Alexander Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Isn't Lucille what BB called his or do I have that wrong? 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..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Talking of Lucys, does anyone else feel totally let down by the chorus of 'Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds'? I can still remember first hearing Sgt Pepper in early 1973 after having read in so many places of its legendary status. I was really hooked by the dreamscape of the verse; but I just couldn't believe how dull the chorus was, losing all the magic set up so far. Put me off the whole record for several years. In fact there's probably a whole thread in songs with great verses let down by crass choruses! Richard Thompson...one of my favourite musicians...has a weakness here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I don't think John was pleased with the chorus either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I like the chorus - fits the song. And who can forget those magical lyrics: "Oh....oh......." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim R Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Isn't Lucille what BB called his or do I have that wrong? 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..." I don't think anybody's arguing with that, or at least they shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 I must admit to skipping over "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" on any number of occasions. Does this help your appreciation any? I don't know why but I have grown to love that song over the years, I don't know many people that like it though, even the other Beatles hated it. It might have something to do with "Abbey Road" becoming a firm favorite of these re-masters. It's just sooooooooo Beatle-y. My notice has November 5-9, which is okay with me, I can listen to the stereo mix, get use to them, and then bitch how bad they sound next to the mono's! I know you're joking but that will actually happen. I really am looking forward to the mono versions of the earlier albums. I've been listening to a lot of Beatles lately, and I think they reached their highpoint with Revolver, and after that, I see a decline in the songwriting, with the production overwhelming the music at times. I know that goes counter to what the vast majority of Beatles fans feel, but there is something so attractive to the Beatles up to Revolver, that it fully holds my attention. For me, something gets lost after Revolver, and what that "something" is, I cannot put my finger on, but their music looses some of its attraction for me. Actually, a lot of critics would agree with you. I'd personally put the creative peak at "Penny Lane"/"Strawberry Fields Forever" (which in a way seem like the culmination of the Revolver period or approach, though they were done in the Pepper sessions.) The rest of Pepper marked, for me, the beginning of the decline you mention, though with quite a few high spots scattered throughout the rest of their career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) no no no. I love the white album.... penny lane is too McCartney. Strawberry Fields is brillliant. and Helter Skelter is great - ask Charles Manson. Edited October 5, 2009 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Helter Skelter is great - ask Charles Manson. 'cuz after all, he's not crazy, we're all crazy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Englewood Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) Another Beatles book to get upset about, I'm 4 chapters in and it's fucking brilliant, very, very juicy indeed. And for absolutely no reason what so ever... Edited October 5, 2009 by Cliff Englewood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 No US version of the Doggett on the horizon, alas. Nothing at Amazon, anyway. I'm reading Shout!, and I like it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Englewood Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 No US version of the Doggett on the horizon, alas. Nothing at Amazon, anyway. I'm reading Shout!, and I like it... Great news on "Shout!", I look forward to it when I get around to it but the Doggett book is just so bitch-tastic, so far, the only one of them that is coming out of it with any sense of decency is Ringo, or Richard Starkey as he now prefers to be called. It's not for the faint hearted, and if even half of it is halt true.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) So does the Doggett book read like a novel and let you meet the Beatles as PEOPLE? One reason I've never finished a Beatles book is that authors seem so obsessive - they want to tell you who drank their tea with milk as opposed to lemon, and constantly remind you how important and great they are. They give you these laundry lists of details about who played tambourine on which track, but by the last page the four guys seem every bit as distant and impenetrable as ever. Does the book I want exist, and is it the Doggett book? Edited October 6, 2009 by Teasing the Korean Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewy-chew-chew-bean-benitez Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 (edited) i got a beatles remaster this weekend allright:i got the one which had the cover remastered: BUTCHER COVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! please, hold your applause.... Edited October 6, 2009 by chewy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Ayers Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 i got a beatles remaster this weekend allright:i got the one which had the cover remastered: BUTCHER COVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! please, hold your applause.... You win... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Englewood Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 So does the Doggett book read like a novel and let you meet the Beatles as PEOPLE? One reason I've never finished a Beatles book is that authors seem so obsessive - they want to tell you who drank their tea with milk as opposed to lemon, and constantly remind you how important and great they are. They give you these laundry lists of details about who played tambourine on which track, but by the last page the four guys seem every bit as distant and impenetrable as ever. Does the book I want exist, and is it the Doggett book? It might be but the Doggett book is specifically about the break up of the Beatles and all the sundry suing and counter suing that went on afterward. It really does show them in a not too flatering light. As I mentioned above the only one of them that seems to be genuine is Ringo, the other 3 seem like a right bunch of wankers. I'm sure people will nit pick about certin facts and the chronology of his story does jump around a bit but I am finding it un-put-downable. I should finish it tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Englewood Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 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. Hmm... I think most of your corrections make sense, but it was Freddie King that was a major influence on Clapton (not necessarily to the exclusion of Albert, but Clapton has made it very clear that Freddie was a huge influence on him). Anyway, this whole thing sounded like a string of incorrect assumptions, so I just did a little online searching. It appears that it was Harrison, not Clapton, who dubbed the guitar "Lucy". The Gibson website suggests that Harrison named it after Lucille Ball... the iconic redhead... (?!). At this point, I'm prepared to NOT believe anything I read about this story. The guitar in question was originally a goldtop owned by Rick Derringer, who had it refinished in red. Clapton got it from Derringer, and then gave it to George. Excellent bit of guitar based sleuthing there, likewise, I never remember reading about Albert Collins calling his axe anything at all, a bit strange Macdonald would make such a big goof there. BTW, I wish someone would give me a vintage Les Paul. A further BTW, Macdonald doesn't mention the whole bit about the guitar in the earlier versions of the book, it's only in the third edition. Strange that he would add something like that in and then get his Alberts mixed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 no no no. I love the white album.... penny lane is too McCartney. Strawberry Fields is brillliant. The White Album has a lot of high points, I agree. "Penny Lane" is certainly McCartney, but McCartney when he had real brilliance to back up the wussiness... As for "Strawberry Fields" being brilliant, well, DUH... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 So what's the word, a friend of mine hasn't yet made up his mind if he ought to get the mono or the stereo box... has anyone actually done some real comparison? And for my own interest: are there any albums that are recommended to have in stereo, in addition to the mono box? (I did get "Abbey Road", "Let It Be" and "Past Masters" in stereo already, and won't get "Yellow Submarine", as the Beatles tracks from it are part of the "Mono Masters" compilation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 And for my own interest: are there any albums that are recommended to have in stereo, in addition to the mono box? (I did get "Abbey Road", "Let It Be" and "Past Masters" in stereo already, and won't get "Yellow Submarine", as the Beatles tracks from it are part of the "Mono Masters" compilation). I would definately add The Beatles (The White Album) to the stereo CDs you've picked up. I find it to be fantastic (more revealing than even Abbey Road) in its new re-issue version (though I don't have the mono box yet to compare, so maybe others can chime in, but from what I've read the stereo version of the White Album does offer some -- though not all -- advantages over the mono version, more detail in some areas even if a little less hard driving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Englewood Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 And for my own interest: are there any albums that are recommended to have in stereo, in addition to the mono box? (I did get "Abbey Road", "Let It Be" and "Past Masters" in stereo already, and won't get "Yellow Submarine", as the Beatles tracks from it are part of the "Mono Masters" compilation). I would definately add The Beatles (The White Album) to the stereo CDs you've picked up. I find it to be fantastic (more revealing than even Abbey Road) in its new re-issue version (though I don't have the mono box yet to compare, so maybe others can chime in, but from what I've read the stereo version of the White Album does offer some -- though not all -- advantages over the mono version, more detail in some areas even if a little less hard driving. I'd go along with that, the Mono White Album is the least impressive of the Mono set, it's still good but not as dramatic as say the difference between the two Peppers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I have the mono box and most of the separate stereo remasters. I've only really gone up through Help! at this point, but my opinion is the mono remasters are superior thus far. They have a warmth the stereo are missing and are noticeably more 'punchy,' especially Please Please Me and With the Beatles. That being said, both really sound fantastic, much better than the prior versions. I'm glad I have both, but will probably listen mostly to the mono versions of the earlier stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I have the mono box and most of the separate stereo remasters. I've only really gone up through Help! at this point, but my opinion is the mono remasters are superior thus far. They have a warmth the stereo are missing and are noticeably more 'punchy,' especially Please Please Me and With the Beatles. That being said, both really sound fantastic, much better than the prior versions. I'm glad I have both, but will probably listen mostly to the mono versions of the earlier stuff. I love PPM & WTB The stereo's sound great, though, as has been said 1,000,000,000 times, the separation is annoying at times. If the mono's sound better, I'll be in seventh heaven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesbro Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 I got my mono box and all the stereo discs now. didnt get the stereo box, as getting them one by one was cheaper. The stereo box looks flimsy anyway. The mono box is great. Overpriced and all it has great sound and packaging. I wish it had been a limited numbered edition, like the white album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kw21925 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 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. Hmm... I think most of your corrections make sense, but it was Freddie King that was a major influence on Clapton (not necessarily to the exclusion of Albert, but Clapton has made it very clear that Freddie was a huge influence on him). Anyway, this whole thing sounded like a string of incorrect assumptions, so I just did a little online searching. It appears that it was Harrison, not Clapton, who dubbed the guitar "Lucy". The Gibson website suggests that Harrison named it after Lucille Ball... the iconic redhead... (?!). At this point, I'm prepared to NOT believe anything I read about this story. The guitar in question was originally a goldtop owned by Rick Derringer, who had it refinished in red. Clapton got it from Derringer, and then gave it to George. Excellent bit of guitar based sleuthing there, likewise, I never remember reading about Albert Collins calling his axe anything at all, a bit strange Macdonald would make such a big goof there. BTW, I wish someone would give me a vintage Les Paul. A further BTW, Macdonald doesn't mention the whole bit about the guitar in the earlier versions of the book, it's only in the third edition. Strange that he would add something like that in and then get his Alberts mixed up. If you want to hear evidence of Albert King's influence on Clapton, listen to King's "Oh Pretty Woman" on the Born Under a Bad Sign album from 1967, then check Clapton's guitar solo on "Strange Brew" from Disraeli Gears. It's almost note for note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neveronfriday Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 1000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.