Beatles Remasters coming! 09/09/09

[Alexander]

Ouch!

No, that's a Rutles tune.

My favorite one!

My favorite is "Cheese and Onions"...

[Quincy]

I hope Amazon sends another nickel (or threepence) to Cliff as my copy of Revolution In The Head arrived today. I haven't bought a Beatles book since the early '80s (I did get the hefty Anthology as a gift, but I consider it to be a piece of exercise equipment rather than a book), but this looks like it will be fun. I like a little vinegar in my prose (especially when dealing with rock royalty) and I'm going on a trip, so I think I'll add some early Beatles to the iPod and have a multimedia experience while flying and hanging out in airports. Hopefully I won't scare my seat neighbors too much if I burst out laughing at some of the comments made by the author. Then again, sometimes it's necessary to scare your seat mates a little.

Edited September 30, 2009 by Quincy

[Cliff Englewood]

C, if you look at my statement (only one) without the animosity you seem to have welling inside you for me, you'll see that it is neither sweeping nor in my opinion pretentious. (I don't know where you get the pretentious from, and frankly I'm tired of your negativity and don't want to know).

Here and there, and "i'm not sure," it's just not what you paint it, nor worth the venom.

If you want an example, read the last paragraph of the "Come Together" portion. It just seems an inaccurate generality to me, boldly put where it need not be. Your mileage may vary, but I feel what I feel. . "THE song". . . "since undermined the foundation of Western civilization". . . . I don't buy that at all.

I would think that sweeping and pretentious would accurately describe someone saying a book he has not read completely has bold assumptions that are neither factual nor accurate. It also implies, without the benefit of explaining why, that you somehow know better than the author of a book that, in pretty much every review of it that I have read, has been described as a definitive work on both the Beatles and the Sixties in general.

And I certainly don't think pointing this out could be described as venom, unless of course you're very sensitive that is. I don't have any animosity towards you, in fact I would be fairly indifferent to you, I just think you're a bit silly

By not reading it fully and by taking one paragraph out of context you do the book, and anyone thinking about getting it, a great disservice.

The final paragraph you refer to is below and I would think it is pretty obvious even without the benefit of the rest of the description of the song, never mind the rest of the book, that he is not saying that the song itself changed anything but the "movement" that song was celebrating changed things. The word "the" was also in italics not caps.

"Enthusiastically received in campus and underground circles, come together is the key song of the turn of the decade, isolating a pivotal moment when the free world's coming generation rejected established wisdom, knowledge, ethics, and behaviour for a drug-inspired relativism which has since undermined the intellectual foundations of western culture."

[Cliff Englewood]

I hope Amazon sends another nickel (or threepence) to Cliff as my copy of Revolution In The Head arrived today. I haven't bought a Beatles book since the early '80s (I did get the hefty Anthology as a gift, but I consider it to be a piece of exercise equipment rather than a book), but this looks like it will be fun. I like a little vinegar in my prose (especially when dealing with rock royalty) and I'm going on a trip, so I think I'll add some early Beatles to the iPod and have a multimedia experience while flying and hanging out in airports. Hopefully I won't scare my seat neighbors too much if I burst out laughing at some of the comments made by the author. Then again, sometimes it's necessary to scare your seat mates a little.

Hey, I don't mind if they send me money but unfortunately there was never a threepence, not in my day anyway but there was a twopence or tuppence piece before the Euro fucked everything up.

You have the right attitude/approach to the book before you start though, needlees to say, to steal a well worn line, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll think it was better than "Cats", 2 thumbs up, you'll read it again. :D

Edited September 30, 2009 by Cliff Englewood

[AllenLowe]

danasgoodstuff thinks:

"...everybody's tying to Be My Baby" & "Honey Don't" (are) from Roy Newman, maybe "Matchbox" as well, all of then possibly 2nd or 3rd hand; that's the way real music works. Clean slate originality is an inanely Romantic notion,"

missing my point - and if that's the way "real music" works, well, than tell that to Charlies Mingus, who would have chased you from the room with a large knife. Because Perkins barely "adapted" those works, he stole them - give me a break. And it's especially offensive since there was little acknowledgment, at the time (and now, in your post) of the African American oral tradition from which things like Matchbox sprang (and it's silly to do a tracer with Ma Rainey, et al; Blind Lemon brought those lyrics into currency). And it's not like Perkins (whose music I love) was just hanging out on the back roads somewhere with black sharecroppers. Sure, he learned from black locals - but the inane point is that he heard those specific records and swiped those specific songs (you probably are not aware of the fact the B.L. Jefferson sold a lot of records; must be too romantic a notion that an African American could do so in the 1920s). To rationalize it by citing earlier borrowings misses the point. At least the Rolling Stones and Clapton make specific efforts to cite their influences (and in Clapton's case, make sure that people like Skip James got some royalties). This was big business by the 1950s, and Perkins knew what he was doing.

and I write stuff all the time that is "clean slate" original; at least a lot cleaner than Matchbox and Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby. Lots of people do - I can send you a list - start with Monk, Ellington, Hemphill, Lennon, McCartney....

Edited September 30, 2009 by AllenLowe

[jazzbo]

C,

I think final paragraph is silly and inaccurate, (drug-inspired relativism has undermined western civilization? I laugh thinking about him typing that out) and I found others that I feel the same way about. I feel he's trying too hard to be some sort of big social scientist through the Beatles, to be "deep" and meaningful himself. But that's just how his tone and words strike me. I understand that they strike others differently. I told no one to steer clear of the book.

I have read about fifty pages and find the book entertaining, but not all that as you seem to. Sorry to be less enthusiastic about a book you're gaga about.

Look at my statement again. It was not sweeping. It was an initial impression (that is backed up by further reading, and I imagine for me will continue to be so.) It would be pretentious if I had proclaimed the book a piece of shit and preached that it should be avoided. I didn't. I shared my initial reaction, my opinion on reading a few dozen pages.

This is a bulletin board full of opinions. I often seem to differ with you: about Allen's participation here, about the sound of recordings, about whether something should be issued or not, in matters of taste in music, etc. You can call me silly if you wish, but you tend to pile on me with jabs, which makes me respond improperly, and I frankly don't want to talk to you as your negativity gets to me. So I'll keep my opinion and you can keep yours and I'll not discuss this with you further, thank you. Take it up in private messaging with me if you wish.

Edited September 30, 2009 by jazzbo

[Cliff Englewood]

C,

I think final paragraph is silly and inaccurate, (drug-inspired relativism has undermined western civilization? I laugh thinking about him typing that out) and I found others that I feel the same way about. I feel he's trying to hard to be some sort of big social scientist through the Beatles, to be "deep" and meaningful himself. But that's just how his tone and words strike me. I understand that they strike others differently. I told no one to steer clear of the book.

I have read about fifty pages and find the book entertaining, but not all that as you seem to. Sorry to be less enthusiastic about a book you're gaga about.

Look at my statement again. It was not sweeping. It was an initial impression (that is backed up by further reading, and I imagine for me will continue to be so.) It would be pretentious if I had proclaimed the book a piece of shit and preached that it should be avoided. I didn't. I shared my initial reaction, my opinion on reading a few dozen pages.

This is a bulletin board full of opinions. I often seem to differ with you: about Allen's participation here, about the sound of recordings, about whether something should be issued or not, in matters of taste in music, etc. You can call me silly if you wish, but you tend to pile on me with jabs, which makes me respond improperly, and I frankly don't want to talk to you as your negativity gets to me. So I'll keep my opinion and you can keep yours and I'll not discuss this with you further, thank you. Take it up in private messaging with me if you wish.

I'd have no interest in taking up anything with you via PM, it's not that important.

Yea, you're entitled to your opinions alright, it just seems to me that via those opinions, you try too hard to be exactly like

the thing you accuse Macdonald of being. Not just in this thread obviously and maybe pretentious and silly aren't the best words to describe your bon mots but considering the fact you clearly like to photograhph yourself indoors, in the dark, while wearing sunglasses, perhaps they're not all that inaccurate after all.

Maybe take the sunglasses off next time you read the book???, and just as an FYI, it doesn't make you look any younger.

[AllenLowe]

keep it going, Cliff.

[jazzbo]

Thanks for replying with jabs. Makes me feel so much better about my impressions of your tone and attitude.

You have me all wrong, but who wouldn't say that? I'm just having a little fun with my Photo Booth in my MacBook C, not trying to look young or anything, just trying to have a real person as an avatar instead of a drawing or photo of someone else.

I'm not trying to be anything but myself as I am right here and now. I'm happy with myself, and I'm sorry if you take my posts that way but I'm not trying to be what I "accuse MacDonald of being." But I know I can't convince you of that.

Have a nice evening.

[AllenLowe]

actually, it makes you look a lot younger (I'm assuming, like me, you're about 85) -

I think I'll try it myself -

Edited September 30, 2009 by AllenLowe

[jazzbo]

87, so it's working even better!

No, 54. Maybe it's not working.

[jazzbo]

It's funny what time does. I used to HATE "Rocky Racoon." Thought it was trite filler BS on "The Beatles."

Now I love the words, so flowing, so narrating, so silly yet catching in the memory and fun.

I think it sounds better in stereo.

[felser]

just trying to have a real person as an avatar instead of a drawing or photo of someone else.

Glad to see that Allen is also finally using a photo of himself as his avatar.

[felser]

"Enthusiastically received in campus and underground circles, come together is the key song of the turn of the decade, isolating a pivotal moment when the free world's coming generation rejected established wisdom, knowledge, ethics, and behaviour for a drug-inspired relativism which has since undermined the intellectual foundations of western culture."

The book sounds "interesting", but this is a bizarre paragraph. There are many many songs which could make equal/greater claims of equal greater significance of the sea change of those times ("Gimme Shelter", for instance).

[jazzbo]

Nothing wrong with having something else as an avatar image, it was just a personal decision, I found my self uncomfortable "being" someone or something else as an avatar image, although I used to love it. Things have changed so much for me the last few years. Ultimately, after a mess, I found myself stronger. And I'm enjoying it.

John, I used to visit King of Prussia in the early to mid-sixties when I was a kid in Philly. My folks had good friends there who also had children near the ages of my siblings and myself. I remember it as so clean and quiet compared to the city! Is it still that way?

[AllenLowe]

well, that's me PRIOR to haircut (and flea bath) -

[sjarrell]

I'm enjoying Revolution in the Head. I think it's fantastic. I'm happy to have bought it. I'm also with Lon, the last paragraph of the Come Together bit is way over the top.

[Brad]

Whew, that was a rather uncomforable exchange (at least to me). I'm looking forward to receiving the book soon so will reserve judgment until then

[felser]

Whew, that was a rather uncomforable exchange (at least to me).

Remember, the AAJ board refers to the Organissimo board as "wild and wooly"!

[felser]

John, I used to visit King of Prussia in the early to mid-sixties when I was a kid in Philly. My folks had good friends there who also had children near the ages of my siblings and myself. I remember it as so clean and quiet compared to the city! Is it still that way?

Lon, guess it is clean and quiet compared to Philly, but it's the Philly-facing end of the busiest high-tech corridor in Pennsylvania (Route 202 corridor, goes from KOP on the northeast end to West Chester on the southwest end), huge mall, tons of traffic, lots of big drug companies, giant Lockheed-Martin defense contracting facilities, Vanguard world headquarters, Siemens Med division US headquarters (where I work). That being said, the residential neighborhoods are very quiet, great parks (Valley Forge, etc.), it has its charms. But much different than when we were kids back then.

Edited September 30, 2009 by felser

[jazzbo]

Thanks John. My knowledge of it is quaint; I haven't seen it since the end of the 'Seventies, my last time through the area that I had time to stop and observe and savor. My old neighborhood was changed in many ways, but also familiar in many ways. King of Prussia seemed mainly as I had remembered it. Glad to hear that the residential areas are still so nice. They were like an oasis to me then. I remember that several weeks after my mother was nearly strangled to death in her own kitchen we went there, and the whole of the two families went off on a walk to a park, and left that family's house standing completely open, windows wide, doors unlocked, and how that troubled my mother so and yet it was standard operating procedure there. It was such an experience to not always have to feel on the alert, almost paranoid. That practice of alertness and preparing for the worse took a long time to dissipate when we went to Africa, where we were more secure and welcomed than anywhere we lived.

Edited September 30, 2009 by jazzbo

[Filthy McNasty]

I, too, picked up Revolution in the Head thanks to the recommendation in this thread. I'm enjoying it very much, especially with the remasters on to accompany me. I'm with MacDonald about 75% of the time, though none of my disputes are major ones (I never outright LOVE any of the tracks he outright slags, though admittedly I'm only as far as Rubber Soul).

I'm occasionally unconvinced when he tries to take claim for something away from the person to whom it's normally attributed (he seems really hung up on the idea that George does not appear on "We Can Work It Out" at all, for reasons he can't seem to fully justify, and brings it up a few times). The oddest example of disconnect for me is "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)", where he says that the voice of Dennis O'Bell is usually attributed to Ringo, but it sounds like him to George imitating Neil Innes from the Bonzo Dog Band, whose sound the track does in some ways resemble. But I've listened to it for many years and never has it seemed - and still doesn't - to be anyone but Paul, doing a standard lounge lizard bit. Anyway, the lounge lizard schtick in the Bonzos was entirely the domain of Viv Stanshall and "Legs" Larry Smith, not Innes, whose vocal stylings usually leaned towards McCartneyesque pop.

Minor quibble. I'm still enjoying it very much and likely wouldn't have found it without the recommendation here, so many thanks.

[Peter Johnson]

Thanks for that wonderful--and scary--story, Lon. I think I can safely speak for Ron, John, and J.H. Deeley when I say we would be delighted to have you come back out here for a visit--to hear music, grab some eats, bum around the city (or KoP ), etc.! Perhaps you could make a motorcycle trip out of it next spring?

Thanks John. My knowledge of it is quaint; I haven't seen it since the end of the 'Seventies, my last time through the area that I had time to stop and observe and savor. My old neighborhood was changed in many ways, but also familiar in many ways. King of Prussia seemed mainly as I had remembered it. Glad to hear that the residential areas are still so nice. They were like an oasis to me then. I remember that several weeks after my mother was nearly strangled to death in her own kitchen we went there, and the whole of the two families went off on a walk to a park, and left that family's house standing completely open, windows wide, doors unlocked, and how that troubled my mother so and yet it was standard operating procedure there. It was such an experience to not always have to feel on the alert, almost paranoid. That practice of alertness and preparing for the worse took a long time to dissipate when we went to Africa, where we were more secure and welcomed than anywhere we lived.

[jazzbo]

Maybe Peter, we'll see. . . . Next spring is a lifetime away, I may be working, I may be putting together a new household and it may be both (the time frame I see ahead of me, which will probably morph into something else as time goes by, shows both as probabilities). All my trips in that direction are family driven as all my family but one sibling is in the Cleveland area. Which is nice and all but. . .

Edited September 30, 2009 by jazzbo

[Cliff Englewood]

I, too, picked up Revolution in the Head thanks to the recommendation in this thread. I'm enjoying it very much, especially with the remasters on to accompany me. I'm with MacDonald about 75% of the time, though none of my disputes are major ones (I never outright LOVE any of the tracks he outright slags, though admittedly I'm only as far as Rubber Soul).

I'm occasionally unconvinced when he tries to take claim for something away from the person to whom it's normally attributed (he seems really hung up on the idea that George does not appear on "We Can Work It Out" at all, for reasons he can't seem to fully justify, and brings it up a few times). The oddest example of disconnect for me is "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)", where he says that the voice of Dennis O'Bell is usually attributed to Ringo, but it sounds like him to George imitating Neil Innes from the Bonzo Dog Band, whose sound the track does in some ways resemble. But I've listened to it for many years and never has it seemed - and still doesn't - to be anyone but Paul, doing a standard lounge lizard bit. Anyway, the lounge lizard schtick in the Bonzos was entirely the domain of Viv Stanshall and "Legs" Larry Smith, not Innes, whose vocal stylings usually leaned towards McCartneyesque pop.

Minor quibble. I'm still enjoying it very much and likely wouldn't have found it without the recommendation here, so many thanks.

I think the main reason you have go with what he says about who is on what is that he had access to the original masters and therefore I presume all the log sheets etc, etc and as it was old school EMI type boffins I would presume thay had to do everything prim and proper and by the book, although maybe a lot of that went out the window in the later stages.

I always thought it was Paul on "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" as well though, class bit of goonery, or should that be Goon-ery, when you're in the mood for it.