Food and Drink #46 Sponsored by Primula

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Floofy ginger pear critter.
---
Swamp wallaby females can remain pregnant through their entire adult lifetimes.

Screenshot 2023-11-03 at 19.52.52.png


And she is over it.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Wow
Reactions: 18
McChopper, was your friend saying we eat wallabies? Or platypus?
For the record, we don't eat either. Platypus are a protected species, not sure about the golden furry avocado but I'd say they're already in low supply.
Kangaroo is popular to eat, though. Low in fat, high in protein and iron and budget friendly as there are millions of them boinging all over the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13
Mcm, I think it was the swamp wallabies. Well yeah it was.
He'd been feeding them, a young fella (10 ) got one hunting traditionally and offered him some . He didn't partake , or mention his loss. Chiligoe I think he is . Population 240 or something.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 9
What do you guys think of the “new “ Beatles song, Now And Then?

I like it, but I have some thoughts, and didn’t want to rain on the parade of the Beatles thread here.
So the new song has basically been built around a 1970s John Lennon demo, with George Harrison parts added in ‘95, and then reworked in the present day, by Paul and Ringo (as well as producers and AI technology).

Like I said, I like the song, and it’s a good thing for themsleves and the fans that they’ve done this.

However, they’re marketing it as the “last Beatles song” which feel disingenuous to me, since when Lennon originally worked on it, it was never intended as a Beatles record.

I don’t think it shouldn’t be released, it’s a cool and meaningful thing to do, but I just feel a bit conflicted about the way it’s been described.

Would love to know others‘ thoughts.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 13
What do you guys think of the “new “ Beatles song, Now And Then?

I like it, but I have some thoughts, and didn’t want to rain on the parade of the Beatles thread here.
So the new song has basically been built around a 1970s John Lennon demo, with George Harrison parts added in ‘95, and then reworked in the present day, by Paul and Ringo (as well as producers and AI technology).

Like I said, I like the song, and it’s a good thing for themsleves and the fans that they’ve done this.

However, they’re marketing it as the “last Beatles song” which feel disingenuous to me, since when Lennon originally worked on it, it was never intended as a Beatles record.

I don’t think it shouldn’t be released, it’s a cool and meaningful thing to do, but I just feel a bit conflicted about the way it’s been described.

Would love to know others‘ thoughts.
Didn't rate it on first listen, it's a bit meh. The clip is quite emotional in some parts and flat out WTF in others.
I think it will go down well with the Mould FM crowd.

(Gold, aka Mould FM is the oldies radio station here.)
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 9
I do think they should all it something which indicates it’s a patchwork of contributions of the members (punchy! I should work in marketing🤣) as this kind of thing will become a trend. I’m sure someone is doing the same with Elvis or Buddy Holly right now. There will be a new Nirvana album next 🥲
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 9
What do you guys think of the “new “ Beatles song, Now And Then?

I like it, but I have some thoughts, and didn’t want to rain on the parade of the Beatles thread here.
So the new song has basically been built around a 1970s John Lennon demo, with George Harrison parts added in ‘95, and then reworked in the present day, by Paul and Ringo (as well as producers and AI technology).

Like I said, I like the song, and it’s a good thing for themsleves and the fans that they’ve done this.

However, they’re marketing it as the “last Beatles song” which feel disingenuous to me, since when Lennon originally worked on it, it was never intended as a Beatles record.

I don’t think it shouldn’t be released, it’s a cool and meaningful thing to do, but I just feel a bit conflicted about the way it’s been described.

Would love to know others‘ thoughts.
The song itself is, IMO, not amazing, but I enjoyed it. I’m sentimental and emotionally attached to The Beatles so I cried big fat tears watching the film and then listening to the single last night.

I will say one thing though: the sleeve artwork is absolutely SHITE. I can’t believe that’s what they came up with. It looks like what you’d see on a pirate karaoke disc or something. Awful. If they’re plugging it as a Beatles track, which they are and it’ll be on future versions of the Red/Blue album, then they should have made more of an effort.
as a record collector, The Beatles album covers are iconic. The artwork tells a story; every one of their albums sounds different from the last - they were true progressives, and the covers reflected that. Their image was so important to all of it. The cover looks cheap and half arsed.
Sorry.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 11
The song itself is, IMO, not amazing, but I enjoyed it. I’m sentimental and emotionally attached to The Beatles so I cried big fat tears watching the film and then listening to the single last night.

I will say one thing though: the sleeve artwork is absolutely SHITE. I can’t believe that’s what they came up with. It looks like what you’d see on a pirate karaoke disc or something. Awful. If they’re plugging it as a Beatles track, which they are and it’ll be on future versions of the Red/Blue album, then they should have made more of an effort.
as a record collector, The Beatles album covers are iconic. The artwork tells a story; every one of their albums sounds different from the last - they were true progressives, and the covers reflected that. Their image was so important to all of it. The cover looks cheap and half arsed.
Sorry.
No thats a good point, the cover is very “graphic design is my passion”

IMG_5107.png


And I know we’re living in the digital era, but fans queued up for physical copies of this song.
I totally agree with you about their original artwork.
---
I do think they should all it something which indicates it’s a patchwork of contributions of the members (punchy! I should work in marketing🤣) as this kind of thing will become a trend. I’m sure someone is doing the same with Elvis or Buddy Holly right now. There will be a new Nirvana album next 🥲
Ugh yeah. It’s… interesting. I don‘t even mean that in a sarcastic way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 9
No thats a good point, the cover is very “graphic design is my passion”

View attachment 2549595

And I know we’re living in the digital era, but fans queued up for physical copies of this song.
I totally agree with you about their original artwork.
---

Ugh yeah. It’s… interesting. I don‘t even mean that in a sarcastic way.
Too late to fix, I should have said “call it something“ but yeah. What is AI deceased band member music going to be called?
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 8
Just on AI, it’s something I don’t really understand, and what I’ve seen I don’t like. Id never heard of ChatGPT until I seen it mentioned on here. I wouldn’t have known what it was without the fraus.

anyway, today in work I was sifting job applications for a *very* specialised job, requiring multiple qualifications and a lot of experience. One of the applicants had used ChatGPT and whilst I wouldn’t have necessarily known it was written by AI, it did feel a bit rambly and something about it I just couldn’t put my finger on. It just didn’t flow. Anyway, they forgot to remove a line at the end which says created by ChatGPT. Imagine?
 
  • Haha
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 18
Too late to fix, I should have said “call it something“ but yeah. What is AI deceased band member music going to be called?
Right! I don’t know if it’s me being pedantic, but calling it a Beatles song (and the last ever), just feels wrong to me.

Why wasn’t it released as an unheard John Lennon demo, since that’s what it was? Or since P&R got involved, “a John Lennon demo reworked, ft McCartney, Harrison and Starr“ or something?

I said this on the Beatles thread but, imagine Instant Karma only ever made it as far as demo form, and then got reworked and released in this way, and called a Beatles song, it would feel wrong.


(I know I should just get over it and enjoy a nice thing 🤣 )
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 9
Right! I don’t know if it’s me being pedantic, but calling it a Beatles song (and the last ever), just feels wrong to me.

Why wasn’t it released as an unheard John Lennon demo, since that’s what it was? Or since P&R got involved, “a John Lennon demo reworked, ft McCartney, Harrison and Starr“ or something?

I said this on the Beatles thread but, imagine Instant Karma only ever made it as far as demo form, and then got reworked and released in this way, and called a Beatles song, it would feel wrong.


(I know I should just get over it and enjoy a nice thing 🤣 )
I can’t stand Instant Karma. In fact, I’d probably go as far as to say I am not much of a fan of Lennon’s solo work at all.
George Harrison’s on the other hand.
 
  • Heart
  • Like
Reactions: 7
It really needs to be called like a “reimagined” Beatles track or something.
---
No actually, a “reimagined Beatles” track
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 10
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.