
The song is not a masterpiece, but the official video directed by Peter Jackson is very touching. And I'm glad they didn't work with Jeff Lynn this time, he would have made this one too an ELO/Beatles mashup.
As for the AI manipulation, given how the Beatles liked to explore every new sound technology, it's only logical that they'd use it.
-
It has all 4 Beatles playing on it. Not just their voices.
Don't be such a sour puss Dave ;)
But I am a sourpuss! :mrgreen:
It's still a crappy John solo song.
-
I get the point, but I also didn't much like Paul McCartney getting on there with slide guitar and trying to sound like George Harrison. Admittedly, they were limited to restricting what they recorded of George on the song in 1995. But I still wasn't thrilled to hear Paul doing a Paul/George guitar part. Still, nothing bothered me as much as the AI making John sound like Paul. But like I was saying, despite his good review, I do disagree with Rick Beato on whether the song should have been made. It should not have been, IMO. But that's the way I see it.
I think the real music observer guy has some pertinent things to say in this video. I found this after I posted the above paragraph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzX9Qngr8A
-
They did not use AI to make John sound like Paul.
They used it to separate his vocal from the piano.
And it surprises me that this is being brought to us as something new that Peter Jackson invented. Because the guys who make mash-ups do this all the time.
Maybe that is what this is; a mash-up of a Lennon song with a McCartney song?
Still I like it And it seems done lovingly.
-
I'm sure it was no one's intention for John to sound somewhat like Paul. There would have been no reason for that. But to my ears at least that seems to have been an unintentional result. This is all just a guess on my part and to take that further, whatever happened was probably the result of whatever AI did to the song. I had heard that when there are two voices, AI can change the second voice to be a little similar to what it considers the dominant voice. But if we were in a courtroom most likely what I'm saying would be labeled as hearsay. It is subjective and anecdotal, but still a sincere belief on my part. As for the people enjoying what has been done to this song, I think that's a good thing. However, I'm unfortunately not able to do that. To my ears at least, there are a million things the Beatles have done which were better than what they've done with this song. So when Dave calls it crap and a blow to their legacy, I think he is right.
-
I'm sure it was no one's intention for John to sound somewhat like Paul. There would have been no reason for that. But to my ears at least that seems to have been an unintentional result. This is all just a guess on my part and to take that further, whatever happened was probably the result of whatever AI did to the song. I had heard that when there are two voices, AI can change the second voice to be a little similar to what it considers the dominant voice. But if we were in a courtroom most likely what I'm saying would be labeled as hearsay. It is subjective and anecdotal, but still a sincere belief on my part. As for the people enjoying what has been done to this song, I think that's a good thing. However, I'm unfortunately not able to do that. To my ears at least, there are a million things the Beatles have done which were better than what they've done with this song. So when Dave calls it crap and a blow to their legacy, I think he is right.
Again; AI did nothing to the song itself. It was only used to separate John's voice. Nothing more. Extra voices (and instruments) you hear were done by Paul, George and Ringo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAQoSCwuA
-
Again; AI did nothing to the song itself. It was only used to separate John's voice. Nothing more. Extra voices (and instruments) you hear were done by Paul, George and Ringo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJAQoSCwuA
Based on what has been written about this even from the beginning, it appears there is some disagreement with what AI has or has not done. At first there seemed to be a mild outcry that AI was going to be involved. Then they started walking that back saying AI wouldn't be involved. It's to the point that it's hard to know what to believe. All anyone can do at this point is to make their own conclusions. My conclusion, unless someone can prove otherwise, is that AI was more involved than they want to admit.
-
For me it’s a typical latish-Lennon-career formative song idea painstakingly made to sound like The Beatles. The string arrangement especially is Beatles-by-numbers ("now what can we do to make it sound real Beatlish?”). I’m not as damning as Dave and I don’t see The Beatles’ legacy tarnished by a song vainly attempting to resurrect a Lennon song idea 50 years after the band’s demise and 40 years after his passing, but the outcome is not something that would have passed Fab Four internal quality control in, say, 1969. As for Paul believing that he can out-Ringo Ringo on drums and out-George George on lead guitar, well that is hardly anything new, is it? :mrgreen:
Between Lennon and Macca, I think Paul is the more consistent songwriter, with John on his solo albums very hit & miss, individual songs are great, but a lot of others seem underdeveloped. There is no Band on the Run (the album) in John’s post-Beatle canon. McCartney can of course be silly and banal sometimes, but there is always a certain craftsmanship.
And I agree with Michael, Lennon’s vocal track sounds weirdly un-Lennon’ish, whether that is because the original demo was just a rough sketch or because the AI messed with the tone, I dunno, but I didn’t recognize Lennon’s voice at first and wondered what had possessed Paul to sing a Lennon song aping the latter’s voice less than successfully.
All that said, the whole exercise is worthwhile to me solely for the snippet in the official vid where Ringo plays drums with his younger self and the two Ringos from different centuries smile at each other - priceless!
And there the case must rest, I don’t believe that this song will be talked about much in ten years from now nor that it will ever gain the airplay/number of clicks of even, say, Love Me Do. Nor will Free as a Bird for that matter.
What’s next, AI algorithms finishing one of Picasso’s unfinished last paintings and that then going round as Picasso’s last painting? Je suis unimpressed.
-
If it's not a collaboration among the four Beatles at the same time in history, then it's simply not a Beatles song. It will always be a throwaway John demo.
-
BTW, an excellent use of AI would be to remove all of Yoko's vocal tracks, solo or with John.
-
And there the case must rest, I don’t believe that this song will be talked about much in ten years from now nor that it will ever gain the airplay/number of clicks of even, say, Love Me Do. Nor will Free as a Bird for that matter.
The video on YouTube has 18 million views in two days.
Not a bad score ;-)
-
BTW, an excellent use of AI would be to remove all of Yoko's vocal tracks, solo or with John.
:rimshot: :thumbsup: :toast:
-
The video on YouTube has 18 million views in two days.
Not a bad score ;-)
In this day and age, click bait curiosity of the moment is hardly a recommendation of quality or longevity.
(https://d16kd6gzalkogb.cloudfront.net/magazine_images/Andy-Warhol-Quote.-Image-via-quotessays.com_.jpg)
I appreciate the time, work and devotion that has gone into the track, also the technology prowess behind it (though that also has me worried), but the song itself is just not up to the usual Fab Four standard. The original sketchy idea with just John on vocals and piano was at least intimate. The saving grace is that if there are two people on earth who should be allowed to attempt this, then they are indeed Paul and Ringo. They probably meant well and Paul's obsessive work ethos didn't allow him to leave something unfinished in the vaults.
Is it credited to Lennon/McCartney or just Lennon? Just curious.
And if Ringo and Paul now went out on tour with George and John joining them as avatars, I wouldn't want to see that traveling freak show either. Conceptually, this new recording is not all that different.
-
I like it. Nice song, great to hear something "new" from John. Some classic McCartney bass playing too.
-
I think both the music and the video of Free As A Bird had a more in depth, dreamlike quality to it, whih I found more appropriate,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODIvONHPqpk
the vid to Now & Then OTOH is kind of spoofy and the music would have perhaps benefited had Paul had the guts to throw in one of his trademark middle eights (as he did in Free As A Bird).
Real Love, I simply liked the melody of - though it is again very Lennon'esque, could have been a track off Double Fantasy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax7krBKzmVI
Hell, it's The Beatles (or what's left of them), I don't really want to knock it. If this is wildly successful and seen as a crowning achievement of their music, then it has my blessing.
-
I also wish the best to those involved with this song. I like the Beatles and hope they'll continue to be remembered in a positive light. For me, though, this song just wasn't near previous attempts to do this sort of thing. I don't even know if John Lennon himself would have liked it. He could be seriously critical of his own songs.
-
It's good news for Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Now it will no longer be called the worst Beatles song ever.
-
Maxwell's Silver Hammer is actually a better song. Despite its faults, it has a precision to it that can't be denied. But it appears that Paul McCartney did have some qualms about doing "Now and Then." He did wonder if it was inferior. Ultimately, he decided John would have wanted it. The ball was left in Paul's court, although I think he made the wrong decision. Still, he is more qualified than anyone on earth to make decisions about Beatles songs.
https://www.loudersound.com/news/beatles-record-paul-mccartney-on-the-reaction-to-now-and-then
-
It's good news for Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Now it will no longer be called the worst Beatles song ever.
I loved Maxwell's Silver Hammer when I first heard it as a kid and I still love it today! There is a thing to say about joyful songs dealing with homicide. And I always dug Paul's English Music Hall influence on The Beatles. Your Mother Should Know is among my top ten Beatles songs.
-
I'm sure some people like the song, but the other Beatles loathed it.
-
For me Yellow Submarine is candidate for the worst Beatles song.
-
Talking about AI. Maybe if Gibson starts using it, they can really come with the basses the players want.
-
BTW, an excellent use of AI would be to remove all of Yoko's vocal tracks, solo or with John.
And we have a winner
-
For me Yellow Submarine is candidate for the worst Beatles song.
But I like that too! Anything Ringo sings moves my heart.
I always had a soft spot for the lightweight songs of the Fab Four too, Honey Pie, Rocky Raccoon, Good Night, Obladi Oblada or Octopus' Garden, there is a childlike innocence to them.
-
But I like that too! Anything Ringo sings moves my heart.
I always had a soft spot for the lightweight songs of the Fab Four too, Honey Pie, Rocky Raccoon, Good Night, Obladi Oblada or Octopus' Garden, there is a childlike innocence to them.
Agreed! Their light-hearted stuff is a welcome highlight for me.
I think Why Don't We Do It In the Road, You Know My Name and Piggies also fall in that group.
-
Nothing wrong with lightweight lighthearted songs.
But Yellow Submarie is plain stupid square hoompah
-
It probably has to do with the fact that I heard a lot of these songs the first time when I was still actually a child. My nine years older brother had the Magical Mystery Tour EP and I remember listening to that over and over again - with Your Mother Should Know, Fool On The Hill and the title track being my favorite songs at the time. There was no other contemporary pop music I listened to as intently as a, say, 8- to 10-year-old. I found the whole surreal Magical Mystery Tour concept mesmerizing.
-
Nothing wrong with lightweight lighthearted songs.
But Yellow Submarie is plain stupid square hoompah
Despite all the hoompah even bordering on the grotesque, it has this laconic melancholy running through it many songs sung by Ringo have. And I can never listen to the song without immediately visualizing the animated movie to it which I thought brilliant as a child and still think brilliant today.
Besides, what's wrong with hoompah?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A_V3TOZBCY
-
Although I'm not sure why, it seems "Yellow Submarine" really was written as a children's song for Ringo. I think some dispute this, but I'm not sure why. I'm not crazy about the song, but it's good enough, IMO. What I like most is when listening to the Revolver album, you go from Yellow Submarine to She Said She Said. The frivolous atmosphere is suddenly broken by the guitar of She Said She Said. I'm sure this was intentional. I really like She Said She Said. It proved how well John Lennon and George Harrison could work together. Paul isn't on the song at all. George helped John write the song, played guitar, sang backup, and played bass. John Lennon has been quoted as saying he was very pleased with this song. Once again, the contrast between it and "Yellow Submarine" can't be ignored. You go from someone singing a lighthearted song to a song about what it's like to be dead. Supposedly, this had been inspired by Peter Fonda telling the story of his NDE as a child to John (who like everyone else at a party they were at just wanted to get away from Peter Fonda after that.)
I think Magical Mystery Tour (album in the U.S./EP elsewhere) has been underrated. One recent interpretation of Fool on the Hill which I've read is that it's really the people observing the fool on the hill who are the fools. "Your Mother Should Know" I think stands out as Paul's most impressive dance hall song of all. The melody is haunting and beautiful.
In watching the "Now and Then" video once again, I did notice this time the poignant ending. The way the Beatles are on stage for a final bow, and then suddenly vanish.
-
I've given this new Beatles song a listen but not really liked it very much. Paul's voice sounds too old and doddery, blending with the other voices, and there is a surprisingly incongruous guitar part, that sounds like (ironically) something from a dodgy home demo.
The problem with gussying up a demo, for me, is twofold. John might have chopped and changed the lyrics, structure etc before committing to a studio recording. Secondly, a producer might have tweaked the tempo, feel, structure and turned it into a very different song. The plodding four-square spectre of Jeff Lynne haunts this track, as it does on Free as a Bird and the Wilburys stuff.
As for it being the final Beatles song, I'm a bit skeptical. With improvements in AI audio extraction, all sorts of farts and squeaks could be lifted off the Esher tapes, clashed together with George or John home demos from the '70s and served up with drum loops and perfunctory bass lines, and then spun out as new material. A bit like the ghoulish '70s Hendrix albums that married demo material with session musicians copying Jimi's style, to build ghost tracks. You could have an almost infinite stream of new Beatles tracks using the most scant original material to enfkesslyextrapolate new songs.
-
I've given this new Beatles song a listen but not really liked it very much. Paul's voice sounds too old and doddery, blending with the other voices, and there is a surprisingly incongruous guitar part, that sounds like (ironically) something from a dodgy home demo.
The problem with gussying up a demo, for me, is twofold. John might have chopped and changed the lyrics, structure etc before committing to a studio recording. Secondly, a producer might have tweaked the tempo, feel, structure and turned it into a very different song. The plodding four-square spectre of Jeff Lynne haunts this track, as it does on Free as a Bird and the Wilburys stuff.
As for it being the final Beatles song, I'm a bit skeptical. With improvements in AI audio extraction, all sorts of farts and squeaks could be lifted off the Esher tapes, clashed together with George or John home demos from the '70s and served up with drum loops and perfunctory bass lines, and then spun out as new material. A bit like the ghoulish '70s Hendrix albums that married demo material with session musicians copying Jimi's style, to build ghost tracks. You could have an almost infinite stream of new Beatles tracks using the most scant original material to enfkesslyextrapolate new songs.
Hopefully, nothing would ever be done similar to the disaster Alan Douglas created when he botched Jimi Hendrix songs in the 70s. I doubt if anyone would ever be foolish enough to try something like that again. But I would also not be surprised if "Now and Then" turns out to not be the last Beatles song after all. They still may try one day to come up with something else.
-
To me, Magical Mystery Tour is Sgt Pepper II - the two would have made a wonderful double album. I always see them as companion pieces.
-
To me, Magical Mystery Tour is Sgt Pepper II - the two would have made a wonderful double album. I always see them as companion pieces.
I'm not sure if the Beatles themselves realized how good the Magical Mystery Tour album was. On the other hand, they may have overrated Sgt. Pepper. However, it did have "A Day in the Life" on it. Especially for someone hearing the song for the first time, that would have to be considered something major. I can't say the same for "When i'm 64." I wish somehow that song could have been obliterated.
-
To me, Magical Mystery Tour is Sgt Pepper II - the two would have made a wonderful double album. I always see them as companion pieces.
It would be a double failure in my view, unless you like fluff and dance hall music.
I'm reminded of what Bob Dylan allegedly said to the band after they played Sgt Pepper to him ahead of the release: "I get it, you're not cute anymore."
-
I know it's uncool, but the orchestral Beatles, basically Paul's Rickenbacker era, are my favorite. They + George Martin invented PROG as they went along. Sgt Pepper is a magical record to me, the ultimate sophisticated pop album. All the more impressive as they did not have a blueprint for it and went from I Want To Hold Your Hand to this in the space of a few years.
And there is absolutely nothing wrong with When I'm 64! And I'm only turning 63 next week.
https://youtu.be/Kz1YfZFZEgs
-
And there the case must rest, I don’t believe that this song will be talked about much in ten years from now nor that it will ever gain the airplay/number of clicks of even, say, Love Me Do. Nor will Free as a Bird for that matter.
They are number 1 in the UK charts now
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/nov/10/the-beatles-54-years-no-1-singles-now-and-then-uk-chart
-
Worse songs have had that placing, but you don‘t need to rewrite Beatles history either.
Since when have you become such a Beatles buff, Rob? I always thought you needed a "minimum black music content" with anything you dig, some distinct Blues, Soul or Funk influence? Beatles music isn't entirely white of course, but pretty much. I'm just curious.
-
Since when have you become such a Beatles buff, Rob?
Am I?
I just point out that the song is more successful than you thought it would be.
-
Am I?
I just point out that the song is more successful than you thought it would be.
It is mostly successful because it may be the Beatles last hurrah. But it is in the overall best interest of almost everyone involved that people make the most of it. I am trying to include myself in that, although it's hard because I think the song is a lackluster effort by a legendary band. Anyone could sit down and easily write down the names of Beatles songs better than this one. The song is so bad that it's almost incomprehensible what is being dealt with here. I can name several Beatles songs which are worse, but not many. It isn't as bad, though, as "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number.) That's a song the Beatles themselves loved, but many fans hated. I think it's probably based on an inside joke that you'd have to be a Beatle to understand.
-
The current interest in and popularity of the song is based on (i) AI curiosity, (ii) morbid interest in hearing Lennon sing something "new" 43 years after his murder which shook the world and (iii) general soft focus Beatles nostalgia, Rob. It has little to do with the mediocre - it’s not awful, even two dead Bestles are too good for that - quality of the song. I can assure you, if we two had recorded it with or without the aid of Al no one would give a stale Gouda about it.
-
Your point I en II could have been true if the charts were based on streaming or YouTube views.
But they're not. They are based on vinyl single sales. I don't think anybody would buy a vinyl single out of sheer curiosity or morbid interest.
Point III seems valid. I think lots of Beatles fans buy it just because it's The Beatles. But it's still a lot of products sold...
"With 19,400 vinyl copies sold, it’s the fastest selling vinyl single of the century, and its total physical sales of 38,000 were the biggest single week of physical sales since 2014, when X Factor winner Ben Haenow reached Christmas No 1 with Something I Need."
and
"Now and Then was also streamed more than 5 million times in the UK, by far the highest single week figure for any Beatles song."
Having said that, they outnumber sales of The Rolling Stones latest effort. Wouldn't the Stones benefit the same mechanisms more or less?
-
I believe it's successful, Rob, stop!!! :mrgreen: It's The Beatles (or a conglomerate of ex-Beatles work) after all, I'm happy that Macca, Ringo as well as the Lennon and Harrison estates earn another penny or two, no one wants to see ex-Beatles apply for social security or welfare, that looming danger seems now to be belatedly averted.
Buying vinyl is in itself a deeply nostalgic, life style affirming act. There is no credible sonic argument for it unless voodoo acoustics are your thing. I don't believe for a minute that the majority of these vinyl singles are ever played, they are keepsakes. The fact that people buy the new song on vinyl just reinforces the novelty character of the whole thing. Don‘t think it will be added to Revolver or Sgt Pepper rereleases as a bonus track anytime soon. :popcorn:
-
Having listened a few times, I think this would have been a popular song "back in the day". It has a rather haunting melody and it's in their nostalgic/wistful vein. Not a bad tune at all.
-
To me, is sounds like an Oasis ballad ripping off The Beatles. But one written by Liam, not Noel. That is not really a knock, I never thought Oasis terrible, just a bit overrated and one-trick-pony'ish.
-
I was just on YouTube and the video came up again. So I watched it. It really isn't quite as bad as I thought. It helps if you don't focus too much on the video itself, which isn't really very good. The song itself could have been worse. They had no choice but to work with what they had, obviously. In that context, they did as well as could be expected. It's the remnant ex-Beatles trying to be the Beatles. I don't know where the clip is, but on one video George Harrison is joking that his latest album was as good as the Beatles. He is poking fun at himself, of course, because attempting such a thing would be ridiculous. What Harrison said about himself could apply to any ex-Beatle, needless to say.
Edit:
I didn't know about this. I just discovered this: George Harrison had rejected "Now and Then" in 1995, calling it "f***ing rubbish."
https://youtu.be/3Z0am_Og3T4?list=RD3Z0am_Og3T4
-
I didn't know about this. I just discovered this: George Harrison had rejected "Now and Then" in 1995, calling it "f***ing rubbish."
https://youtu.be/3Z0am_Og3T4?list=RD3Z0am_Og3T4
Not unusual for one member of the Beatles to feel that way about almost any of their tunes.
-
When you're in a band, there is a simple test: Does the personal gratification you draw from not playing a song one of your band buddies likes (and you don't) outweigh the joy you bring him/her if you do? That question is regularly easy to answer.
-
John and Paul had, in essence, called a number of George Harrison's songs f***ing rubbish through the years. This included ones that were eventually included on his "All Things Must Pass" album. Nevertheless, I had no personal connection with anyone in the Beatles. What they did with their internal band dynamics was their own business. This could be said for any band that a person isn't a member of. At this point in time, I don't feel like taking anybody's side on anything. I'd like to be neutral the best I can. Nevertheless, in 1995 George may have had a point about that song. It probably did sound pretty bad back then. But Olivia represents George now. She supports the song. Also, she is the one who saved George with a fireplace poker when that lunatic broke into their home. She has more than done her part and should be listened to about Beatles songs and probably a lot of other things, too. I also like Dhani. Also, he is the only person who comes even close to covering George Harrison songs very well. I wish most of the other people would just stop. It's painful to listen to. There have been a few exceptions, but not many.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/dhani-harrison-goes-back-forest-142908254.html
-
George always had his committed fans. Ones you wouldn't want to mess with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQxSJG6T9oY
George is supposed to have liked it. Some people have called it Cheap Trick'ish, they are not far off.
-
That's a really good cover. And there is nothing wrong with sounding like Cheap Trick, either. I once almost got to see them in New Orleans. I already had bought the tickets. But transportation, weather problems, etc., caused me not to get to go.
Those awful George Harrison covers mostly seem to occur at those tribute concerts. I could give examples, but I'd rather not highlight mediocrity. I think in some cases, people are called on to perform when they're not ready. Or maybe they just weren't cut out to do the songs in the first place. Reasons can vary.
-
I didn't think it was a bad cover at the time (or today) either. That's the trouble with Uncle Ted, he's a lot better + more nuanced a musician than a political or social commentator. You can't have everything.
-
I barely kept up at all with Ted's politics or music. But that is a fairly rare GH cover. Because like I said, most of those covers like that are not very good at all, but often cringeworthy. And when it comes to social commentary I have noticed in the majority of cases people think they are the world's leading experts when, in fact, they don't know jack diddly squat.
-
I could give examples, but I'd rather not highlight mediocrity.
I'm going to start using that line at work!
-
I'm going to start using that line at work!
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
-
One of my fave Harrison covers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTetprCP2b8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7yL50sePv4
It got slammed at the time for not doing the naiveté, innocence and charm of Harrison's original any justice, but I thought it was a gifted and inspired take. Mind you, Steve Harley was despised by the British music press because he had been a scathing music journo himself previously. And of course Harley's very English mannered art rock vocals are an acquired taste.
-
Strangely enough, "Here Comes the Sun" has never been one of my favorite George Harrison songs. I think he has done quite a few that were better than that. But I'm definitely overruled on that. Not only is it consistently ranked as one of the best Harrison songs, but it's one of the most popular Beatles songs, period. It's considered the most popular Beatles song with the Spotify and iTunes generation, being timeless and having universal appeal. But when I, for instance, listen to Abbey Road, it's "Something" which overshadows HCTS for me. Nevertheless, if people want to like HCTS a lot, there will be no complaints from me.
-
It has a compelling uplifting, positive vibe to me. That's why I always like to hear it.