Beatles Remasters coming! 09/09/09

[JETman]

I like it. And I'm pretty sure the only Peter and Gordon hit written by the boys was World Without Love.

I actually used to own the 45. Can't remember the flip -

Wasn't referring to you, Allen ---- my non-"happy bottom quarter" Ivy League status notwithstanding.

[felser]

I like it. And I'm pretty sure the only Peter and Gordon hit written by the boys was World Without Love.

I actually used to own the 45. Can't remember the flip -

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!

[Jim R]

...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer...

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.

I'm not challenging your knowledge, and yes, you do come across as a know-it-all at times. But that's not really a big deal by itself. Anyway, I guess I was kind of being half-serious. You do sometimes come across as a candidate for President, making a speech at a BNC (Beatles National Convention). Or a professor lecturing a class. Of course I could ignore you, but I thought I could tip you to this, and try to do it in a friendly way (thus the ). The post that kind of set me off (the one that closed with the comment about Ringo's vocal ability) contained quite a few points emphasized for us in CAPS, which to me was overkill, and then there was the Ringo comment:

"...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer..."

I mean, please. Even without putting "great" in CAPS, that's just silly. We KNOW!

Okay, rock on.

[Alexander]

...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer...

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...

I like it. And I'm pretty sure the only Peter and Gordon hit written by the boys was World Without Love.

I actually used to own the 45. Can't remember the flip -

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!

[BruceH]

Nobody recommending "Revelution In The Head"????? :unsure:

I think it's amazing.

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.

Yes, I agree with the "grumpy" complaint, and he's a little hard on George. Hey, MacDonald is human; he has his quirks, flaws, and occasional blind spots. Some Beatles songs that he knocks I just plain disagree with him on...in other cases (not many) he praises a song rather more highly than I would have. But on the whole, I think his book is VERY worthwhile. And the last time I read it I really noticed how much he dug Ringo's drumming. He's one of the few critics to give Ringo his due in that regard.

[Norm]

I will put my Beatles knowledge (lyrics, trivia, etc.) on the line against anyone else's.

Do you recommend any books in addition to MacDonald's Revolution in the Head?

[Brad]

I will put my Beatles knowledge (lyrics, trivia, etc.) on the line against anyone else's.

Do you recommend any books in addition to MacDonald's Revolution in the Head?

Yes, that's a good question. I would like your opinion about the Gould book. Sometimes the analysis is a little too deep as in going on the motivations of British schoolgirls in going crazy, with discussions of Freud thrown in, but overall, a satisfying read.

[Harold_Z]

Anybody read Geoff Emerick's "Here, There and Everywhere"? I read it recently and enjoyed it quite a bit.

[AllenLowe]

Harold - interesting book, but I was troubled by some good criticisms of it and some other things - if you can find my earlier post - more later if I can dig it out -

"Woman" - apparently written under a pseudonym. Not fair.

Edited September 28, 2009 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

Harold - here's my earlier comments:

"I'm wary of Emerick's book (though I read it) because after it came out, another engineer who was at a lot of the same sessions wrote a very detailed attack on the book and challenged many of Emerick's recollections - and in Emerick's response, he denied NONE of the corrections that were made, only very lamely said something like, "oh well, sometimes my memory is off." Not a good thing,

Also, for all his remarks about sound, he himself destroyed a lot of the anthology with terrible digital de-noising (I think he used No Noise). He also, I think, tries in the book to take too much credit away from George Martin.

The most useful thing he offers is the observation that so many of the nice guitar parts we hear were done not by George but by Paul, which does not surprise me."

[Harold_Z]

Harold - here's my earlier comments:

"I'm wary of Emerick's book (though I read it) because after it came out, another engineer who was at a lot of the same sessions wrote a very detailed attack on the book and challenged many of Emerick's recollections - and in Emerick's response, he denied NONE of the corrections that were made, only very lamely said something like, "oh well, sometimes my memory is off." Not a good thing,

Also, for all his remarks about sound, he himself destroyed a lot of the anthology with terrible digital de-noising (I think he used No Noise). He also, I think, tries in the book to take too much credit away from George Martin.

The most useful thing he offers is the observation that so many of the nice guitar parts we hear were done not by George but by Paul, which does not surprise me."

Thanks Allen. What you're saying makes sense. I wasn't aware that another engineer challenged Emerick's account - I'd love to read that! I did wonder how he could remember details and conversations in such detail 40 some odd years in the past and took some of the dialog with a grain of salt.

[AllenLowe]

yeah, I liked the book, but it was a little discouraging when he challenged basically none of this other guy's (who was an EMI engineer) claims. I don't have the citation anymore, but it might still be around the internet.

[BruceH]

...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer...

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.

That's fine with me. Where better to display your knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, the Beatles than on a Beatles thread? I don't really understand these people criticizing you for it...that's a little like going on the Grateful Dead thread and dumping on someone for being so damn positive about The Grateful Dead. Myself, I don't much care for the Dead and don't know much about them either, so I don't go on that thread, because I don't think I'd have much to add. Make sense? I think so.

[Jim R]

...And Ringo, while never a GREAT singer...

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.

That's fine with me. Where better to display your knowledge of, and enthusiasm for, the Beatles than on a Beatles thread? I don't really understand these people criticizing you for it...that's a little like going on the Grateful Dead thread and dumping on someone for being so damn positive about The Grateful Dead. Myself, I don't much care for the Dead and don't know much about them either, so I don't go on that thread, because I don't think I'd have much to add. Make sense? I think so.

Wow. By way of review...

I stated very clearly that I was not questioning his knowledge.

I ribbed him a little bit about his approach. I said I was being half-serious (are the smileys working?).

He ADMITTED that he was aware that he was coming across like a know-it-all sometimes (and btw, there's more to all of this than facts and non-facts).

I reacted to what I thought was a silly statement about Ringo not being a "GREAT singer" (whew, I'm glad I was sitting down when I read that). Seemed humorous to me.

I closed by saying "Rock on" (positive reinforcement, where I come from).

Alexander ignores my response, and people see a need to step in and defend him over this?

So, did someone else "criticize" him for being knowledgeable and/or enthusiastic in this thread? (serious question- I don't even remember).

[Alexander]

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.

[paul secor]

Possibly interesting sidenote - Michael Rumaker's novel The Butterfly contains a fictional character who seems pretty obviously based on Yoko Ono (pre John Lennon).

[Norm]

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.

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.

[JohnJ]

Does anyone know whether there are any plans to release remastered versions of the Red (1962-66) and Blue (1967-1970) albums? These contain pretty much all the Beatles I need (blasphemy, I know).

[Alexander]

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.

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."

[BruceH]

Does anyone know whether there are any plans to release remastered versions of the Red (1962-66) and Blue (1967-1970) albums? These contain pretty much all the Beatles I need (blasphemy, I know).

It was the Red album (or compilation) that first got me into them.

[Brad]

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.

Maybe some are fluff but very appealing with a lot of charm. Act Naturally was always a favorite of mine.

[Quincy]

[Ringo] Maybe some are fluff but very appealing with a lot of charm. Act Naturally was always a favorite of mine.

I love "Boys"...er, the song, yeah, yeah, the song! Especially on the Hollywood Bowl LP.

[felser]

[Ringo] Maybe some are fluff but very appealing with a lot of charm. Act Naturally was always a favorite of mine.

I love "Boys"...er, the song, yeah, yeah, the song! Especially on the Hollywood Bowl LP.

I was always quite taken with the Carl Perkins covers on Beatles '65, especially "Honey Don't".

[AllenLowe]

well, Perkins was the king of honky tonk rockabillies - amazing singer and player.

[Alexander]

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...

Edited September 29, 2009 by Alexander