The Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame Annex Soho

I guess Rock is really dead. Maybe it died with Jack Black's "School of Rock" movie where Rock 'n Roll got reduced to a historical recreation club for kids. Rock seems to have splintered down an endless series of niche markets. To mark the death of Rock and to water down what Rock is, we have the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, where you can see old guitars, shoes, and scraps paper like you are touring the ancient Egyptian wing of your local museum. And is worth it? Is it worth the $26 dollar price of admission in these harsh times? Well, frankly NO.

You can see more interesting Rock n' Roll memorabilia at your local Hard Rock Cafe, where $26 at least gets you a burger, fries, soda, and salad.

The annex seems like it is based on the Holocaust museum. You walk into a hard room with your other guest, like you do in the Holocaust museum to simulate what it would be like to be sent to a concentration camp, except this time you where snippet's of music, then you see a film.

OK, I have to admit I liked the film. The sound was great and it hard to want to sing along. After a pretty cool film you are given a headset. There are images of bands, like the Beatles and U2 that light up and the head set plays their most popular song. Like, "I can't get no satisfaction" for the Rolling Stones. No history. They make sure you don't learn anything. Then you walk and look really non-interesting items that the rock stars just gave away. There are some hard written song lyrics, but it is unclear when these were written. The assumption is that they are written at the creation of the song, but it never says that and they look too neat to be made in the throes of creation.

There big exhibit was of the "The Clash". I mean I like a some of their songs but not enough to look at 12 pairs of there boots.

At other times, as awesome as Rap is, is it really Rock n' Roll?

Isn't Rock n' Roll suppose to be anti-establishment? This place thinks a nose piercing and a tattoo is really sticking it to the man.

The whole thing could have been a Morgan Stanley corporate event.

The Beatles, The Biography by Bob Spitz

Just what the world needs, another biography of The Beatles. Surely, the pantheon of knowledge is lacking study of the Fab Four. The Beatles’, who are the most celebrated, studied, covered and renowned rock band ever, story is as a part of modern culture as any musical figure in history. The Beatles are really the first band, so to speak. Before The Beatles, you had Elvis, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly and the Crickets. It was usually some dude or some dude and his backing band. After The Beatles, it was all Rock Bands, The Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane, etc. The few that followed, for example Elvis Costello with his band and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, were, in fact, referencing the old style for effect.

The Beatles in fact did not invent the genre but they developed it, so much that there has been very little ground that they did not cover. Like anyone is a young field, think Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in 1979, the new world was their’s to dominate. If you can be the first at something, do it.

Again, there has been much ado written of The Beatles. I have only read one other book on them, Here, There, and Everyway: my life recording The Beatles by Geoff Emerick, which was the best music memoir I have ever read. Still, I have seen the Anthology and other Beatles specials. I have listened to “Breakfast on with the Beatles” on the radio in High School. So, I think I know a thing or two about them.

And maybe, do because this book by Spitz offered little new information. There weren’t enough details that really told the story. The most detailed section was about Brian Epstein’s homosexuality.

Spitz does cover the whole story, but mostly with highlights. However, there were a few new things for me. He does dig in on Yoko Ono more than I seen before. She is greedy and out to destroy to The Beatles so that she can get John Lennon all to herself. Ono would be motivated by the financial security and legitimacy that Lennon would bring her.

He also details Lennon’s misery in his highly successful life. Lennon is angry and impulsive. Spitz takes the excuse that he is an artist, and offers little other explanation. You do get the idea that Lennon, for all his acting out, doesn’t take control of his life and instead to just reacts to it, which is explained by his childhood of being passed around from his mother to his aunt, and his exposure to his mother’s various boyfriends. Throughout the drama of John Lennon, as bad as that was, he bitch seems worse than his bite. He was easily taken advantage of and he instead punished those that were weaker than him.

Spitz goes pretty easy on Paul. Even Emerick who couldn’t be more aligned with Mr. McCartney was more critical.

What I think I got most out of the book, maybe because it was what I was most interested in were the bits about the song writing. Spitz describes Lennon and McCartney both as artists. The difference between there styles being that Lennon was a sculptor and McCartney a painter. Lennon would makes songs out of something else, a child’s drawing, a poster, another piece of art. While McCartney would use things that came out of him without even Paul understand exactly how. “Yesterday” came out of a dream and “Michelle” came out of a need for a song; and John remembering that Paul did some French thing.

There are facts here and there, which I didn’t know much but probably could have gotten from another source, like Ringo got paid less or Twist and Shout was recorded with John screaming while being horse , sick and in pain, which you can hear once you are aware of it.

I somehow doubt that this is the best Beatles book out there. In fact, if you are looking to learn more about them, I would suggest the DVD of the Anthology over this book. However, it’s fun learning about The Beatles, and I enjoyed it as a fan.

I think that success of the book is based on the success of everything new of The Beatles come out with years, decades after they broke up. They could release new Beatles CDs of the band turning their guitars and it would generate a charting position. People are looking to recapture something, and maybe something new will do that, even if it’s just the same and the packing is different. I am not sure what that “Something” is, but I know that it is certainly there.

Across the Universe (2007)

I have to admit that this is probably the best time I have had at the theatre in a while. This movie is basically “The Beatles, the musical.” There is barely a story here. It is just an excuse to make movie set in the 60’s and sing a lot of Beatles songs. In fact, they murder the songs most of the time. However, as my grandma used to say, you can murder a good song, but you can’t kill it. Basically, what you do with this film is to stop paying attention to any kind of narrative, and sing aloud with your favorite Beatles songs. They are mostly sung in a cheesy musical theatre fashion, which makes it easy to follow along. If you can't do that, then just enjoy the interesting visuals. If you can do both, then you will have a great time with this campy movie.

Of course, you might have some intellectual tension with the fact that this movie is constantly taking Beatles references literally to a point of nausea. Nausea ain’t fun! That is exactly why it is important not think too much while watching this.

Probably the best part of the movie are the visuals, which would be somewhat artistic if the movie just wasn’t so damn cheesy, but you are going to the listen to Beatles songs anyway, so who cares!

Bono is in the movie. He plays Dr. Robert. Dr. Robert is a John Lennon song from the Revolver album. Get it, the Beatles have a song called Dr. Robert and Bono plays Dr. Robert. OK, forgot it. Well, this was no stretch for Bono who basically played his Macfisto role from the Zoo TV tour. U2 constantly barrows from the Beatles anyway, so Bono was right at home here. You can here Bono sing “I am the Walrus,” which is pretty good, and “Lucy in the sky with Diamonds” with The Edge.

Did I mention that the Paul McCartney look-a-like, played by Jim Sturgess, is named Jude? His love interest, who was just 17, was played Evan Rachel Wood is named Lucy. And you have a Jojo, Sadie, Prudence, and lets just say, it gets worse. At one point Jude says, “She came in through the bathroom window.” oi, really! Now, she could have just done that and the audience would have gotten the picture, but no, the filmmakers had to go for 120% cheesiness. If you not a purest, it is possible to really enjoy this shtick.

I am not one to have an opinion on choreography, but I like it in this film. I really seems to have work well. There are a thousand and one references to people and events of the sixties that are so NOT subtle.

This film is directed by Julie Taymor.

Just think of Across the Universe as Beatles sing-a-long and you will be in great shape, and don’t forget to clap when they have John Lennon, George Harrison, Paul McCartney, and Ringo in the credits, because it is the only mention of the actual Beatles in this movie. This feels like a cult classic!