For those of you Beatles fans out there…
I’ll be a guest speaker at the 50th Fest for Beatles Fans, and will have a table where I will be selling both my nonfiction book THE BEATLES ON THE CHARTS as well as the fiction anthology ACROSS THE UNIVERSE. Look, they even have my name on the poster!
In the 80s, I started a magazine called “Animato!” that later grew quite large and popular. I got to meet and interview great animators like Chuck Jones and Ralph Bakshi but later sold the magazine, and it went on to even bigger successes until the internet killed all magazines.
So I’m still an animation fan, but it’s basically impossible to see all the films and all the animated TV shows these days unless you’re a full-time animator or animation historian, I guess.
These days, with so much CGI, we can debate what an “animated film” even is, but generally the accepted definition is that the main characters must be animated — not just the monsters or effects. (And “motion capture” doesn’t count.)
So here’s my annual end-of-the-year list of best and worst animated films (based on their Rotten Tomatoes score). Ties are broken by number of reviews, and you have to have at least 10 reviews to make my list.
Interesting year: No one film dominated, and most received at least 50% (unlike previous years where a lot of films got very low scores). And look what’s at the bottom: Disney’s latest “Wish,” which was the poorest reviewed Disney film since 2005’s “Chicken Little.”
“Mary and Joseph! Great to meet you. Congrats on the new baby, who is the Son of God and everything. He’s the most important person on the planet in the history of the world. So good luck raising him in this barn, and don’t expect any help from us. Here’s some presents, now we’re off.”
It’s always struck me as strange that they know who this kid is, travel to see him, and then just leave him alone for the next 30 years or so. You’d think if he was that important, they’d take him somewhere to be protected and to learn the religion and everything. I mean, come on, I’ve read plenty of books about babies born into prophecy — that’s what they do.
And what do Republicans do? They care about babies tremendously, until they’re born.
Back in the late 70s, when John wasn’t recording regularly, he’d still make music. With his trusty boombox, he’d record bits and pieces of song ideas he might use later. Then in 1980, he decided to make a full album again, which turned out to be “Double Fantasy.” Other songs were recorded at the same time but deemed not good enough for that album, and so were never finished. They later were finished by other musicians and released on John’s posthumous album “Milk and Honey.”
In the 90s, the three remaining Beatles were organizing a series of three collections known as the “Anthology” series. Yoko gave Paul some of the tapes John had made during the 70s, and with better technology, they were able take John’s voice and add new instruments and vocals to make the songs “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love,” which were placed on the first and second Anthologies respectively.
However, the third one, “Now and Then,” was just not good enough sound-wise to complete. John’s voice was overshadowed by the piano and other noises. George called it “rubbish” (although it’s not clear whether he meant the recording or the song itself) and so it was never completed.
Fast forward thirty years or so, and technology has improved. Peter Jackson’s company created a process by which a specific sound can be identified by the computer and isolated from all the sounds around it. This was used extensively in the “Get Back” movie he produced and directed. (Despite headlines saying “The Beatles used AI,” it’s really no more AI than any other sound-reducing technology that has been around for years — it’s just better at it.)
Anyway, with John’s voice now clear, Paul and Ringo worked to complete the song, using clips of George’s guitar playing and previous harmonies. And so we finally get “Now and Then.” It sounds great.
But… is it a great song?
Well, that’s the problem. We Beatles fans are thrilled to hear this, but honestly, the song underneath isn’t that great of a song. It’s certainly not up to Beatles standards.
But that’s understandable.
I’ve been in bands and written hundreds of songs, and I’ve written novels and short stories, and there’s one thing I can guarantee: the first drafts suck. You take your first ideas, throw them together, and then work at it until it’s what you want.
And these three songs of John’s were first drafts. They were all recorded prior to his last album and obviously, he didn’t think they were good enough to use on that album. The lyrics are rather pedestrian (especially for John) and while they’re still better than many songwriters could do (Come on, it’s John Lennon), they could have used work — because they were first drafts.
In the bands I have been in, I would take my new songs to the group and we’d work on them. If you have really good fellow musicians who also write songs, they will give suggestions on how to improve the song. Despite one person being the songwriter, making music like that is a group project, and I can’t think of a single example of a song I wrote that wasn’t improved by practicing with the other musicians.
And that’s true for the Beatles as well, as any Beatles scholar will tell you. Recordings of early versions of their songs and the final versions show how much the songs changed and improved thanks to the musicianship and suggestions of their fellows.
And, of course, with neither John nor George here to make those suggestions, there was only so much Paul and Ringo could do with that original recording of “Now and Then.”
Some people are using that to say it really isn’t a “Beatles” song, but I disagree. You don’t need all four together for that. There are many songs in the Beatles catalogue that don’t have all four playing (“I Me Mine,” “Yesterday,” “The Ballad of John and Yoko,” “Blackbird” and so on).
So let’s enjoy this new song while understanding the limitations Paul and Ringo were under. Yeah, it’s not a new classic, but to hear John’s voice clear again sure is wonderful.
(By the way, if you’re really a Beatles fan, shouldn’t you have my book “The Beatles on the Charts“?)
If you’ve been following this blog, you’ve seen my posts about The Beatles, so this news won’t surprise you:
My new book about The Beatles has been published by McFarland and you can order your copy now!
For this nonfiction book, I went through every Billboard magazine album and single chart since 1964 and kept track of which albums and songs appeared where on the charts for The Beatles as well as in their solo careers. I then assigned points: 100 for a song at #1 down to 1 point for a song at #100. The higher a song or album got on the chart and the longer it stayed on the chart, the more points.
I then count them down. Each entry has a picture of the album or single sleeve, details about its release date and highest position, and a short essay on each examining why it was or was not successful (as well as giving some interesting trivia info). There were 162 singles and 164 albums that made the charts, and you may be surprised at where some of your favorites have ended up.
Then there is an introductory chapter, a chapter explaining how the charts work and have changed over the years, a complete discography, and much more that every Beatles fan will want.
Below are some blurbs from prominent Beatles authors (There are more at this link.)
“For the U.S. Beatles narrative since 1964 the group’s Billboard chart performance has served as an instant thumbnail guide to their powerful popular culture presence….Michael A. Ventrella deftly takes the story through multiple iterations of chart rules and statistics to reveal successes deep into the solo years. This is an impressive guidebook to nearly six decades of Beatles music.” ― Walter J. Podrazik, co-author All Together Now: The First Complete Beatles Discography
…
“The Beatles on the Charts is a different and entertaining way of looking at the chart success that the Beatles had and continue to have.” ― Bruce Spizer, Beatles author/historian
…
“Ventrella’s insights, plus his ranking system give the familiar singles and albums a decidedly unique twist and is a fun read for both novice and expert Beatles fans alike.” ― Mark Arnold, author of Mark Arnold Picks on the Beatles
…
“The Beatles on the Charts checks all the boxes. It’s a fun read, ridiculously well-researched, and presents information―specifically how and why they charted―in a completely new way…this book will rank high on your charts.” ― Charles Rosenay, author of The Book of Beatles Top Ten Lists; Beatles festival producer
…
“The Beatles on the Charts not only provides invaluable information, but is written in an engaging, often humorous tone. Fans and scholars will find this book a vital addition to the growing body of Beatles research.” ― Kit O’Toole, Songs We Were Singing: Guided Tours through The Beatles’ Lesser-Known Tracks
…
Here are some sample pages!
Years ago, as a fan of Dilbert, I read one of his nonfiction books where he explained that there are multiple universes, and the reason he had been successful as a cartoonist is because he willed himself into the universe where he was successful.
It was at that point that I began to wonder about his mental condition.
And over the years, as he spouted more and more crazy, right-wing Trumpy proclamations, I decided I had had enough and stopped buying his cartoon books or reading the comic. Saying that his Dilbert TV show had been cancelled because he was “white” didn’t help.
He’s now gone so far out with his latest racist rant that he’s being dropped from many papers. He, of course, is claiming that he’s being discriminated against, which just shows once again how crazy he has become.
Picasso was a terrible human being who mistreated his wives, but he made great art. Orson Scott Card writes novels I really enjoy, but his rants against gay rights are full of hate. There are actors and musicians whose work I admire and whose personal lives are terrible.
But I think it is important to separate the two. It is possible to like the art without liking the artist.
Which leads to the important question: Should you support the art, knowing it benefits the artist?
In my case, I have tried to limit whatever I could contribute to the artist. I refuse to buy Card’s books, although I certainly can see myself getting one out from the library.
The situation with J.K. Rowling is more complicated.
In case you are not aware, Rowling has said some terrible things about trangendered people — really hateful things. I certainly will not buy any more of her books.
But I used to question certain boycotts of the Harry Potter movies because, after all, it’s not just her. There are thousands of people working on those films. I have no idea what the political views are of the director or the gaffer or the editor or the guy who sweeps the floor after the scene is done. (You can easily boycott the new “Fantastic Beast” films without this dilemma simply because they suck.)
J.K. Rowling has solved this dilemma for me by claiming that her success, and the success of the new Harry Potter video game, is evidence that people agree with her position.
That made my decision easier. Had she just shut her stupid mouth, I would be questioning the point of boycotting something that involves thousands of people, but I certainly am not about to give her a vote of confidence by purchasing the game. (And especially once I found out the game designer is a right-wing Trumpie who specifically placed anti-semitic themes into the game. Apparently, the hook-nosed goblins who run the banks are in rebellion against being treated terribly, and your goal as a player is not to help them against this injustice, but to put down the rebellion! Um, no thanks, I like playing the good guy in my games.)
I really did enjoy the Potter books and films, despite their flaws, and I can judge them separately from my views of the author.
But how can I buy this new game and still claim to be a supporter of my trans friends (of which I have quite a few)?
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a comic strip writer. I drew my own strips, and got to draw them for the school newspaper and everything. I collected all the comic strip collections I could get (I still have most of them) and especially loved Peanuts.
Peanuts was revolutionary in many ways — most comic strips at the time were adventure strips, with ongoing, complicated plots. Schulz introduced a simpler, gag-a-day approach that became the model for comic strips to come.
Charles M. Schulz would have been 100 years old today, and all his comic strip friends decided to honor him and his great influence. Here are a few of my favorites.
“Hi, I’m a straight white male who has enjoyed superhero movies for years and who is upset that now these movies are aimed at audiences other than just straight white males!
Clearly, Hollywood is only interested in being woke and the fact that these new movies are making a ton of money and are very successful, proving that people want to see them, is irrelevant!
I demand to be the center of all attention, dammit! Everything has to be about me!“
Back when I was young, I was happy to see even one new animated film a year. Now there’s practically one a week.
In the 80s, I started a magazine called “Animato!” that later grew quite large and popular. I got to meet and interview great animators like Chuck Jones and Ralph Bakshi but later sold the magazine, and it went on to even bigger successes until the internet killed all magazines.
So I’m still an animation fan, but it’s basically impossible to see all the films and all the animated TV shows these days unless you’re a full-time animator or animation historian, I guess.
And this is especially true during the pandemic. Studios realized that while they couldn’t make as many live action films, animators can work from their home … so we got a lot more animated films than we would normally get.
There were some really great films this year I did get to catch, though. My favorite was Mitchells vs. The Machines, but I also very much enjoyed Encanto, Vivo, and Ron’s Gone Wrong.
These days, with so much CGI, we can debate what an “animated film” even is, but generally the accepted definition is that the main characters must be animated — not just the monsters or effects. (And “motion capture” doesn’t count.)
So here’s my annual end-of-the-year list of best and worst animated films (based on their Rotten Tomatoes score). I used to only include films that were released to theaters, but thanks to the pandemic, that should no longer apply. This means there are more films on this list than in previous years. Ties are broken by number of reviews, and you have to have at least 10 reviews to make my list.
The best reviewed animated film of 2021 was a Denmark documentary about emigration that was animated so, yeah, technically, it belongs on this list! It was followed closely by a Japanese anime that got very little distribution. The rest of the list includes two good films with music by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Encanto and Vivo — he was busy last year) and a bunch of straight-to-streaming ones.
ventrellaquest.com 