Alexander

You know I've had the same exact revelation once before. I don't own any of their pre-Rubber Soul Stuff except (now) the first disc of Past Masters but I've heard quite a bit. But I had that same revelation when listening to Vol. 2 of the Anthology Sets. Ticket to Ride just sort of jumps out at you. Then again, since then I was kind of blown away by something that I think came earlier or maybe the same time (someone can correct me if I'm wrong) -- their performance of Twist & Shout which I think was for the Queen (on one of the Anthology DVDs). They're still decked out in matching suits with ties, but there's a pretty palpable energy and rawness (much like on Ticket to Ride) that they bring to this performance that undermines the sort of strictly controlled get-up they have on stage. Of course, the visual component admittedly adds an important ingredient to the mix and most certainly effects my perception of what was going on. "For this next song I'd like to ask your help: Would the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands? And the rest of you just rattle your jewelry..."

Yes, but Albert King called his guitar "Lucy." Again, I direct your attention to his Stax recording "I Love Lucy," particularly the line: "Lucy made me a star. I know what you're thinkin'. The Lucy I'm talkin' about is my guitar..."

A couple of things that have been pissing me off a bit about "Revolution In the Head": One) As I said before, MacDonald is a bit on the grouchy side and he has a tendency to come down hard on some songs in a way that I think is unwarranted. I especially find his dismissal of "Helter Skelter" to be completely wrongheaded. I think the Beatles do pretty GOOD proto-metal. What it comes down to (as is revealed in his text) is that MacDonald doesn't LIKE metal and sees no redeeming quality in it. That's fine, of course, but it queers his argument a bit, I think. Two) Some of his factual errors are distracting. The first, mentioned here, is saying that either Ringo or George sang the "Dennis" part on "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" when it is OBVIOUSLY Paul. I've never heard it any other way, nor have I ever met anyone who thought otherwise. It sounds like Paul. Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton.

It's interesting that these were favorites of yours (and your friends?) when you were in high school, considering you were in high school from what... 1985-88? I mean, most high school kids are into what's current at the time, or at least fairly current, but "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes" would have been practically from your parents' generation, no? That song came out even before I was in high school ('70-'74). Anyway, I'm not knocking it, I just find it a little surprising. Yeah, my high school years were 1985-1989. I started out like any other kid, listening to top 40 radio and taping the songs I liked when they were played. I liked Prince, Huey Lewis and the News, Phil Collins era Genesis, Madonna (owned the "True Blue" album). Then I met my friend Henry. He was a little older than me (a little less than a year older, but a whole year ahead of me in school) but his parents were SIGNIFICANTLY older than mine (my parents were in their early 20s when I was born...his were in their 40s). As a result, he had never listened to the Beatles, Stones, the Who, Dylan...all the things I heard from my parents growing up. Right around the time we met, he had just discovered the music of the '60s and was interested by the fact that I had some knowledge of it (and, more importantly, that my parents owned the LPs so he could listen to them at my house). Because he was just discovering it, I wound up REDISCOVERING the same music. By the 1987-88 school year (and - not coincidentally - the first CD release of the Beatles catalog), a '60s revival was in full swing. Henry and I were fully immersed in the music of the late '60s and early '70s. The "non-conformists" shunned the "current" music (I wouldn't rediscover Prince until I got to college) and embraced the music of our parents. If Henry and I weren't full-blown pseudo-hippies, we were close. We both grew our hair out and Henry sported a truly impressive set of side-burns. We sported tie-dye t-shirts and jeans jackets (I, who only the year before, had regularly worn a tie to school every day!). Neither of us ever took drugs, btw. We never got that deep into it. The funny thing was that the kids who DID take drugs (the ones who hung out in the smoking area - yes, my high school had one for the students who were over 16) were ALSO into groups like Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath (they also tended to go for Metallica and Megadeth over Poison and Motley Crue. Ronnie James Dio and Ozzy were like gods to these kids. I remember one kid who were a Yngwie Malmsteen jacket every day). But these kids scorned the "hippy" kids as posers. The big difference (to me) was that these kids (the smoking area types) were solidly working class, while the pseudo-hippies (like me and Henry) were all fairly middle-class. The point is that, yes, the music that I most associate with high school is CSN, Zeppelin, the Who, Hendrix, The Stones, Dylan, the Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. This is the music I was discovering (and REdiscovering) during the sophomore and junior years of high school, which are arguably the best and most memorable of those years (my senior year wasn't bad, by any stretch of the imagination, it was just different). Particularly my junior year. I had my first real heartache that year. Sigh. I STILL think of that girl (who I still know, btw) whenever I hear "Bluebird" by Buffalo Springfield...

The Beatles are definitely NOT a matter of nostalgia for me. Nostalgia only works when you haven't heard the music in question for some time. For example, at work we've been listening to Madonna's new "Greatest Hits" compilation. THAT'S music I haven't listened to since its initial release. So when I was greeting people today (as "Papa Don't Preach" played in the background) I would say to each customer, "Good afternoon. Welcome to 1986!" (Always got a big laugh, btw). If I hadn't heard the Beatles since I was a kid or in high school, then listening to it would "bring me back" to the days when I was listening to it. But I've been listening to them continuously since I was a baby. Never stopped. Never took even a few years off (a few months a most). Thus, my memories of the "last time I heard this" are constantly displaced by NEW memories. Yes, when I listen to "Polythene Pam" I can remember how I used to think of a certain girl I liked when I was a Junior High School whenever I heard that song, but I've heard it so many times SINCE then that it's not the FIRST thing I think of. When I was in high school, two of my favs were Crosby, Stills and Nash (especially the first album) and Led Zeppelin. For several years after college, I didn't listen to those groups at all. I considered them "childish things" to be set aside now that I was a "man." Years later, I listened to them again, and it DID bring back powerful memories of high school (especially hearing "Suite: Judy Blue Eyes"). But the Beatles? Nope...

Fuck you all. I LOVED it. Now, THAT'S what I call field recording!

MO-NO BOX! MO-NO BOX! MO-NO BOX! Er, sorry what was the question again? *Sigh* I have a four week wait for the MO-NO BOX! 'Money don't get everything, it's true What it don't get I can't use....' Swee-eet!! "Now gimme M-O-O-O-NO. That's what I want (That's what I want.) That's what I waaa-aaa-nt, oh yeah. That's what I want!"

I've been meaning to get something by the Hollies. I already have lots of stuff by the Byrds and Buffalo Springfield...so Crosby, Stills and Young are all covered...

No, that's a Rutles tune. My favorite one! My favorite is "Cheese and Onions"...

I apologize if I implied hostile intent... It sounded to me as though you were "calling Perkins out" for "stealing" Lemon's song. If I misread your post I apologize. To my ears, Perkin's song is a variation on Lemon's song, however, and not a "cover version."

See you keep over-egging the pudding. I can easily imagine nearly all Beatles albums without Ringo's vocal contributions, and I vastly prefer them that way. If I am close enough to the player, I skip over Ringo's features with only a couple of exceptions. To each his own. I couldn't imagine skipping a single track on ANY Beatles album (or on any album at all, for that matter. But then again, I read all of the comics in the paper every day, including the ones I hate like "Mark Trail," "Ziggy," and "Family Circus").

Well if you had read post 549 of this thread you would have learned it a bit earlier. :D Yep. Must've overlooked that.

Oooookay... You say that like Perkins was somehow unique in this. You know that's not the case. It's the "folk process" at work. A musician borrows a lyric or phrasing from a song he has heard somewhere along the line and turns it into another song...you know how it works. I SERIOUSLY doubt that Jefferson originated the lyric about a "matchbox holding my clothes." Undoubtedly, he lifted the idea from someone else. You know, for example, that Billie Holiday sings about her man having "the nerve to lay a matchbox on my clothes. I didn't have so many, but I sure had a long way to go." Maybe she lifted it from Lemon, but somehow I think it's much more likely that she lifted from somebody else who either lifted from Lemon, or from the same source Lemon used. Edit: I just looked it up. Ma Rainey recorded a song with a similar lyric (about a "matchbox holding my clothes") in her 1923 recording "Lost Wandering Blues." Rainey's song predates Jefferson's by four years, indicating that both probably got it from the same folk source (and it makes more sense to me that Holiday picked it up from Ma Rainey than Blind Lemon...don't know why...just a gut feeling). As for Perkins, he never claimed that "Matchbox" was an original idea. He recorded the song at the suggestion of his father, Buck, who could only recall a few lines of Jefferson's recording. Clearly, Perkins took the lines his father could remember and fleshed it out. Just a funny side note: Last night I was getting a wooden match from a box we keep in the kitchen. My daughter walked by and said (of the matchbox), "Is that for your clothes?"

Apparently, Perkins was in the studio the day the Beatles recorded their cover of "Matchbox." Legend has it that Perkins himself played the guitar solo on their version, although that's been disputed... Speaking of guitar solos, here's something I learned from "Revolution in the Head" that I DIDN'T know about the Beatles: Paul played the guitar solo on "Taxman"! Somehow that disappoints me a little. "Taxman" is a George song and one of his best, so I naturally assumed that he had played the blistering solo. Nope. That was Paul... I ALSO didn't know that the same solo was recycled and used (backwards) on "Tomorrow Never Knows." Learn something new every day! Also, the "seagull" noises on "Tomorrow Never Knows" are apparently a loop that Paul made of himself laughing, sped up and distorted...

Listening to Jimi's version of "The Star Spangled Banner" on the Woodstock CD. Damn! Just...damn!

Huh? There are no Joe Henderson albums preceding his Blue Note period. Perhaps you are referring to "Snap Your Fingers" (Todd), a pop album by a singer with the same name, who sounds like Brook Benton. More than once he has been confused with the saxophonist. I see that AMG also lists a 1962 Capitol LP. I have no doubt that this is by the singer That might be it. I think I saw it on the AMG. Thanks for clearing that up. So I have everything he did as a leader (and a LOT of his sideman appearances).

The number of CDs in your collection exceeds what your enjoyment of that artist would warrant. I went through heavy Miles, Bud Powell, and Stan Getz periods over the years and have tons and tons by these artists (although far from everything). But exceeding my enjoyment? No. I can put on any album by any of these artists and I'm quite happy. I have everything Joe Henderson released as a leader (except a very early album that is long out of print. Predates even his Blue Note material). All of Lee Morgan's Blue Note releases. Tons of Art Blakey. But again, these are favorites of mine. I don't think I have too much. Now there are artists (Sonny Rollins, Keith Jarrett) where I feel I have too little... I think that's about the saddest thing I've ever read. Didn't you used to be "Gene Harris Fanatic"?

I agree with you up to a certain point. I think being Beatles may have brought out their individual talents more equally over time. But it seems to me that on the verge of their break-up, the four were still not equals in terms of sway within the band. What I gather from the Let it Be film footage and books is that both John and Paul still sort of acted as leaders down to the end, John going with Allen Klein and Paul with Linda's father (?) as lawyer/manager figures to fill the void long left by the death of Brian Epstein. I don't remember the details but it still seems like both of them liked to call the shots down to the end and I don't know if Ringo or George really challenged them. I suppose that one scene where Paul chastens George over his guitar playing particularly comes to mind (and here one must take into account George's response, which was fairly muted). Just my .02. Yes, Paul had really stepped up in the wake of Brian Epstein's death and made himself the de facto leader of the group (John had pretty much relinquished this role in '66/'67 when he started taking tremendous quantities of acid. Something that I think was largely driven by depression over his shrinking leadership, Paul's ascent as a songwriter, and his marital problems with Cynthia). By "Let It Be," John was off with Yoko and really didn't care too much about the group. Paul was bossing everyone around, but (and this is a big but) I DON'T think that George and Ringo were willing to roll over and take it anymore. Both George and Ringo walked out of the group at different times, only to be cajoled back by Paul (John was less keen on keeping the group intact and even floated the idea of replacing George with Eric Clapton. John was also energized by the arrival of Billy Preston and immediately suggested offering Preston a full membership in the band. Paul's response was, "What for? It's bad enough with four of us." Personally, I think it's a fascinating notion. Imagine what the group would have been like with the addition of an African-American keyboardist! Imagine the injection of soul and funk into what they had already created!). Far from being muted, I think George's acidic response to Paul's hectoring reveals the fact that he wasn't going to take it any more: "I'll play anything you want me to play, or I won't play at all if you don't want me to play. I'll do anything at all just to please you."

Well, I understand that saying that Ringo's not a great singer is kind of like observing that the sun is bright and hot. And out in the daytime. Keen grasp of the obvious there... I suppose the reason that I emphasized "great" in my remark is because I DO consider Ringo to be a "good" vocalist. And I think he is. I mean, I actually own solo albums by him (not many. Certainly not all of them, but more than one...). When the band started giving him a vocal feature, I'm sure it wasn't even taken seriously by him. It was just a way of throwing a little variety into the setlist. But the point is that they DID record him, and even gave him a vocal spotlight on nearly every album. Not only that, but his vocal tracks quickly became album highlights. I know he has his detractors and there are some that feel that his songs are the slightest of fluff, but really: Can you imagine "Revolver" without "Yellow Submarine"? "Sgt. Pepper" without "A Little Help From My Friends"? "Abbey Road" without "Octopus's Garden"? Maybe you can imagine it, but frankly, I'd rather not. These songs are integral not only to their respective albums, but also to the idea of the Beatles as the most democratic of bands. And that example rubbed off on other groups. Do you REALLY think the Who would have let Keith Moon sing if it hadn't been for Ringo's example? My point is that Ringo may not have been a vocalist at all when he joined the Beatles (although I do recall reading that he was given songs to sing as a member of the Hurricanes), but the fact remains that he WAS one by the time they broke up. That's one of the things that makes their story so remarkable to me: When they started out, they were not really equals, but being Beatles MADE them equals. In 1962, John was the undisputed leader of the band. In 1970, there WAS no leader. Maybe that hastened the break-up.

Alexander, imo, you're going a little overboard with these Beatles lectures. To each his own. You certainly don't have to read them. Someone else on this thread has said that they are "more confident of their rock knowledge than their jazz knowledge", or words to that effect. Well, that's kind of how I feel about the Beatles. I've literally been listening to them my whole life. Not passively listening either. This is music I know as well as I know myself. They are probably the one artist that I REALLY feel qualified to discuss. Now the flip side of this is that I can come off as a bit of a know-it-all. A few years ago, my wife and I were in the car when a Peter and Gordon single came on the radio (one of the songs Lennon/McCartney had written for them. Possibly "World Without Love," I'm not exactly sure). She asked me, "Is this the Beatles?" I said no, it's Peter and Gordon, but it's a song the Beatles wrote for them. She asked me, "Are you sure?" To which I replied, "Look who you're talking to. Of course I'm sure." I will put my Beatles knowledge (lyrics, trivia, etc.) on the line against anyone else's. Watch out, A. People around here do not like bravado. Well, my post was written with a fair amount of rue. I know how I come off, in writing and in person, especially when I get on this particular topic. I'm not saying I'm ALWAYS right. I'm not. There are certainly things I don't know about the Beatles, but I do know a LOT. I remember back when I worked at B&N, a woman came up to the counter with some Beatles-related item for her husband, who she claimed was "the world's foremost Beatles expert." I chuckled and said that he hadn't met me yet. She then challenged me to name the group that John and Paul were first members of. Without missing a beat (heh), I replied "the Quarrymen." (I'm not claiming any great knowledge here, btw. I consider that to be common knowledge.) The woman said, "No, before that." Me - There is nothing before that. John had already formed the Quarrymen when he met Paul and asked him to join. Her - No, they were in a band together before the Quarrymen. I repeated the whole story of how John and Paul met at the St. Peter's Parish Church Garden Fete on July 6, 1957, where the Quarrymen were performing. How Paul was impressed that John had a band and John was impressed that Paul knew all the words to "Twenty Flight Rock." "So they couldn't have had a band BEFORE they met, could they?" The woman didn't say anything after that. She paid for her item and left. I felt kind of bad. I mean, I was right and I KNEW that I was right. But I suppose I could have been a bit more diplomatic about it. I don't OWN the Beatles, after all. People have right to their own opinions about them, and they have a right to be wrong about them too. I don't know WHY I react as I do when I feel challenged on this topic... Actually, they also wrote "Nobody I Know", "I Don't Want To See You Again", and "Woman". Peter was the brother of Jane Asher, McCartney's girlfriend at the time. Somebody else, who knows all these things, should have pointed this out first! Believe me, I had considered pointing it out! It took an act of supreme will on my part NOT to point it out!

Alexander, imo, you're going a little overboard with these Beatles lectures. To each his own. You certainly don't have to read them. Someone else on this thread has said that they are "more confident of their rock knowledge than their jazz knowledge", or words to that effect. Well, that's kind of how I feel about the Beatles. I've literally been listening to them my whole life. Not passively listening either. This is music I know as well as I know myself. They are probably the one artist that I REALLY feel qualified to discuss. Now the flip side of this is that I can come off as a bit of a know-it-all. A few years ago, my wife and I were in the car when a Peter and Gordon single came on the radio (one of the songs Lennon/McCartney had written for them. Possibly "World Without Love," I'm not exactly sure). She asked me, "Is this the Beatles?" I said no, it's Peter and Gordon, but it's a song the Beatles wrote for them. She asked me, "Are you sure?" To which I replied, "Look who you're talking to. Of course I'm sure." I will put my Beatles knowledge (lyrics, trivia, etc.) on the line against anyone else's.

This has nothing to do with this story, but I remember an episode of the old Arch Obler radio show "Lights Out" titled "Rocket From Manhattan" that was about the first ship to orbit the moon. It was set in the year 2000 and it basically dealt with the crew realizing that the moon had once had a civilization like earth's that destroyed itself in a nuclear war. Before they can return to earth with this information, a nuclear war breaks out on earth and leaves them trapped with no place to go. I always thought it was a pretty cool story...

Couldn't agree more. If the Beatles decided that they could sell more records as the Beatles instead of as solo artists in 1970, just from the best songs off the solo albums & singles from 1970 (some might be from 71) you would have pretty good Beatles record. Something like: Side 1: Mother It Don't Come Easy Another Day Maybe I'm Amazed My Sweet Lord Working Class Hero Side 2: Instant Karma Beware of Darkness Every Night All Things Must Pass Awaiting On You All Junk God I think I might have to make that CD! So I compiled this playlist as a CD today (which I called "Beatles '71") and it works AMAZINGLY well. It really does flow like a Beatles album. Thanks for the idea! The only amendment I made was adding "Love" to the second "side," slipping it between "All Things Must Pass" and "Awaiting You All" to break up the George a bit...

Definitely discussion of this book way upstream the thread. I agree--I've probably read it (in toto) about three times now. I just finished my fourth reading. I was going to recommend the book but Cliff beat me to it. Reading it right now. MacDonald is clearly VERY bright and an incisive critic. He's also a bit...well...grumpy in parts. He really comes down on George for his singing and playing at times. Now, I have often made the point that George was the least of the Beatles in the beginning (not too surprising...he WAS a freakin' kid at the time), but I don't treat it like a personal failing. John and Paul were a force to be reckoned with. And Ringo was an experienced professional when the other three were just getting their feet back in Liverpool and Hamburg. That George had to hustle to keep up at times is only natural. And he developed quickly under the constant pressure to prove his worth in the band. "Abbey Road" is the first and only time that I feel like all four were really operating as equals (or at least near equals) as vocalists and songwriters. With "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun" George had FINALLY written something that was every bit as good as anything Jon and Paul could come up with, without qualifiers or reservations. And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer, had developed a confidence in his voice that allowed him to perform "Octopus's Garden" with something more than just his usual zest.

Friend of mine was at his parents' house a few years ago. He found a bottle of Irish Creme in the fridge and had a taste. It tasted funny, so he asked his dad where the bottle came from. "Aunt So-and-so's wedding, I think." My friend blanched. "TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO?!"