Alexander

Brilliant! Ah, for the days when Henson and Oz were actually involved in Sesame Street...

I haven't seen the ads, but I agree. Tacky, tacky, tacky!

Latin est lingua mortuus parumper causa.

I picked it up at FYE (normally horribly overpriced) for $62.00. I feel like I got a bargain considering that even True Blue is offering it for $99. On the other hand, I already own KOB on vinyl, CD, and Gold CD. So now I have a second vinyl copy and a third CD copy. Of course, my vinyl copy was a store demonstration copy in a former life, so this new version is nice to have being that it is brand new (and speed corrected). I don't know. I'm probably the king of all suckers, but I felt like I couldn't let it pass at that price...

Didn't Steely Dan do the title track to that movie? I have it on "A Decade of Steely Dan" (I have all of their albums, but I hang on to this compilation for this one track).

Some of her album cover art in LP days used to be nice ! :rsmile: I'm going to stick my neck out and say that back when she was still in a vaguely country vein she was pretty good. I also like this recent album:

Sorry, but it IS revisionism, based on respective numbers of copies sold at the time, the Beatles' agreement with Capitol, and the fact that these were mere collections of songs - not movements of symphonies. That's a bit snobby. Clearly, these were not "mere" collections of songs to either the Beatles or Martin, otherwise they wouldn't have cared how the albums were presented. But they did, and if we're going to count the intent of the artist, the UK Beatles catalogue (along with the original UK mixes) is clearly the original "text" of the Beatles' body of work. The American catalogue, however widely disseminated, was a bastardization in that it ignored the intent of the artist and created something entirely different for the sake of commerce. The American Beatles albums were mixed up and truncated for no other reason than to double the number of Beatles releases in a given year (making the American consumer pay twice as much as the British consumer to receive the exact same amount of end-product). This was no "artistic" decision made by the exectutives at Captiol. That said, I have tremendous affection for the American catalogue and own most of the albums in both US and UK versions (when I can get my hands on them). I enjoy a lot of the American mixes (even the ones considered inferior) simply because they're what I heard first. But I don't discount the fact that if the Beatles and EMI had had their way, there would be no "Meet the Beatles," "Yesterday and Today" or "Beatles '65" (not to mention real rip-offs like the "Help!" soundtrack, which only included songs from the movie in the US).

Great movie! An inspiration for "Reservoir Dogs" as well!

I'll agree up to a point. They were certainly among the first in ROCK to think of LPs as more than just collections of songs (although the Beach Boys were certainly heading in that direction, even before the Beatles-inspired "Pet Sounds"). However, Frank Sinatra beat them to the punch by more than a decade. His LPs on Capitol contained a common "theme" and certainly demonstrate considerable thought when it comes to programming.

Of course - just like San Francisco isn't the "Real America." Sorry, but I don't buy into the revisionist Beatles catalog history that has been propagated by EMI and the corporate entity known as the Beatles. It's not revisionism. Writing out "Beatles '65" in favor of "Beatles for Sale" is revisionism (I think that "Beatles '65" is arguably the stronger package). Most pre-Sgt. Pepper Beatles albums have an American and British version, even if they don't share the same title, but "Yesterday and Today" was in American only odds-and-ends collection, with no British analogue. The album is made up of tracks from the British "Help!", "Rubber Soul" and the few tracks from "Revolver" that were finished at the time (so songs like "And Your Bird Can Sing," "I'm Only Sleeping" and "Doctor Robert" were released in the US before they came out in the UK). So, no: It's not a "real" album, any more than "Hey Jude" is a "real" album. Not that "Yesterday and Today" can't "work" as an album, but it wasn't put together by Martin and the Beatles on any level. It was purely a Capitol records product.

Wow. I didn't realize they were recorded at the same time as Revolver. It's hard to believe that LP could have been even better! Definitely their peak, in my opinion. 1966 was very much the high point in the Beatles' career arc. It was arguably the greatest and most artistically successful and consistent period, spawning the "Paperback Writer/Rain" single, "Revolver," and "Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane." "Sgt. Pepper" was when the world got hip to what the Beatles were doing, but it was obvious to fans that things were changing and had been for some time. It was after "Sgt. Pepper" (for which "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane" were recorded, but as with "Paperback Writer" and "Rain," they were released early to satisfy the demand for more Beatles product) that the slow decline began. "Magical Mystery Tour" was an ill-conceived project (with the exception of "I Am the Walrus"), the soundtrack to "Yellow Submarine" (not released until 1969, but largely recorded at the same time as the "Magical Mystery Tour" tracks) was a half-assed effort (you can tell how much Paul and John thought of it by the fact that the original material is dominated by George, although (as with everything the Beatles did) there are gems such as "Hey Bulldog"), the White Album is a collection of largely individual efforts (containing much brilliance, but little or no cohesion), and (as I noted above) "Let It Be" was a false start for a never finished project. The Beatles didn't return to the heights of "Revolver" and the two double A-sided singles that bookend it until "Abbey Road." For me, the "best" Beatles album is a toss up of "Revolver" and "Abbey Road" and it's very hard to decide which, in the end, is the better. Most of time, I'd say "Revolver" if you asked me, but "Abbey Road" is so freakin' great that to relegate it to number two status seems to be an insult. To me, theferfore, I declare it a tie between the two. The Beatles never surpassed these two albums.

This is showing up as an import only on CD Universe and Amazon. Is this new and just not out yet? Is it out of print in the US? What's the deal?

Their first couple of albums, yes, I'd agree, but I usually prefer the stereo mixes. In any case, "stereo being an afterthought" - if it was at all - only goes through the White Album. I'm not sure if there even was a mono issue of Abbey Road or Let it Be - if there were, they were fold-downs of the stereo mix. There is no mono mix of either "Abbey Road" or "Let It Be." But I do think that "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" sound particularly good in mono. Never liked the stereo "scope" on Beatles albums, where they put all of the vocals in one ear and most of the instruments in the other. Sounds really shitty on headphones, although it has been noted that the albums were not intended to be heard that way. The mono versions kick ASS on headphones, however.

Yikes! Poor guy! Why do people always seem to have problems with the body parts they use most often? I mean, if Turner lost a few toes it would be no big deal. Don't need toes to play sax. Hell, you don't even need feet! A good friend of mine is a classical bassist with the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. She's been suffering from Meniers disease for the last several years. She's been unable to hear out of one ear and has been suffering the worst dizziness and nausea. Suffice to say, she can't play when she's having an attack. Now the doctors say that they can treat the disease by bombarding the afflicted ear with antibiotics...but she'll lose her hearing in that ear perminently. And it may not solve the problem if it recurs in the other ear. Can you imagine? A woman who makes her living with her ears and she's in danger of losing them. Anyway, I hope Turner's injuries aren't too serious and that he makes a full recovery. My wife had a boss who had a similar accident a few year's back. Now three of the fingers on his left hand are the same length, which is considerably shorter than they used to be...

As to the question that started the thread, the simple fact is that Rock and Roll is not the unbroken continuity VH1 and Rolling Stone would have us believe it is. The first generation of Rock and Roll was over and done with by 1960. By 1960, Elvis was in the army, Buddy Holly was dead, Little Richard had returned to the church, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis were both in disgrace, Eddie Cochran was dead... Pop music had internalized the style of early rock and roll, but not its substance. The period between the death of Rock and Roll and the arrival of Beatlemania saw some bland music (Fabian) but it also saw some outstanding music (Phil Spector's productions, the rise of Motown, the arrival of the Beach Boys, the Folk boom). The Beatles were coming out of Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly, but they were also paying attention to what was happening in Pop music. They were revivalists in a way, but they were also updating and advancing the music they were reviving. Some have noted that while Rock and Roll was dead by 1960, ROCK was born in the years that followed. Beatlemania had a lot to do with that.

"The world of Hank Crawford". MG "Minnie The Moocher's Wedding Day", by Horace Henderson (members of the group include Henry "Red" Allen and Coleman Hawkins) I thought so. Can we now move on from Beatle bashing? I am not bashing the Beatles with my Horace Henderson remark. I owned all of their albums as they were coming out and played them a bazillion times. They were huge in my life when I was young. They were huge to everyone, as I remember. I still like their music and think that they were really good. When I listen to their albums now, I am struck by the attention to detail and high quality throughout. I just think that Abbey Road is only one of thousands of recordings that is fine and mature. Fair enough. But I said "final" musical statement. That is, a last album made by an individual or group of musicians. I have just gotten really tired of the Beatles being called "shallow", directly or indirectly. The high quality of their music still comes through to my ears today, even after all these years of mostly jazz listening. And, fwiw, they sure as hell beat Elvis AND a poke in the eye with a sharp stick anyday I love Macca , BUT I LOVE ELVIS waaaaaaaay more than the Beatles. I love 'em both!

It was the last released album, but it was actually recorded before Abbey Road. Right. "Let It Be" the first "posthumous" Beatles release. Following the completion of the White Album, which was largely made through overdubbing with few of the Beatles actually playing together in the same room, McCartney proposed that the group "get back" to their club-playing roots. The proposed project was to make an album "live" in the studio and follow it up with a tour of small venues, like the ones they played in their Liverpool and Hamburg days. The tour idea was scrapped, but the album was given the go-ahead with the plan of doing a big concert as a finale (their first since 1966). They also decided to film the recording and rehearsal sessions as well as the final concert. The recording sessions were, to put it mildly, a disaster. Paul tried to run the whole show. George was growing as a songwriter, but was resentful of the fact that he was still being relegated to two or three songs per album. John was in the early stages of his relationship with Yoko who was divorcing her husband and who was a constant presence in the studio, much to the irritation of the others. In addition, the decision was made to make the record in a film studio (Twickingham, if I recall correctly) rather than their customary home at Abbey Road. Each member of the Beatles quit at least once during the recording sessions, only to be coaxed back (usually by Paul, who was determined to keep the group together). It was a bad experience all around, and it got worse as the proposed concert date neared and nothing was being done to prepare for it. In the end, the concert idea was scrapped as well and the Beatles opted for the impomptu midday rooftop performance seen in the "Let It Be" film. Once the project was completed, the tapes (hours and hours of them) were shoved in a vault and the Beatles returned to Abbey Road to record the "Abbey Road" album, which was their swan song. After Paul's departure from the group, which pretty much ended it for everybody, a series of protracted lawsuits ensued. In order to pay their mounting legal fees, it was decided to release the "Get Back" tapes (as the project was originally titled) and the companion film (no longer a document about a band at work but about a band in its death throes). John, George and Ringo hired Phil Spector to comb through the tapes, cherry-pick the best material, and make it suitable for release. Paul objected but was overruled (or ignored, however you look at it). Although his post-production has been much maligned over the years (the initial sting has been long since removed since the undubbed takes have been released in various forms), the fact was that Spector did the best he could given the (frankly) substandard material (substandard for the Beatles...more than adequite for anyone else) and the unpleasant circumstances surrounding its production. Spector opted to take a two-fold approach: Much of the album is treated like an "offical bootleg," with studio chatter, false starts and abrupt endings. A few of the songs ("Let it Be," "The Long and Winding Road," "I, Me, Mine," "Across the Universe") are given the full "Wall of Sound" treatment (much to the displeasure of McCartney and many Beatles fans). It's an odd approach, when you think about it (why not do one or the other rather than both?), but the fact is that Spector did exactly what he was hired to do: Make a listenable album out of the hours of tape documenting the fragmentation of the Beatles. The album was released in 1970, making it the first Beatles album of the post-Beatles era. It would be followed by a couple of odds and ends collections and many compilations before the release of actual archival material in the 1990s with the "Anthology" series (which saw the unadorned version of "The Long and Winding Road" finally released). It's a strange album, treated as an official release even though it's really not an album released during the band's lifetime, neither fish nor fowl.

His lame-ass, flaccid stereo mixes are surely not part of that reason, unfortunately. The Beatles need to be heard in MONO! I agree that the Beatles sound best in mono. I don't know if Martin is specifically to blame for the quality of the stereo mixes, however...

k thnx bai ...and brought a strong strain of English music hall tradition. .....and had a producer who knew about other styles of music. George Martin was more than just a schooled musician. He was every bit the creative genius that the Beatles themselves were. Part of his genius was his ability to know when to get out of the way and let the Beatles be the Beatles. Very few rock producers of the era when the Beatles were first signed would have been able to do that, which is why it is significant that Martin had almost no experience producing rock music when the Beatles became his project. And it started right away. Martin initially tried to act like the typical major lable rock and roll producer by telling the Beatles who they could and could not have playing on their recordings (he immediately vetoed Pete Best and initially opposed Best's replacement, Ringo, in favor of session drummer Andy White) and what sorts of songs to record (he initially vetoed "Please Please Me" in favor of the professionally written "How Do You Do It"). But in both cases, he actually listened to the concerns of the band and eventually let them have their way. This set the stage for a much more collaborative relationship between producer and artist than otherwise might have existed. It created an environment where Martin COULD suggest more elaborate arrangements or more sophisticated voicings than the Beatles themselves might have come up with and where they were glad to listen and take his advice. He also clearly proved to be a marvelous teacher, because the Beatles quickly picked up on Martin's ideas and were soon working with him as equals, even though none of them were trained as Martin was. To me, the Beatles were the perfect storm of talent, opportunity, good luck, and the right creative environment. I firmly believe that had they been signed to Decca, for example, they would have had a completely different career. Probably a much shorter one, and nowhere nearly as influential as the career they had under Martin's tutilage. George Martin gets a lot of credit. The Beatles though wrote the chord progressions, lyrics and many of the ideas like backward tape collages, Indian Music, Mellotron, feedback, musique concrete and tape loops came from the Beatles themselves. I think George Martin gets real credit for helping and making suggestions but all good producers should do that. His classical influence certainly influenced McCartney to go in that direction. I'm certainly not saying that Martin deserves all, or even most of the credit, for the Beatles' musical success. But I stand by my statement that it took a certain type of producer to encourage the creativity that the Beatles displayed at the middle of the decade. If Martin had not created an environment in which experimentation was encouraged, would the Beatles have come up with the backwards tape collages, etc.? They might have, but another producer might well have shot them down. "Just make another "She Loves You." That's what the kids are buying." Martin gave the Beatles the creative freedom to try out new ideas, even when they themselves had no idea how such an idea might be achieved. A lot of technical innovation in the recording studio came out of Martin and his engineers trying to figure out how to take the Beatles' vague ideas about how something should sound and make it a reality. Think about "Strawberry Fields Forever." John liked two different takes of the song and asked Martin if there was some way they could combine them. Martin said no, the two takes were in different keys. John insisted that he wanted the two takes joined, so Martin had to find a way to alter the speeds of the two takes and join them seamlessly. Altering the speed isn't hard, but tryng to do so so that two different recordings appear to be at the same pitch without altering the speed too much, that takes work. But Martin and his staff did it. The Beatles really came to value Martin's suggestions as well as his arranging abilities.

k thnx bai ...and brought a strong strain of English music hall tradition. .....and had a producer who knew about other styles of music. George Martin was more than just a schooled musician. He was every bit the creative genius that the Beatles themselves were. Part of his genius was his ability to know when to get out of the way and let the Beatles be the Beatles. Very few rock producers of the era when the Beatles were first signed would have been able to do that, which is why it is significant that Martin had almost no experience producing rock music when the Beatles became his project. And it started right away. Martin initially tried to act like the typical major lable rock and roll producer by telling the Beatles who they could and could not have playing on their recordings (he immediately vetoed Pete Best and initially opposed Best's replacement, Ringo, in favor of session drummer Andy White) and what sorts of songs to record (he initially vetoed "Please Please Me" in favor of the professionally written "How Do You Do It"). But in both cases, he actually listened to the concerns of the band and eventually let them have their way. This set the stage for a much more collaborative relationship between producer and artist than otherwise might have existed. It created an environment where Martin COULD suggest more elaborate arrangements or more sophisticated voicings than the Beatles themselves might have come up with and where they were glad to listen and take his advice. He also clearly proved to be a marvelous teacher, because the Beatles quickly picked up on Martin's ideas and were soon working with him as equals, even though none of them were trained as Martin was. To me, the Beatles were the perfect storm of talent, opportunity, good luck, and the right creative environment. I firmly believe that had they been signed to Decca, for example, they would have had a completely different career. Probably a much shorter one, and nowhere nearly as influential as the career they had under Martin's tutilage.

Forsooth !

You must factor in the "attitudes" of the folks deciding what to record. Do not think the recordings represent the entire picture. White experiences influence all this stuff. It is impossible to imagine what was missed. True, dat.

Because the popular culture is where all the things you love and hold dear came from. Jazz, for one. Every generation thinks its own popular culture is a cesspool, and every generation is dead wrong. I'm sure that if you played some jug band music or hillbilly banjo playing for a college educated white guy in 1920, he'd say that those are perfect examples of the kind of primitive, low-culture crap that uneducated rednecks and back-country n*ggers were listening to. And he'd bemoan the passing of the "good old days" when that shit had the good sense to stay in the boonies where it belonged. But he'd be wrong, of course, because old banjo and jug band music was among the most sublime music being made during the 20s. But we only recognize that in retrospect.

Hell no! You were supposed to be into Prince and Rick James! And Grandmaster Flash and Kurtis Blow and Afrikaa Bambataa and the Sugar Hill Gang... At least that's what I was into at my inner city school in Buffalo, NY. Yes, the African-American kids set the trends... There's following the lemmings and there's being OF your time. I was into other kinds of music in the early 90s (I was getting into jazz and James Brown among other things) but you can't ignore the times. Or you can, but then you risk being out of touch with what's happening around you, culturally speaking.

You can be snooty about the rest, but you should be embarrassed about "Clerks" since that was kind of an early 90s phenom. That's like missing out on "Resevoir Dogs" when it came out. Or not being into Grunge. It was part of the Zeitgeist of the era. Edited for misspelling "Zeitgeist," which I can't believe I did. I think one can refuse to be embarrassed to have had the good sense and taste not to have been into Grunge. I will amend that statement to note that you should be embarassed to have been in your teens or twenties during the early 90s (as I was) and not have been into Grunge. It was just part of that moment, man. It was the perfect soundtrack to being just out of college and un- or underemployed. It would be like having lived through the sixties and not liking psychedelia... Or in high school in the late 70's and not getting into punk? Exactly.