Beatles Remasters coming! 09/09/09

[AllenLowe]

geez, I wonder why George got in trouble for My Sweet Lord - I mean, according to Danasgoodstuff, this whole clean-slate thing is stupid -

Edited October 1, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Filthy McNasty]

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 was a bit unclear about this and I apolgize. When he authoritatively says, for example, that Paul is the guitar soloist on "Taxman", rather than George, as always assumed, I take him at his word. It's when he himself goes against those log sheets (my example of "We Can Work It Out" where the log sheets say George played tambourine but no it must be Ringo because Ringo played a similar rhythm elsewhere therefore George does not play on WCWIO, which he asserts several times on minimal aural evidence) without providing terribly persuasive evidence that I raise my eyebrows.

Like I said, minor quibble.

[Cliff Englewood]

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 was a bit unclear about this and I apolgize. When he authoritatively says, for example, that Paul is the guitar soloist on "Taxman", rather than George, as always assumed, I take him at his word. It's when he himself goes against those log sheets (my example of "We Can Work It Out" where the log sheets say George played tambourine but no it must be Ringo because Ringo played a similar rhythm elsewhere therefore George does not play on WCWIO, which he asserts several times on minimal aural evidence) without providing terribly persuasive evidence that I raise my eyebrows.

Like I said, minor quibble.

Yes I know what you mean but as I think I mentioned earlier in the thread, I get the impression that he doesn't really rate George's overall contribution that highly, with the exception of a few songs, either because he wasn't up to the standard of John or Paul, which is a slightly unfair way to judge anybody, let's face it, very few people were. Or because George seemed to be the first one to tire of being a Beatle and maybe he feels George was just coasting during the last few years??? I agree though that it is unwise of him to say he's not on it if he's not sure, it's just he seems so meticulous about every other detail I wouldn't like to second guess him.

Although I did think his "review" of Harrison's "ForYou Blue" was kinda like the reviews Spinal Tap got, "Dedicated to Patti Harrison, this forgettable twelve-bar in D was taped in six takes between work on "Two Of Us" and "Let It Be". "Shark Sandwich", Shit Sandwich.

In the "Recommended Further Reading" section at the back of "Revolution" he praises "Shout" by Philip Norman as "the sharpest account of the career of the Beatles", anybody read that one?, I have it but probably won't get around to it for a while.

I read a review of this today in a music mag. and it sounds very interesting;

You Never Give Me Your Money: The Battle for the Soul of the Beatles.

Blurb from Amazon;

Review

`An enthralling new book on the group.' --The Independent

Product Description

When Paul McCartney told the world in 1970 that he had no plans to work with the Beatles again, it was widely viewed as a cultural tragedy by the media and public alike. His statement not only marked the end of the band's remarkable career, but also seemed to signal the demise of an era of unprecedented optimism in cultural history. But posterity would not let go of the group so easily and one of the most fascinating phases of the Beatle's story was just about to begin. For almost 40 years the four members of the group, their families and business partners, have been forced to live with the reverberations of their incredible success. Now, for the first time, "You Never Give Me Your Money" tells the dramatic story of the personal and business rivalry that has dominated the Beatles' lives since 1969. It charts the almost Shakespearian rivalry of the Lennon and McCartney families, the conflict in George Harrison's life between spirituality and fame, and Richard Starkey's efforts to escape the alcoholism that threatened to kill him. It documents the shifting relationships between the four as they strive to establish their identities beyond the Beatles and it chronicles the transformation of their multi-media company, Apple Corps, from a bastion of 1960s counter-culture into a corporate behemoth. The best of rock'n'roll writers, Peter Doggett gives us a compelling human drama and the equally rich and absorbing story of the Beatles' creative and financial empire, set up to safeguard their interests but destined to control their lives. From tragedy to triumphant reunion, and court battles to chart success, "You Never Give Me Your Money" traces the untold story of a group and a legacy that will never be forgotten.

About the Author

Peter Doggett has been writing about popular music, the entertainment industry and social and cultural history since 1980. A regular contributor to Mojo, Q and GQ, his books include The Art and Music of John Lennon; a volume detailing the creation of the Beatles' Let It Be and Abbey Road albums; the pioneering study of the collision between rock and country music, Are You Ready for the Country? and, most recently, There's a Riot Going On: Revolutionaries, Rock Stars and the Rise and Fall of 60s Counter-culture.

It doesn't seem to be on Amazon.com yet just .co.uk. but if I see it in the shops here I think I'll have to spring for it.

Also, this one could be pretty good too.

The Longest Cocktail Party: An Insider's Diary of the Beatles, Their Million-dollar Apple Empire and Its Wild Rise and Fall.

Blurb from Amazon;

Review

"Marvellous. If you want to know what Apple was like, this is the book." Alastair Taylor, former General Manager, Apple; "Incisive, evocative and hilariously funny. The Beatles are shadowy figures, but this is a fine view of rock's most inspired folly." Mojo; "Vivid... it views the band's disintegration with the same excluded bafflement with which Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern follow the plots of the Danish court." Guardian"

Product Description

When American teenager, Richard DiLello, wandered into the Beatles' Apple building in 1968, he was immediately appointed 'house hippie'; he began making tea, rolling joints and listening to dozens of demo tapes. By the time Apple crumbled a few years later he was director of public relations. Along the way he noted many of the stoned conversations he heard and the insane bits of business he witnessed: one-man bands auditioning in the reception, Hell's Angels taking over Savile Row and The Beatles playing on the roof. Full of period detail, The Longest Cocktail Party is fast-paced, witty and immensely poignant about the demise of the Fab Four and the death of the '60s dream.

[Norm]

I'm just dabbling here and there with the MacDonald book for now, but one thing I'll say about this volume is that its got personality. I like that. I was reading over the section on the song "Revolution" tonight and after the author explains nicely John's first rejection and then acceptance (sort of) of active revolution, he ends the piece with the following statement in which I found a good bit of wit and humor:

"Originally a troubled message about something vital, by 1987, as the soundtrack to a Nike ad, REVOLUTION had turned into a song about training shoes. Enough said."

You know, I was 14 when that TV advertisement was broadcast regularly and in fact that was probably my earliest contact with the Beatles (I wouldn't start listening seriously for another 7 years). Since it was my first contact, I too have often wondered privately about the ramifications -- does this imply they became sellouts later on (assuming they sold the rights to Nike, though John was of course dead by then)? Does it cheapen the message and value of the song, making it almost ridiculous? I'd like to think not, but these kinds of questions have always nagged at me. MacDonald sort of lays it all out there, but his ending is kind of ambiguous. By declaring "enough said" does he mean, "well, this song merits no further consideration because it has been irreparably corrupted by a hyper-commercialist culture? Or is he making a stronger and more pointed criticism of the song itself and the Beatles creation of it? I can't quite figure it out...

Edited October 2, 2009 by Norm

[AllenLowe]

I've always found the song Revolution to be one of the dumbest things in the Beatles' whole ouevre; too many millionaires in that group, and the lyrics are so shallow/bourgeoise as to not even merit being taken seriously - "if you're talkin' 'bout destruction...count me out" stands as the ultimate in idiotic liberal piety - not because the sentiment is bad but because it's such a 3rd grade view of the whole concept - and an easy out, to boot (same thing with the "pictures of Chairman Mao" reference). The fact that it could be used for a corporate commercial shows how "dangerous" Lennon was, particularly under the pseudo-revolutionary sway of Yoyo. I used to watch Lennon on talk shows in that era try to talk his way into a neo-Marxist world view and it was pathetic - a brillliant and first rate auto didact basically turned himself into a 2nd-rate intellectual.

Edited October 2, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Cliff Englewood]

I'm just dabbling here and there with the MacDonald book for now, but one thing I'll say about this volume is that its got personality. I like that. I was reading over the section on the song "Revolution" tonight and after the author explains nicely John's first rejection and then acceptance (sort of) of active revolution, he ends the piece with the following statement in which I found a good bit of wit and humor:

"Originally a troubled message about something vital, by 1987, as the soundtrack to a Nike ad, REVOLUTION had turned into a song about training shoes. Enough said."

You know, I was 14 when that TV advertisement was broadcast regularly and in fact that was probably my earliest contact with the Beatles (I wouldn't start listening seriously for another 7 years). Since it was my first contact, I too have often wondered privately about the ramifications -- does this imply they became sellouts later on (assuming they sold the rights to Nike, though John was of course dead by then)? Does it cheapen the message and value of the song, making it almost ridiculous? I'd like to think not, but these kinds of questions have always nagged at me. MacDonald sort of lays it all out there, but his ending is kind of ambiguous. By declaring "enough said" does he mean, "well, this song merits no further consideration because it has been irreparably corrupted by a hyper-commercialist culture? Or is he making a stronger and more pointed criticism of the song itself and the Beatles creation of it? I can't quite figure it out...

I think the thing you have to keep in mind about music from any bygone era is the times/context in which they were recorded, especially so with the Fabs. When you take a song out of the particular moment/time frame it was recorded it might look a bit silly later on. My reading of what Macdonald is saying there is more of a "look how times have changed" type of comment, rather than dissing the song at all, ie look how a song written by Lennon at a time when things were changing and people were talking about revelolution has now ended up helping to sell shoes.

For somebody like myself who wasn't even around in the 60's, I think one of the things Macdonald does brilliantly, and something that is probably hard to understand now, is detail how important the Beatles were in the 60's and to the 60's, people did actually look up to them in a way that is just so hard to imagine and get your head around.

I like the quote he has near the start of the book from Aaron Copland, "If you want to know about the Sixties, play the music of The Beatles."

[AllenLowe]

I've always found the song Revolution to be one of the dumbest things in the Beatles' whole ouevre; too many millionaires in that group, and the lyrics are so shallow/bourgeoise as to not even merit being taken seriously - "if you're talkin' 'bout destruction...count me out" stands as the ultimate in idiotic liberal piety - not because the sentiment is bad but because it's such a 3rd grade view of the whole concept - and an easy out, to boot (same thing with the "pictures of Chairman Mao" reference). The fact that it could be used for a corporate commercial shows how "dangerous" Lennon was, particularly under the pseudo-revolutionary sway of Yoyo. I used to watch Lennon on tv shows in that era, trying to talk his way into a neo-Marxist world view and it was pathetic - a brillliant and first rate auto didact basically turned himself into a 2nd-rate intellectual.

and as for Copland's "If you want to know about the Sixties, play the music of The Beatles," more sociological short hand that has nothing to do with much of anything. Also, the kind of thing he and Leonard Bernstein were saying to show they understood "the kids." Do the Beatles tell us about Vietnam and Cambodia? Watergate? The true explosion of certain kinds of social consciousness? Paris 1968? The assassinations of JFK and MLK? Abbie Hoffman? The Weather Underground? Robert Kennedy? Ornette Coleman? The blues revivial? Fidel Castro? The Bay of Pigs? The Cuban Missile Crisis? The Test Ban treaty? The Tet Offensive? Lyndon Johnson? The London Mod Scene?

Bullshit; Copland was "there," maybe but he wasn't really THERE, if he says that. This is all, pardon my annoyance, very shallow political commentary. Very much in line with Adorno's conclusions, as cited by Larry kart on another thread here.

Edited October 2, 2009 by AllenLowe

[felser]

and as for Copland's "If you want to know about the Sixties, play the music of The Beatles," more sociological short hand that has nothing to do with much of anything. Also, the kind of thing he and Leonard Bernstein were saying to show they understood "the kids." Do the Beatles tell us about Vietnam and Cambodia? Watergate? The true explosion of certain kinds of social consciousness? Paris 1968? The assassinations of JFK and MLK? Abbie Hoffman? The Weather Underground? Robert Kennedy? Ornette Coleman? The blues revivial? Fidel Castro? The Bay of Pigs? The Cuban Missile Crisis? The Test Ban treaty? The Tet Offensive? Lyndon Johnson? The London Mod Scene?

Bullshit; Copland was "there," maybe but he wasn't really THERE, if he says that. This is all, pardon my annoyance, very shallow political commentary. Very much in line with Adorno's conclusions, as cited by Larry kart on another thread here.

Thank you Allen. To all, if you want to know about the Beatles, enjoy the books and CD's. If you want to know about the 60's, try reading Arthur Schlesinger's "Robert F. Kennedy and His Times", David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" or any number of other books. Try listening to early Bob Dylan, P.F. Sloan's "Eve of Destruction", Spanky and the Gang's "Give a Damn", the Temptations' "Ball of Confusion" or any number of other songs. Hendrix's tweak of Dylan, "Let us stop talking falsely now, the hour's getting late", capture more of the 60's than the entire Beatles catalogue. For us in the US, the Beatles were an escape from the reality of the 60's, not an embodyment of them. "Beatlemania" was so intense largely to flee from the constant awareness of the twin horrors of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the JFK Assassination. "All You Need is Love" was a pleasant fairytale, a pipe dream, not an experiential reality even then. Things may have appeared different in England or in retrospect, but not here then. Especially if you were a teenage boy facing the draft.

Edited October 2, 2009 by felser

[skeith]

I have read Philip Norman's "Shout" about the history of the Beatles and really loved it.

[WorldB3]

I've always found the song Revolution to be one of the dumbest things in the Beatles' whole ouevre; too many millionaires in that group, and the lyrics are so shallow/bourgeoise as to not even merit being taken seriously - "if you're talkin' 'bout destruction...count me out" stands as the ultimate in idiotic liberal piety - not because the sentiment is bad but because it's such a 3rd grade view of the whole concept - and an easy out,...

I think it just never got finished conceptually.

It was originally written in Rishikesh with a more spiritual theme but right before the recording the student rebellions and strikes in Paris took place so the song got changed. Lennon didn't really believe in overthrowing governments, but revitalizing them.

In the Spitz Beatles Bio, both Lennon and McCartney both felt the song was conceptually clumsy, where Lennon couldn't get off the fence with a position (nor did he want the be held to one). So he tried to cover all the bases with the count me "out....in".

[felser]

I have read Philip Norman's "Shout" about the history of the Beatles and really loved it.

I read it back in the early 80's when it came out and really liked it, but that was a long time ago, so I can't say how it's aged.

[jazzbo]

and as for Copland's "If you want to know about the Sixties, play the music of The Beatles," more sociological short hand that has nothing to do with much of anything. Also, the kind of thing he and Leonard Bernstein were saying to show they understood "the kids." Do the Beatles tell us about Vietnam and Cambodia? Watergate? The true explosion of certain kinds of social consciousness? Paris 1968? The assassinations of JFK and MLK? Abbie Hoffman? The Weather Underground? Robert Kennedy? Ornette Coleman? The blues revivial? Fidel Castro? The Bay of Pigs? The Cuban Missile Crisis? The Test Ban treaty? The Tet Offensive? Lyndon Johnson? The London Mod Scene?

Bullshit; Copland was "there," maybe but he wasn't really THERE, if he says that. This is all, pardon my annoyance, very shallow political commentary. Very much in line with Adorno's conclusions, as cited by Larry kart on another thread here.

Thank you Allen. To all, if you want to know about the Beatles, enjoy the books and CD's. If you want to know about the 60's, try reading Arthur Schlesinger's "Robert F. Kennedy and His Times", David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" or any number of other books. Try listening to early Bob Dylan, P.F. Sloan's "Eve of Destruction", Spanky and the Gang's "Give a Damn", the Temptations' "Ball of Confusion" or any number of other songs. Hendrix's tweak of Dylan, "Let us stop talking falsely now, the hour's getting late", capture more of the 60's than the entire Beatles catalogue. For us in the US, the Beatles were an escape from the reality of the 60's, not an embodyment of them. "Beatlemania" was so intense largely to flee from the constant awareness of the twin horrors of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the JFK Assassination. "All You Need is Love" was a pleasant fairytale, a pipe dream, not an experiential reality even then. Things may have appeared different in England or in retrospect, but not here then. Especially if you were a teenage boy facing the draft.

Thanks guys. Kind of how I see it too.

[JSngry]

Hmmm....I'm not so sure about that...not about other things covering other parts of the '60s really well/better, but..."escapism" is not quite it, I don't think...more like a cosmic propulsion away from an impending cynicism that would ultimately triumph by the decade's end. Call it the Last Gasp Of Innocence or something, but if All You Need Is Love is ultimately a pipe dream (and it is), it's also an ideal to be negotiated with along the way, not a notion to be discarded as a laughable fantasy.

If you want to know the '60s, there's a lot of things to check out. But if you do it w/o getting a grip on The Beatles, your understading will be as incomplete as it would be if that's all you looked at.

[Teasing the Korean]

In the Spitz Beatles Bio, both Lennon and McCartney both felt the song ("Revolution") was conceptually clumsy, where Lennon couldn't get off the fence with a position (nor did he want the be held to one). So he tried to cover all the bases with the count me "out....in".

Ironic that they released two different recordings of it, considering.

[Teasing the Korean]

I've always found the song Revolution to be one of the dumbest things in the Beatles' whole ouevre; too many millionaires in that group, and the lyrics are so shallow/bourgeoise as to not even merit being taken seriously - "if you're talkin' 'bout destruction...count me out" stands as the ultimate in idiotic liberal piety - not because the sentiment is bad but because it's such a 3rd grade view of the whole concept - and an easy out, to boot (same thing with the "pictures of Chairman Mao" reference)...

Allen, I always interpreted that song as Lennon poking fun at the very thing you're describing, kind of like Tom Wolfe did in "Radical Chic," e.g. I'll support your cause, so long as I don't spill any of my scotch or crease my dinner jacket.

[AllenLowe]

I don't think so - I CAN tell you that at the time it came out it was seen as his way of disparaging the use of violence, as part of his and Yoyo's whole "you can have peace if you want it" campaign. I don't see the irony -

[JSngry]

That would be true of the 45 version, but by the time the album version was done, the attitude ahd begun to shift.

[Brad]

Hmmm....I'm not so sure about that...not about other things covering other parts of the '60s really well/better, but..."escapism" is not quite it, I don't think...more like a cosmic propulsion away from an impending cynicism that would ultimately triumph by the decade's end. Call it the Last Gasp Of Innocence or something, but if All You Need Is Love is ultimately a pipe dream (and it is), it's also an ideal to be negotiated with along the way, not a notion to be discarded as a laughable fantasy.

If you want to know the '60s, there's a lot of things to check out. But if you do it w/o getting a grip on The Beatles, your understading will be as incomplete as it would be if that's all you looked at.

It's all of that. To exclude an important component of the 60s is just not possible. The Beatles were an important of what made the 60s; kids rebelling against their parents. Most parents hated rock 'n roll. You just can't say that to know the 60s you need to look elsewhere. You need to look at all of it. They were all parts of the reaction to the end of WWII. The end of the war brought the end to a tumultous age, perhaps dating back to the onset of the Depression. From 1945 through the 50s, that was a reaction against that tumult. The 60s were a reaction to the mind numbing wish for normalcy (cue Warren Harding) that our parents and the world sought after what happened in previous decades. There is a great book called the War of the World by Niall Ferguson which posits that there was no WWI or WWII but one continuous war from 1900 through the Korean War. Thus, the 50s were reaction to that upheaval and the 60s a reaction to the reaction.

[AllenLowe]

there's really nothing in the performance or text of Revolution that indicates any intent at irony; it's just a bad (middle class revolutionary) song.

and I never said the Beatles were not an important (and vital) component of the 1960s - only that Copland's edict was hopelessly muddled.

Edited October 2, 2009 by AllenLowe

[felser]

Hmmm....I'm not so sure about that...not about other things covering other parts of the '60s really well/better, but..."escapism" is not quite it, I don't think...more like a cosmic propulsion away from an impending cynicism that would ultimately triumph by the decade's end. Call it the Last Gasp Of Innocence or something, but if All You Need Is Love is ultimately a pipe dream (and it is), it's also an ideal to be negotiated with along the way, not a notion to be discarded as a laughable fantasy.

If you want to know the '60s, there's a lot of things to check out. But if you do it w/o getting a grip on The Beatles, your understading will be as incomplete as it would be if that's all you looked at.

It's all of that. To exclude an important component of the 60s is just not possible. The Beatles were an important of what made the 60s; kids rebelling against their parents. Most parents hated rock 'n roll. You just can't say that to know the 60s you need to look elsewhere. You need to look at all of it. They were all parts of the reaction to the end of WWII. The end of the war brought the end to a tumultous age, perhaps dating back to the onset of the Depression. From 1945 through the 50s, that was a reaction against that tumult. The 60s were a reaction to the mind numbing wish for normalcy (cue Warren Harding) that our parents and the world sought after what happened in previous decades. There is a great book called the War of the World by Niall Ferguson which posits that there was no WWI or WWII but one continuous war from 1900 through the Korean War. Thus, the 50s were reaction to that upheaval and the 60s a reaction to the reaction.

I don't disagree with either of these postings. I agree that you don't correct overstating the Beatles' impact by understating it. They were certainly a meaningful part of the picture, which would be otherwise incomplete. I just wanted to stress, as Allen did, that there were other parts of the picture as big or bigger which can't be seen through the Beatles. Even within popular music (Dylan). And you don't grasp the USA 60's without MLK, JFK/RFK, the USSR/Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam being clearly in focus front and center. And Beatles music doesn't begin to adequately address any of those in and of itself. It is part of the tapestry.

Edited October 2, 2009 by felser

[Stefan Wood]

Y'know, I like the Beatles but give me the Pretty Things any day......

[Brad]

Hmmm....I'm not so sure about that...not about other things covering other parts of the '60s really well/better, but..."escapism" is not quite it, I don't think...more like a cosmic propulsion away from an impending cynicism that would ultimately triumph by the decade's end. Call it the Last Gasp Of Innocence or something, but if All You Need Is Love is ultimately a pipe dream (and it is), it's also an ideal to be negotiated with along the way, not a notion to be discarded as a laughable fantasy.

If you want to know the '60s, there's a lot of things to check out. But if you do it w/o getting a grip on The Beatles, your understading will be as incomplete as it would be if that's all you looked at.

It's all of that. To exclude an important component of the 60s is just not possible. The Beatles were an important of what made the 60s; kids rebelling against their parents. Most parents hated rock 'n roll. You just can't say that to know the 60s you need to look elsewhere. You need to look at all of it. They were all parts of the reaction to the end of WWII. The end of the war brought the end to a tumultous age, perhaps dating back to the onset of the Depression. From 1945 through the 50s, that was a reaction against that tumult. The 60s were a reaction to the mind numbing wish for normalcy (cue Warren Harding) that our parents and the world sought after what happened in previous decades. There is a great book called the War of the World by Niall Ferguson which posits that there was no WWI or WWII but one continuous war from 1900 through the Korean War. Thus, the 50s were reaction to that upheaval and the 60s a reaction to the reaction.

I don't disagree with either of these postings. I agree that you don't correct overstating the Beatles' impact by understating it. They were certainly a meaningful part of the picture, which would be otherwise incomplete. I just wanted to stress, as Allen did, that there were other parts of the picture as big or bigger which can't be seen through the Beatles. Even within popular music (Dylan). And you don't grasp the USA 60's without MLK, JFK/RFK, the USSR/Cuban Missile Crisis, and Vietnam being clearly in focus front and center. And Beatles music doesn't begin to adequately address any of those in and of itself. It is part of the tapestry.

Completely agree. If you ask me on the spot to summon an image of the 60s, what comes to mind is JFK, Vietnam, struggle for voting rights, the assasinations, students marching against the war and then rock 'n roll.

[AllenLowe]

and let's hear it for The Pretty Things - great group- may have done the first rock opera, too -

[felser]

and let's hear it for The Pretty Things - great group- may have done the first rock opera, too -

Agree, SF Sorrow is an underheard classic!

[BruceH]

... 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. ...

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").

I must admit to skipping over "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" on any number of occasions.