Ha!

I used Ambroid glue and to buy it, I had to have my mom come along to the Air Force on base hobby shop. I never wanted to sniff it, I needed glue to put together the balsa wood kits.

The silly thing was I could pedal my bike over to the Navy hobby shop and they would sell it to me no problems, but they were a couple of miles further away, and a pain to get through the gate from Hickam AFB to the Navy base, and I could not bring a camera!

OK here's my take.

The song is OK but would have been better with less orchestra and less, if not none, of Ringo's vocals.

It doesn't really bother me that it's being marketed as the last Beatles song because (looking at the big picture) it helps remind us how significant this band was in our overall global pop culture.

Regarding the "who was better" debates....the way I look at it is The Beatles also includes the solo music of John, Paul, George, and Ringo - so if you include all that I don't see an argument that can hold up. The Beatles were the G.O.A.T.

Ultimately all of this is up to each individual's taste - and rightly so.....

The McCartney stuff though really is off the graph good......

^^^ It's way too early to start drinkin' Baz ... anything but coffee ;).

Any Stones album from Beggars's ... to Some Girls (and a few others) got played LOUD about a million times more in the "House of Rock" .... but that guy wuz just a bit biased by his own personal preferences... just ask H_O if ya think I'm exaggerating!

Where's my beer :D?

Ohio Express, not the Monkees…

Not very good, and it's even worse when the radio plays it every 15 minutes. I'm not kidding about that.

81 year old Paul needed the cash.
His net worth is only $1.2 billion and he's still touring. :)

Yep... the OE was on the jukebox ... the Monkees were on TV .... real music wasn't even on my radar until around '72 ... Hot Rocks :)!

... and 8-tracks ruled ;)

The big question is why?
I'm thinking someone with influence needed the coin.

I didn't much like the Beatles anyway. There, I said it.

Possible, I'm sure. The thing is, put it out there. People who don't care don't have to listen. People who do, get the opportunity.

There's still more unreleased songs.

https://www.vulture.com/article/best-unreleased-beatles-songs

One of the issues between Paul and John was Paul’s relentless pursuit of money.

So, here we have Paul demonstrating exactly what John meant.

OTOH, Paul may actually be trying to expose BEATLES fans to more BEATLES music out of magnanimity.

Or both.

Did Michael Jackson buy the rights to the Beatles songs?
They get the rights after that?
I could be wrong.

A decade after the initial deal, Jackson sold 50 percent of ATV to Sony for $95 million, creating the music publishing company Sony/ATV. Today, the company owns the rights to the Beatles’ songs, as well as those from artists like Bob Dylan, Marvin Gaye, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Hank Williams, and Roy Orbison.

After Jackson’s death, at 50 years old, Sony Music took full control of the catalog seven years later with Sony/ATV agreeing to pay $750 million to the late performer’s estate in order to buy out the remaining 50 percent stake in the company.

https://americansongwriter.com/the-story-behind-michael-jackson-buying-the-beatles-catalog-and-angering-friend-paul-mccartney/#:~:text=A%20decade%20after%20the%20initial,Hank%2 0Williams%2C%20and%20Roy%20Orbison.

Read an article long ago in Rolling Stone magazine about the Rolling Stones where either Mick or Keith said they had hundreds of songs they've written but never released. They keep those songs locked in a safe somewhere. But that was back in the 70's or early 80's when I read that. Maybe the songs are or were all used up by now. Probably was true with the Beatles too.

define "last" and "beatles".

ive heard some very convincing AI fakes. want the beatles to do a Limp Bizkit cover? just click a button.

I hear one final Benny Goodman composition is coming!

The Stones' "Tattoo You" album from '81 consisted of songs they had recorded during the '70s over several different album sessions .... nothing was "new". It didn't suck ;)

There are multiple rights. The artist still owns rights to the song, despite the record company owning the copyright in the recording. There are both songwriter and performance rights too. Most likely there was a master right to the recording, which was sold to MJ, but the artists retain rights to their portions.

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

The song sounds very dated.