Do this guys annoy anyone else besides me? I mean, they where employees of the beatles, nothing more, so why should i care when they met the guys, or where were they when Brian died and so on
Just wanted to hear someone elses opinion
Take care everyone
Was just watching anthology the other day and thought exactly the same thing in regards to Neil Aspinal, but not Derek Taylor. Thought he did talk up his involvement a bit much and hated when he refered to the Beatles as "we". His attempt to run Apple was obviously a shambles and he should have stuck to moving the band's equipment. If he was such a reluctant manager of Apple, then why didn't he get someone in who actually could manage and run a company, he looks like he couldn't organize a f@ck in a brothel.
Oh well, I guess it is not a coincidence that we see quite a lot of him and his role in the Beatles' history since he was the Executive Producer of the series. One day, I'm going to produce a Beatles documentary and say that I dicovered, managed and wrote all the songs for the group, while singing all the songs and playing all the instruments, wrote and directed all the movies and music videos and slept with Patti Boyd/Harrison on a very regular basis.
Wow, I'm really suprised by the hatred for Neil.
If there was a fifth Beatle, it was him, at least in terms of living the life with them. From the very beginning, he, and to a lesser extent Mal Evans, were with the Beatles pretty much 24 seven. They traveled with them, lived with them, slept with them, were on the wings during each and every show. It's amazing when you think of modern stars and their vast entourages, and with the Beatles, it was just two guys.
As the temporary manager of Apple, he was given all the burden but no power or authority whatsoever. His mandate was to run Apple however the others told him to do it, which was impossible.
As road manager, he basically organized the first full scale rock and roll tours, to this day the most chaotic. Slightly tougher than organizing a *beep* in a brothel, don't you think?
If it were not for Neil, there absolutely would never have been a Beatles anthology. After the breakup, he spent more than twenty years going over old footage, virtually as a full-time job. He meticulously kept each and every scrap of film of them, including film that was not even developed. This was his passion and dream for a large part of his life, even though everyone thought it was an impossible one. Suddenly, one day, all the litigation was over, some of the Beatles needed a big cash infusion, and it occurred to them that maybe they could do something with Neil's idea for a film...
The key thing that Neil gave them was a totally loyal and honest, but no nonsense and no bull*** presence that was both a caretaker and reality check. The Beatles, John's heroin problem notwithstanding, emerged from their experience amazingly healthy and sane. A huge amount of credit goes to the fact that they had people like Neil around, instead of, for instance, ruthless hanger ons like Elvis's Memphis Mafia.
I think the project greatly benefitted from Neil's perspective as a normal guy who suddenly got pulled into the midst of the mania, seeing everything while still remaining basically a level headed working joe. I think the insider/outsider perspectives of him, Taylor and George Martin were crucial.
The three remaining Beatles had veto power over all segments of the Anthology. All were fine with Neil (and Derrek's) participation. What does that tell you?
[deleted]
While Neil didn't know the difference between Joe DIMAZIO and Joe GARAGIOLA ...those Italian guys all must look alike I guess...LOL (when talking about the time John and Paul appeared on the Tonight Show to launch Apple Corps.- made me wonder why nobody caught that mistake and had him rerecord that interview?) if it hadn't been for Neil there wouldn't have even been this series.
shareThe two Joes are baseball stars. Baseball means absolutely nothing to an Englishman. It's not in his frame of reference. There are a lot of little mistakes in the interviews. It just gives the Anthology more charm.
shareI didn't find Derek Taylor's remarks "annoying". Neil Aspinall's, yes. As another poster mentioned, I, too, hated that he used the pronoun "we", as if he were part of the band. He started out as one of their two road managers, and then as general manager of Apple, because that is what the Beatles themselves wanted. In the documentary, he talked as if he had the power to do what he wanted, and that they needed his say-so, but it was the other way around. Apple was the Beatles' project, and everybody else involved were nothing more than hired hands, and that included Neil Aspinall. As to whose idea it was for the Anthology-that credit goes to the Beatles themselves. Why did they do it? Because they were tired of outsiders telling their story. It wasn't a case of Neil Aspinall (or anybody for that matter) saying, "Hey, boys, you're going to tell your story in documentary, audio and book form, and here's how it's going to work out".
shareI don't recall being irritated by either of them. When Neil Aspinall uses the "we", if we're talking about touring and the Beatlemania period, he was there. He was one of the party. Of course he wasn't the one receiving screeches of adulation, but he was still caught up in the stampede so to speak. He experienced all the craziness and fraught situations as well. Whenever he said "we", I don't think I even thought of questioning it, because it sounded to me like he was talking about being in the entourage, not being a Beatle.
I do think he also did a lot of the initial legwork as far as gathering archival materials. Of course it took the Beatles deciding to do it, but I do also think Aspinall was probably a significant force in coordinating the project. If nothing else, I don't think roadies are out of place in these types of documentaries. If Mal Evans had still been alive, I'd like to think he'd also have been interviewed. People like Aspinall, Taylor, and George Martin, were there, and I think including them was a good idea not least because their memories help to piece together what may have happened way back then (because no one Beatle or individual is going to remember everything and they may have conflicting memories) without going beyond the perspective of the Beatles' inner circle. Even Brian Epstein was included in archival footage, so I think it's clear that the people the Beatles considered insider allies were considered suitable for inclusion.
Om Shanti