The Smiley Smile Message Board

It's no secret that I've stated on many times that I find the Beatles to be incredibly overrated and that I 'hate' them. Need to clarify that last statement...I don't hate their music. It's more of 'I hate how they're viewed as the best of all time to the point of ignoring every other band'...that type deal. I hate going into a book-store and seeing 50 different Beatles books but no Beach Boys books on the shelf (usually when a new BB book is released I end up having to buy it online). I also don't like a lot of the earlier Beatles songs (especially Mr Moonlight, which just might be my least favorite song by a major artist). That said...I actually really like a lot of the post-Pepper material I've heard. To be perfectly honest, I've never heard one of their albums in their entirety. I...just couldn't do it. Some of it is due to over-familiarity, from being a kid and hearing my dad have it on the oldies station. I really don't care for songs like 'Love Me Do', and (to a lesser extent) 'She Loves You', for instance. Whenever I'd hear a song from Rubber Soul onwards, it was pretty cool, but I'd cringe when I'd hear much of the earlier stuff. I'll tell you another thing that annoyed me (and it was the same thing that turned me off the to Beach Boys for years before finally giving them a real  chance in 1995 when I was 17); I hated when in school in history class we'd be shown a VHS tape and when it got to the 1960s, it'd show the Beatles performing and it'd show all the kids screaming...I'm sorry, but I found that annoying. When the studio audience is mic'd louder than the band, I'm not a happy panda. If I wanted to hear people scream hysterically, I'd watch Saw . If I wanted to see a moptop, I'd go clean the kitchen. I think striped shirts looked cooler than matching suits. But maybe that's just me. :-\

With all that said...I'm finally going to listen with an open ear. What would any of you recommend for those just getting into them?

My exact problem with them as well Billy. We are brothers in arms..... ;D

I admit that much of the problem is with myself. That's why I really want to attempt to listen to the whole catalogue with an open mind and open ear. Two of the latter, in fact.

Honestly, if you don't like them...you don't like them. It's not a big deal - I'd probably berate you at a party if I was drunk, though.  :lol

I think their "best" albums are With The Beatles and A Hard Day's Night. There is a sense of enthusiasm, joy, and earnesty that I find in these albums that I find in no other albums. They were so fresh, they had something (fairly) new, they were tight. I'd try to give those two a listen.

Hard to say. I fundamentally don't understand the value of terms like "overrated" and "underrated" - I can't think of a worse way of evaluating art. Is Shakespeare overrated too? Reminds me of the scene from Manhattan where Michael Murphy and Diane Keaton come up with the Academy of the Overrated...

It's strange because it's not that you just have a problem with the music but also with people's genuine reaction to that music.

Some consider Revolver to be their best album. And it's pretty good. There's a song called "Here, There, and Everywhere" which was Beach Boy inspired, and, as a plus, it's also a pretty good song.

Rubber Soul is also a pretty good album too. It shows them slightly leaving their old territory in favor of a new direction and shows subtle Dylan influences.

Sgt. Pepper is of course the album that's known world wide, and although I don't think it's the best, A LOT of people love this album.

The White Album is pretty eclectic and not so I'm not exactly sure if it's a great album to start with. It might be my favorite album of theirs though.

Lastly, Abbey Road is a polished, pop gem and there's isn't a weak track on there.. well if you don't focus on "Octopus's Garden."


Like, Egohanger said, if you don't like them, then it's no big deal. There's no reason to feel like you have to listen to these albums.

Regarding the last point, what bothers me is the attitude that the work they did was so much better that nobody else was worth considering.

I DO like HT&E a lot, actually.

Sgt Pepper I actually did try to listen to once to see what the hype was about, but I couldn't get into it. That was a good 15 years ago, so I can't count that

The attitude from whom exactly? Because I happen to think there music is better than any other pop/rock and roll band but that certainly doesn't prevent me from considering other music.

That was the general attitude when I was growing up and first getting into music. Just about any book on rock, any TV show discussing rock history, any time the 1960s were discussed in school. Obviously things are a bit different now. Many people still feel they are tops; although I disagree with that I can respect that. It just wasn't as balanced in the past.

They're absolutely one of the best bands to ever walk the planet, but they're not the be all/end all creators of pop culture that people like to think they are.

You have to say though that art is not only evaluated for its creative content but also for its cultural impact. Great works of art typically capture the current zeitgeist. This is why people who come to Sgt. Pepper today have such a difficult time understanding why it is ranked so high, so consistently on lists - because they did not experience the kind of impact that that album actually had and, therefore, can never fully understand the kind of work that that album did. Sgt. Pepper actually accomplished something that is extraordinarily rare and remarkably difficult to achieve and for that alone it is an extraordinary work of art. Is it my personal favourite album? No. But I can hardly quibble with how important it is or what kind of an achievement it is.

When you weigh in the kind of impact The Beatles had, you simply can't account for balance. They were truly off the scale in terms of significance and importance and that's leaving out the fact that their music was remarkably strong and creative. Again - this is why I bring up Shakespeare. Sure, you can say he's overrated because you're not entirely into his plays but you would also then have to forget about the fact that he basically informed how many in his own generation understood their lives and their place in the world, transformed English literature from that point forward, provides perhaps more than anyone else the biggest insights into the mindset of the early Modern era. And again, that's forgetting what Shakespeare actually wrote.

Try the Love album! A cappella 'Because' starts it off, all the songs are mashed-up - creating totally different Beatles songs; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzDu7DanPS4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzDu7DanPS4)

Love and the Magical Mystery Tour are the only albums I really listen to of the Beatles.
______

Basically any Beatles fans I know of my age (mostly people born in the 80s) swear by their music, and disregard much other 60s music (besides the Stones)....they consider The Beach Boys to be a happy surf group, nothing more. They haven't heard of The Zombies or The Hollies. It's pretty friggin irritating to be around these people when discussing music. So, I have to agree with Billy that somewhere in time, for generation Y, The Beatles became THE band of the 60s, and no one else really mattered - which is why we see 80 Beatles albums and 1 BB compilation at Best Buy these days.

Interesting - the opposite is true for my peer group. I mean, some Beatles fans may not like The Beach Boys but they are certainly open to many other things.

A fair evaluation of how a band is either embraced or ignored by a listener. This hits home for me because unless you really don't know much about me through what I write, I've been a Beatles fanatic since I remember songs like Hey Jude when I was a little kid. One of the first albums my dad took me to buy - and I remember this well - was going to have Hey Jude on it, that was a must. So him being more of a Sinatra and Sun Records/country kind of guy and not much of a record collector at all, we went to the local shop and saw this album with a Union Jack on the cover, the title "By The Beatles", unfortunately it turned out to be Beatles tunes played by the Longines Symphonette or some such studio band. Oh well.

All was made better through the next few decades as I built quite a Beatles audio collection and passed on the good stuff to others to enjoy, fans who loved the music but had no idea for example what a Beatles outtake sounded like. Or those who didn't spend weekends scouring yard sales and flea markets for the original LPs and 45's, which at that time you could find for a few bucks or less. I sold off some of that, but kept the important stuff.

That's the issue I think which gets confused by people looking in at Beatles fanatics who thrive on the music and sharing the band: It is personal, it brings back memories, and the reason why I kept certain vinyls is because *I* remember exactly where I got it, where I first listened, and just picking up one of those for a spin takes me back to a nice place when I need a lift.

That is not the same as thinking the Beatles are the be-all and end-all of popular music. I don't believe I've ever met anyone, nor had the (mis)fortune of interacting with anyone online who holds anything close to that opinion. If there are such folks, I'd say their enthusiasm is being misinterpreted as blind and stubborn devotion to an idea that all stops with The Beatles. I'd say also that if there are genuinely folks out there who hold that kind of opinion, it's their loss. If i ever meet one, I'll ask them directly.  :)

I wouldn't let a band's overzealous fanbase affect in any way the way *you* listen to the music, especially if it's a first time really digging into the albums with a critical ear. Wipe away ALL preconceived notions, all biases, anything you've been lectured about by music whores who think trying to knock the Beatles down a few pegs is somehow de rigueur to exist among a group of cynical, unhappy f*ckers who like to piss on others' picnics. "Oh, that Sgt. Pepper album, that was so overrated, it's not that good, it really didn't affect as much in 1967 as The Byrds, or VU, or (fill in the blank), it's only worthwhile in mono..." Bullshit. It's a landmark album that deserves a critical listen from anyone - *anyone* - with even a passing interest in popular music and culture of the 1960's. If some fans seem to take that to an extreme level, and if the media tries to tie it into some bogus "Summer Of Love" prepackaged hoopla, don't let that guide what the music is and was.

The music is influential, it is fantastic, it is inspirational, and there is a reason why so many are fans. Seriously - if it were just a case of overhype, the truth would have come out by now and people listening would hear that they have been getting hoodwinked for the better part of 5 decades. Oh, that happens. Or it should happen more often with any number of critical-darling artists who can do no wrong except when it comes to appealing to a wider fanbase than core groups of music geeks (like me...).

Give The Beatles another shot, a solid listening. This is similar to The Doors thread a few months ago: Some albums are incredibly hard to separate, like Rubber Soul/Revolver or Please Please Me/With The Beatles. They were like bookends in the band's life and creative juices at that time in history.

Revolver is still top-5 for me, but so are albums like Hard Day's Night and even the oft-maligned Beatles For Sale (a personal favorite). Some of these from '63-'64 feature incredibly well-crafted songs written in between endless gigs and tour stops, where they'd literally drop into Abbey Road on a break from the tour, record a handful of songs, and be back on the road. Two, three albums every year like this - And the quality was consistently good, if not terrific considering the ages and the schedules of the guys creating it. Hard Day's Night is terrific, it stands alone as a solid album statement without having to see the film itself to "get" any of it.

I'd say start with Please Please Me and work up chronologically. Stick to the UK tracklists and album releases, that's how the band wanted them to be sequenced. So what if some American fans would rather hear "their" Beatles '65 instead, that's not what the band intended. I make the exception for Meet The Beatles.  :)

If you want the landmarks, these 5 groundbreakers are a good starting point: 1. Revolver 2. Sgt. Pepper 3. Meet The Beatles (US) or With The Beatles (UK) 4. Rubber Soul 5. A Hard Day's Night   Each of those had something unique or specific to their release which made them break new ground, in some way. Musically, technologically, culturally, etc.

Then watch any live performances, especially those from 63-64 which are on YouTube. The band was electric live. Pure energy, you can tell how Hamburg juiced them up as performers and musicians. Watch the Ed Sullivan American debut - riveting. Etc etc.

That same exact live energy and band dynamic was captured best on one single record in their career: She Loves You. Some instead would say Twist And Shout, but that was a cover. She Loves You is pure manic energy, unique to this band, from the first drum roll to the last "Glenn Miller" chord of the vocals. No one had cut a record that sounded quite that way before - take that to the bank.  ;)

Mainly I hope you ignore those who wish to once again rewrite history so the Beatles' legacy is diminished in favor of whatever band or artist those doing the diminishing wish to promote, and ignore those as well who try to explain away the band's appeal by shifting it from the music to the fan reactions.

It's about the music, and it's waiting to be experienced with a few listening sessions. Good luck!  :)

Good point rockandroll. I think those of us who don't rate the Beatles as highly in comparison to some other artists were born after the fact ( I myself was born in 1978). Maybe if I'd been around then id feel differently. I wonder if Smile came out, would I be on a Beatles board right now discussing how the Beach Boys were overrated :lol

So...I'm gonna start at the very beginning and listen all the way through to 1970. Going to be as objective as possible.

Good way to do it.

There's something that really seems to magically work for The Beatles. The fact that there very first album begins with McCartney's exuberant "1-2-3-4!" and their last recorded album ends with "The End" and a very short "encore" is just unintentionally perfect. Not only immense talent but also luck was on their side.

I think it's definitely different nowadays on The Beatles.

I was never the biggest music fan, usually I just listen to the music that was pumped out by stations like KROQ (hello So-Cal people.) I actually didn't think I liked The Beatles. I was in the camp of "everybody talks about this band, but I don't see what's so great," but I would hear songs like "Come Together," "A Hard Day's Night," and "Fool on the Hill" and secretly like them.

So, a year or two ago, I decided to actually listen to their music. I downloaded a fan made's greatest hits collection and I fell in love with their music. For the next six months or so, I constantly listened to The Beatles and read as much as I could about them. I read every album and song article on Wikipedia that had been published and I constantly read them over and over. It was the birth of my music fandom.

However, it didn't end with The Beatles. It spread out to different bands like Bob Dylan, and Jimi Hendrix, and Captain beefheart, and Pink Floyd.. Now, I have a huge, diverse musical collection that I would have never acquired if I hadn't sat down in one of the halls of my high school and listened to the compilation.

And my friend has a similar story.

So, The Beatles aren't necessarily the end-all, be-all, they're a jumping-off point for me, and probably a lot more people.

When you finish, you should definitely tell us what you think. I'd be interested. Maybe you can even join in the McCartney vs. Lennon debate..

I thought of another point re: "the be all/end all creators of pop culture that people like to think they are."

You ever talk to a Dylan fan? I mean, a really serious Dylan fan? The one that collects every single scrap Dylan ever put on tape? They typically harbour the same attitude. Same with really serious Pink Floyd fans. Same with really serious Led Zeppelin fans. People devoted their lives to following around the Grateful Dead. Hell, even on this board, I've seen it put forth several times that if you can't admit that there is no one better than The Beach Boys then you have no business being here.

My point is that lots of artists have this kind of fan base, though I would imagine that there are plenty of fans like the kind I mentioned above that still find room for other artists. It's just that it all comes back to personal favourites. What makes it different for The Beatles, I'd imagine, is that they were more popular and received better critical acclaim so you have to face a wider group who could obnoxiously cite lists as if they constituted objective proof that their tastes are what's right. I can see how it might be grating but the fact is that The Beatles are not unique in having fans that appear to believe that their favourite band is "the be all/end all." In this case, they are almost victims of their own popular and critical success which creates that false impression.

‍

Yea, I can totally relate to your story. The Beatles really seem to be jumping off point for most people know.

Also, that wasn't just George Martin's way of thinking. The mentality of the Brits on singles were "it's already available, why would we release it again?"

I try to like the Beatles, then superfans of them trash groups I like, making the Beatles fandom hard for me.

That kind of selfish and idiotic behavior has everything to do with those fans and their own personal issues and nothing to do with the Beatles or their music.

Billy, what I did was start with the American version of Rubber Soul. That version has a nice vibe to it that was one of the few things Capitol did right, accidentally or not. If you want to try more American albums, The Beatles Second Album is well put together, but it is full of reverb not on the original British albums. Different listen for sure, but to me it added some pizzazz. JMHO.

If you are older, then you would understand that comment. You had grow up around that in the 60s. I did and felt that way for decades. I tried to get that out of my mind back in the mid-90s, and I gave everything a clean listen and it worked. I now have whole other appreciation for their body of work.

Downloaded...about to bust my cherry, so to speak.

Age has nothing to do with it, nor does the fact it's Beatles fans. As far as fans acting like jerks when someone says they like a certain band and catch heat for it, it is in no way exclusive to The Beatles.

How about this? When I was at that age of developing my own musical tastes, like getting a stereo for my 12th birthday or so, I'd go to school and catch major sh*t for openly saying I liked The Beatles. There was a very small group of us fans, some were less open and didn't come right out and say it. So in no way was it a majority opinion at that school to be a Beatles fan, at least openly. In the 80's I was all over the map musically, but i did catch sh*t for liking the Beatles and not whichever bands were "hot" at that time.

And if you want to see any number of examples of fan communities for any number of bands giving other posters a load of crap for liking certain bands that aren't in vogue in or around that community...pick any band and any message board that discusses them and their music. Radiohead, The Stones, Pearl Jam, etc. or any random YouTube music vid clip's comments section: It's not exclusive to The Beatles, and some of the more frustrating examples I've ever seen of that were posted on places like The Smile Shop, or whatever it was called after 2005.

Or how about the opposite side of the coin? Post how much you don't like Kanye West's music and see what reactions start flooding in. It's unreal. And not exclusive to Beatles fans at all.

I did go with the UK versions as those were the original intent as opposed to Capitol's vision. Never understood that whole thing, really.

Very true. I used to go to a Stone Temple Pilots board and a great majority of  them over there were assholes.

In one word, Marketing! I am thinking 14 songs on an album created issues with fees, as well.

My apologies, I misread what he wrote. I agree with you. Back in the day though, it was weird, you either liked the Beach Boys or the Beatles, but not both. It took years, as I said in my previous post to really enjoy Beatles music. There was a competition among the fans, as well as with the bands, themselves.

It's an odd situation: I got into Beatles music just a few years before the CD reissues. Up to that point, the most available versions were the US versions, and this includes the reissues on vinyl that I'd by at the local malls from places like Sam Goody as well as my flea market finds. My "Revolver" vinyl, bought brand new as a Capitol reissue was short a few songs, and two of the songs I really wanted were not on it! I'm Only Sleeping and And Your Bird Can Sing (which I got to know and love from watching MTV's reruns of that cheesy Beatles cartoon, it was the closing theme or something). It was a great album and I held onto that vinyl to this day, but I felt ripped off having to buy another just for those songs.

I was also at the record store the first day the CD issue of Please Please Me came out wanting to buy it, and stood in line very upset along with other fans who said the same thing because it wasn't available on cassette! And we didn't have a CD player in the house! So I stared at the longbox and that great cover but couldn't buy the album...how times have changed from the not-too-distant past 1980's.  ;D

The older fans knew the sequencing and flow of those Capitol albums because that's all they had, but ultimately the British ones are the best bet overall, and now are the standard way of listening to those pre-Pepper albums, I'd say.

I use to love The Beatles when I was a child, i still enjoy there music from time to time. They are infact a good band but best band of all time? Not really, even the beatles themselves said they dont find themselves to be the best band in the world (I believe they said this on a couple occassions) and also no band could really be called the best band of all time if you ask me.

That is interesting, I didn't experience that era firsthand but would like to hear more. I have heard that a competition between the Beatles and The Stones was being manufactured in certain music press or teen zine circles to create a controversy that didn't exist between the bands in reality, and that transferred to the fans, but I guess I can see the Beach Boys and Beatles having something like that among their fans too.

I have to add, my Mom grew up in the 40's and her older sister was a bobby-soxer who followed "Frankie" Sinatra and all the big bands. And if I remember she told me there was also a competition among fans of those bands around whose singer was the cutest, or whose trumpet player like Harry James was better, or who was dating which actress, and all of that teenage drama... :-D  So it definitely had a history going back to the fans of the 30's at least.

‍

OMG...cd longboxes....that brings back memories!

I still have all mine from the original Beach Boys releases. I was going to use them to make a collage to hang in my office, but 20 years later I am still getting around to it. ;) At least they are packed away safe in the basement.

I Saw Her Standing There is what got me into the Beatles. That definitely got my interest going. I'm not a huge fan of their early songs/albums (Please Please Me, With the Beatles), but when you get into A Hard Day's Night, it really changes things. My favorite part of the Beatles' catalog is when they started incorporating folk into their songs. A Hard Day's Night doesn't have a weak song on it, IMHO. Beatles for Sale, IMHO, is a step backward. I Feel Fine is a good single that preceded Beatles for Sale. No Reply, I'm a Loser, I'll Follow the Sun, Eight Days a Week, and Every Little Thing are the best off of that album to me.

Help! was them picking back up from A Hard Day's Night. There are a couple clunkers on Help! but, it's overall more consistent than Beatles for Sale. They start using more folk elements again. Help!, Ticket to Ride, You've Got to Hide Your Love Away, I've Just Seen a Face, and Yesterday are highlights for me. This is also when Paul got his Epiphone Casino (played on Another Girl and Ticket to Ride). He then used it all over Rubber Soul. That bright sound is so fantastic to hear. Day Tripper and We Can Work It Out were a double A-sided single that preceded Rubber Soul. The only song I'm not a fan of on Rubber Soul is What Goes On. Other than the fantastic finger picking by George, it's just giving Ringo a song to sing. Some don't like Run for Your Life, but it doesn't bother me. Drive My Car is cool. Norwegian Wood, Nowhere Man, Girl, I'm Looking Through You, In My Life, and If I Needed Someone are my favorites.

They pretty well dropped the folk sound for Revolver. John and George got 1965 Epiphone Casino's for Revolver after loving Paul's sound on Rubber Soul. Paperback Writer and Rain were a double A-sided single preceding the album. Rain is really fantastic to me. Paul's melodic bass playing is awesome and I enjoy Ringo's drumming. Other than Doctor Robert and Yellow Submarine, the rest of Revolver is great. From there, you get into Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane and head on into Sgt. Pepper's, through Magical Mystery Tour, the White Album, Yellow Submarine soundtrack, and on into the sunset with Abbey Road/Let It Be.

Some days I tend to prefer Wings to the Beatles.

Actually, I really like Wings, and that is what inspired me to do this in the first place.

‍

I used to be a huge Beatles fan. I'm still a big fan, but I don't really buy into the "blind devotion" type of fandom. Yeah, they were a great band with some great singers and songwriters, but you can only hear so much of the early hits before they become downright annoying as hell. If you think about it, they were actually behind what some other groups were doing. Let's put it like this: The Beatles were doing She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand, but The Beach Boys were doing In My Room, Warmth Of The Sun, Please Let Me Wonder, etc.  ;D I'd even take Needles and Pins by The Searchers over She Loves You. And let's not forget about that shaking their heads and going "ooooooooooooo!!!", and the dumb "yeah yeah yeah" crap. It's like The Beatles bought into their own hype, with all the silly Beatlemania stuff. In my opinion, it really wasn't until the Beatles For Sale album that they became a "serious" group.

That's how I've always felt. So far going through the earlier work my opinion hasn't changed, although I am softening somewhat.

You should probably check out the Past Masters cd's. It's a two volume set that has all of their non album singles. It's actually one of the best compilation albums, of anybody.

Are you really knocking a band on a Beach Boys forum for not being "serious" enough?

She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand both came out before Warmth of The Sun and about a year and a half before Please Let Me Wonder (which in 60s years was like eight years  ;))



Fair enough. I like me some Needles and Pins. Nevertheless I would seriously disagree with the premise that She Loves You is "behind" Needles and Pins. You have to understand, of course, that saying the Beatles were "behind what some other groups were doing" and then basically only comparing them to The Beach Boys is really unfair and doesn't speak to the reality of what was happening at the time. Try to find a huge list of bands at their peak at the end of 1963. It's quite difficult. I tried once compiling a list of great British singles to put in chronological order and it was difficult to twist the list so that the first ten songs didn't include seven Beatles songs and a few by Dave Clark Five. Not only were The Beatles not behind other bands, there were very few other bands at the time doing what The Beatles were doing. However, I'd make the same remark about The Beach Boys. In that case, using The Beach Boys to make this case is a bit fallacious because they were the only band around that time who came close to doing what the Beatles were doing unless you count the fabulous stuff coming out of Motown en masse. Bob Dylan, meanwhile, was probably ahead of both bands in terms of sophistication but few had yet to catch on. Other than those three...

Let's put it this way. By the time you started to see the English Beat bands putting out their first major hit records (The Stones' It's All Over Now, The Kinks' You Really Got Me, The Zombies' She's Not There, The Animals' House of the Rising Sun), The Beatles were already beyond A Hard Day's Night and had scored five or six #1 hit singles. With that in mind, I really think it is impossible to suggest that they were "behind." And by the time The Who roll around to putting out their first record, The Beatles are on Rubber Soul.


Meanwhile, during the same period, The Beach Boys were still establishing themselves as a novelty act - putting out a surf A-side with a car B-side. I'll leave it to you to decide which is better.

I completely agree. Volume 2 is so incredibly good.

I like it also! John, as always, sings it so well. I was talking about from a lyrical standpoint. The music is great.

Just as a small fact check -- I don't believe Paperback Writer/Rain was a double A side. One of the few from the period that wasn't.

You are right, my fault. Rain was the B side. I got a tad carried away. ;D

It's hard to see and read some of the misunderstanding and misstatements of the factual history of the Beatles and their peers, especially within the timeline of when certain songs were released, etc.

If you don't particularly care for them or their music, or think another band was "better" or more important or cutting better records, that's fine. But to base certain perceptions on facts and timelines that simply aren't true and proceed to diminish the band's legacy from those incorrect timelines is an easy way out...please look a bit deeper at the history, look at the when, the how, the why etc. behind the Beatles rise in 1964.

If somebody wants to say the Beatles were "behind" any other groups at a particular time (let's pick 1963-64 since that's where the claim was made), I'll come right out and say that is simply based on a misunderstanding of the history and facts. The Beach Boys as of late 1963 were still firmly in a niche of their own making and their own label's marketing, and it paid off *extremely* well for the Boys to have the surf/sun/car/beach image on everything on display at the record stores. The fact that Brian was writing incredibly good songs - great songs that belie his age and transcended the genre they were in - was icing on the cake.

But no band - let me repeat in caps: NO OTHER BAND in 1963 or 1964 had anything close to the influence and inspiration on other musicians as the Beatles had.

Note how many musicians who worked from the 60's and who are now in their 60's will point to the Beatles on Ed Sullivan as their watershed moment in their life when they said "I want to start a band and do this....". The Beatles were an anomaly in February 1964 to be a four-piece self-contained band who wrote their own songs, played loud guitars and drums with a different beat than what was on American radio, and who did not look like cookie-cutter showbiz stars made to look cute and clean. They shattered all of that, blew up all of the images that populated "pop" music. Long hair? Check.

The Beatles broke down a lot of doors, one major one being tens of thousands of teenagers meeting their friends the week after Sullivan and saying "Hey, let's start a band, we can practice in the garage..." and that spirit was one of the few threadbare connections that many of the songs and bands featured on Lenny Kaye's "Nuggets" compilation shared. You have everyone from McGuinn to Crosby to Eliot Easton to Jackson Browne and beyond saying they watched that Sullivan show and it kicked them in the ass. The spirit of "We can do this too...drums, bass, two guitars, let's start a band!" Powerful stuff.

And The Beatles simply had the best unintentional timing of any popular act in history. Almost every step of their career coincided unintentionally with a major event of some kind, or at least a benchmark moment in time. In Feb 1964, they were the tonic that America needed. February 1964, a cold and grey winter, two months after the US was still reeling from the Kennedy murder and just not feeling all that positive on a large scale because something had changed drastically...

...Then you get four guys playing music that sounded new, looked different, talked different, and offered at that time the largest TV audience in history a diversion, and for the kids and teens something to feel excited about after watching the adults around them mourn and waiting for things to get back to normal not understanding why people couldn't move on.

The Beatles were their own, the parents didn't get it or laughed it off, but now we kids had something to get excited and scream about. And where the girls could crush on them and enjoy the music, the guys could be jealous but also, like Elvis and Sinatra, want to be like them to get those same girls, and also those musically inclined could buy a Silvertone guitar at Sears and get their own band going...hey, these four guys did it and look at the girls screaming, I'll do it too!

The Beach Boys were selling the California mythology of the beach, surfers, beautiful girls, hot cars, warm sunsets, etc...The Beatles were also selling a mythology but one not dependent on location or lifestyle. I think a lof of people watching them in early '64 got a sense of attainability, that sense that "this could be me doing the same thing...", and thus rock and pop music exploded in 1964-1967 driven mostly by musicians in their late teens and early 20's who were inspired by the Beatles and a handful of other influences...but the Beatles made it possible to become reality.

I won't even mention my thoughts on "Needles And Pins". If you can't hear the energy and the drive that made She Loves You stand out, as well as the use of certain chords and chord changes which no other "guitar band" was using and which made it stand out from the pack and become the classic that it is today, I'd suggest listening closer to "She Loves You" and ignoring those faux-critics/experts on other boards who love to prop up a fucking one-hit-wonder band or single over the Beatles and try to suggest what is "better" than another.

IMO: Needles And Pins isn't even close to Sonny Bono's better songwriting...Listen to "I Got You Babe" where he wrote the build-up and the key change specifically for Cher's voice and to exploit an obscenely emotional break point in her voice that just shoots the song into the stratosphere where it doesn't come down even after the false ending. That song is Sonny's best, yes it did equal anything anyone was releasing at that time because he wrote a powerful, emotional song specifically showcasing Cher's somewhat limited (at that time) voice, to devastating effect (much like the Beatles used their limited means and exploited those limitations versus stumbling on them).

Please...don't let what other phonies have tried to rewrite in the history of 60's pop and rock music become fact, because it simply isn't true and it serves the person(s) doing the rewriting more than the history itself.

But I'm not all that worried that I'll wake up one day and find that bands like The Searchers and The Critters have become higher on the influential list than The Beatles.  :-D

Bravo!

Double bravo and a "PIP! PIP!" guitarfool.

triple bravo and 'woot! woot!' GF.

Pretty good thoughts. I like the Beatles a lot. I would never try to take away from their musical or sociological impact. Sometimes the fandom is annoying, but fringe fans who see certain groups as flawless hero's exist for all bands. It's just bigger here.  The Beatles have always remained in the very top ten to fifteen artists I like the most, just not my top five.

13 main albums, Past Masters has all the rest.

Knowing your tastes avoid the first three. I Please, Please, Me, With The Beatles, and A Hard Days Night, are good early sixties rock and roll, but I've gathered that isn't your bag.

Beatles For Sale and Help show growth. Still basic rock and roll, but with a lot more thought or insecurity in the lyrics. The music has more to it as well. You may like these, but probably won't be your favorites.

Rubber Soul and Revolver are the highlights. Still some good basic rock and roll, but taken further to it's most creative arena. New subjects, sounds, ideas, just great work.

Pepper is were it becomes more self consciously "rock" or "serious" but it is still a great album. Oddly I find it to be a bit more uneven than the previous albums. It all fits together as a whole, but things like When I'm 64 are not to my taste.

Magical Mystery WILL be your favorite. It's very trippy, but in a less stiff way. Just kind of bizarre wonderful songs that are great to listen to at 4:20. Maybe I like it so much because it hasn't been praised to the balls.

White Album has some of their best and worst side by side. My wife really likes it, and a more "modern" classic rock sound is now present. Hard to describe this music, a little of everything. They were given free reign by this point, with some real creativity being aired, but indulgence too. Still some great things.

Yellow Sub is OK but kind of just needed for fans. Four new songs, George's two are nice and freaky, Paul's cheesy, and John's great hard rock. However if the weirder side of Magical Mystery does pan out for you, look it up.

Abbey Road-Some great music throughout, but kind of loses the fun of the early work. A bit slick, but most people love this album. I only "like" it. John's stuff is real good, George's is famous but not as to my taste as his more quirky Let It Be stuff, Paul's a mixed bag.

Let It Be-Frankly I like it a lot because again these songs haven't been praised or played to death. Even with Spector, the LP kept a looser feel than some of their more produced albums.

Past Masters has some hits, and quirky stuff. More for a fan, it does serve as a quick overview of 1962-66- and 68-70 that may inform where you may want to travel from there.

I loved The Beatles in my teens then I started digging into other stuff that was being made at the time and realised that there were other groups I much prefered. The only two albums of theirs I really listen to now are The White Album and Magical Mystery Tour.

Billy, I'd say it really gets going around Hard Days Night - all killer, no covers of questionable worth (With The Beatles is particularly awful in this regard), also got the best Beatles ballad (If I Fell) - but drops off again at Beatles For Sale. I can imagine it being tricky to divorce the pop culture phenomena 'The Beatles' from The Beatles, though, sometimes I don't think I've managed it myself. They've been with me ever since I can remember, Pet Sounds & Sgt. Pepper provided my musical awakening one day in my 14th year, etc.

What's annoying with The Beatles discography in a modern context is the singles issue - they're often the greatest advert for the band, up to about Strawb Fields/Penny Lane, but your understandable impulse to listen to the albums to get your critical reevaluation excludes them. So listen to the singles! They're the best.

Out of interest, are you listening in stereo or mono?

I'd say WTB has their BEST cover choices. First of all, I know I'm totally alone on this, but Please Mr. Postman is my favorite Beatles song, and maybe my favorite song by anyone, (only the Beatles version). They transform a sloppy, bratty girl group thing into something that totally defines the sound of merseybeat.

You Really Got A Hold On Me? Great. Devil In Her Heart? Charming. Til There Was You? Great spotlight for Paul.

As for the other two, Beethoven is a little played out for me, and never did much care for Money. But, still. Very, very solid.

You Really Got A Hold On Me is possibly the only one I can dig - the harmonies get some real good play there. I love me some bratty Motown girl group stuff, so Postman seems too brash and leaden? Lennon does a good lead, but they just blast through it and it's a bit unsatisfying.

Devil In Her Heart is dull, Til There Was You is soppy. Money is kind of fun, but they still can't top the original.
The originals are worth it on that record (Hold Me Tight! It Won't Be Long! to name two), but I wish they put the singles on there - I Want To Hold Your Hand would make ANY record a transcendent masterpiece.

Indeed! Love their version of ...Postman and ...Devil...  I love the way John pronounces "devil" in the chorus.

Here we go...

Please Please Me-

1) I Saw Her Standing There- I've actually already really enjoyed this song previously, except for the vocals on 'held her hand in mine' when it goes high; I find that a bit annoying. To be honest, I prefer the song instrumentally to vocally. Fun fact: I  produced a cover of this song in college in a reggae style.

2) Misery-  On first couple of listens I didn't care for it, but it grew on me. The intro is not my favorite. Again, I prefer the song instrumentally to vocally. The piano part is pretty cool.

3) Anna- Another song I was previously familiar with (from the episode of Married with Children, where Al Bundy was obsessed with this song). Not really feeling the backup vocals. I do like Lennon's lead though.

4). Chains- No complaints. Not really my style, but pretty good for what it is. Haven't heard the original version; I don't think I'd be too keen with it. Good lead, and again I really like the instrumentation.

5). Boys- Is this Ringo singing lead? I...like the backups better than the rather average lead.  Not bad, just okay, I guess. And, once again, the instrumentation is better than the vocal parts. Really like the solo, actually.

6) Ask Me Why- Just okay, although I like Lennon's lead, and the backup vocals are pretty ace. The song itself doesn't do much for me.

7) Please Please Me- Pretty good vocals, nice instrumentation, but...the song itself is rather slight IMHO. This was a #3 hit?!

8) Love Me Do- Love the harmonica, the bass, and the drums.  I don't think it's a great song in and of itself, though; I think I'd like it better as an instrumental. It has a nice Jimmy Reed vibe, but the vocal lines are just kind of there, to me.

9)PS I Love You- P.P.S. I don't care too much for this.

10) Baby It's You- Good Lord, I don't like this a bit.

11). Do You Want to Know a Secret- My favorite song on the album. Didn't know it dated from this early. Actually, I really like this song a lot; one of my favorite songs of the early 60s that wasn't a Beach Boys song.

12) Taste of Honey- Meh

13) There's a Place- I guess it's okay. Not my least favorite song, but it's kind of slight as well.

14) Twist and Shout- Much more like it.  

Overall...I don't get why this album was loved as much as it was. Most of the songs to me were kind of weak, and I wasn't too crazy about many of the vocals.  There were only three songs I can genuinely say I enjoyed; what was surprising to me was the fact I disliked several songs (especially 'Baby It's You').  I honestly don't see the hype for this one.

Well, it was pretty much recorded in one day (sans the four singles tracks), and Lennon had a cold. I don't actually see a lot of praise for this album at all, compared to most of their other ones. It's a solid representation of where they were at during that time period. They were heavily influenced by melodic R&B, and they had a way of presenting their favorite songs in their own way - they weren't just straight covers. There's something unique about the Beatles sound, I think even you have to agree to that.

Love "Baby It's You"!

You mean you didn't pick up on the fact that Please Please Me is about oral sex?  ;D

See, that's the thing...on most of the album, I didn't hear anything unique. Nothing different from what I were to hear at Fuddruckers over the loudspeakers. Then again, had I heard it when it was new, I likely would have felt differently.

Steely Dan weren't the only songwriters who had a knack for masking references to sex and drugs in radio-friendly tunes.  :)

Interesting thoughts so far: Next up is With The Beatles. I'd say this is one case where the US version "Meet The Beatles", which of course borrowed the Robert Freeman cover photo, may actually flow better than the original UK sequencing. The addition of the hit I Want To Hold Your Hand and the flip I Saw Her Standing There, replacing also a few of the covers, made for a much more powerful album all around. Or maybe I'm just used to the flow of Meet The Beatles since I wore that vinyl out before getting the UK version...

Some thoughts on the thoughts about Please Please Me so far.

If you look inside the songs themselves and consider the covers, you'll hear quite a bit of John (more) and Paul (a bit less) exploring their influences as songwriters, a craft each of them would soon develop at an incredible pace. Remember this was the first album, and they were still somewhat young and somewhat inexperienced writers, although they were prolific...but prolific and skilled are two different things. Some of the pre-EMI originals that we have heard are just...well...not quite that powerful to be kind. And very basic or simplistic, considering what was to follow. Remember the scene in Spinal Tap when they're in the diner and get asked to sing the first song they wrote? After which they launch into some ersatz skiffle train-beat kind of song about going to see a girl on a train? Same thing here.  :)

Listen to songs like Anna (love the Al Bundy reference, that was my favorite episode 'mmm-mmm HIM!'), You Really Got A Hold On Me, Please Mr. Postman...the "shout bridge" where Smokey and the rest would just explode with intense vocals as the song got to the bridge is exactly the same thing Lennon would nick for "Yes It Is", "This Boy", and a few more, though those were the obvious nicks from the guys like Smokey down to the chord progressions and harmony vocal stylings.

Lennon did possess one of the best shout voices in all of rock, it is kind of cool to hear those covers where he honed that style and then took it to use for his own songs.

Please Please Me, Lennon has said, was his attempt to do a Roy Orbison song. And if you listen with that in mind, it sure as hell does sound like it has the sonic trademarks of some of Roy's early 60's singles. From the harmonies, to the melodies, to the way John hits a falsetto of sorts in the chorus hook (please pleeeaaassse meeee)...also with the little reverb-laden guitar break that sets up the chorus (pure Orbison style) and especially the call and response between John (Roy) and Paul-George (those other guys Roy had singing...) Come on...(come on), Come on...(come on)...building to the falsetto hook.

It could have been a classic Roy Orbison single, with the same musical and structural elements, yet filtered through what they'd start calling the Merseybeat vibe. It has a certain uniqueness which American records like Roy's, which the Beatles were in effect aping, did not have. The nascent beginnings of the Beatlemania Merseybeat sound were first heard ducking in the shadows of a Roy Orbison pseudo-soundalike. About sex.  :-D

Love Me Do - The country beat is there, but I'm actually hearing more of a Buddy Holly vibe, strange as that may sound. John and Paul loved that Buddy's songs often had three chords, three open chords, and in two minutes Buddy could talk about getting laid or not getting laid or whatever other topic about girls John and Paul could relate to. So those early John/Paul originals were most often Buddy Holly, open chord tunes with Buddy's rockabilly, not-quite-country groove filtered through two young Liverpool guys.

So Please Please Me does in fact show two relatively inexperienced songwriters borrowing what they had learned from Buddy and Roy and Smokey to write basic tunes while padding the rest of the album with covers, some of which inspired their writing directly.

On With The Beatles/Meet The Beatles, you'll start to hear what an incredible progression and development these two had in less than a year spent on the road writing tunes in vans and hotels. The more they wrote, the better they got...and more sophisticated, musically efficient, and concise at the same time. "All I've Got To Do", "All My Loving", and "It Won't Be Long" are, I think, simply stunning songs from a writer's perspective and far beyond the scope of what you'd expect after Please Please Me, and especially the first single Love Me Do. These two writers grew as writers so fast, and those three songs out of the bunch almost foreshadow what would soon make "A Hard Day's Night" such a milestone of an album for them as songwriters. They're bundling all of their influences, adding more sophisticated chords and harmonies as well as more complete storytelling in the lyrics, and the product that came out on Hard Days Night was devastatingly good.

Add into the mix the non-album single "She Loves You", which as I wrote earlier is perhaps the best example of a  studio recording that captured the kind of energy and uniqueness they had on stage as a live band in the earlier days of 62-63-64, even more energetic and unique than I Want To Hold Your Hand. Just pure manic drive throughout each section of the song and each musical element, like Spector's Be My Baby or any of the other classics which have so much energy they feel as if they could burst open at any point into chaos but the performers somehow ride the wave instead of getting consumed by it.

After Please Please Me, this band honed their skills as writers and studio performers. They're still sanding down some of the rough edges and filling in the gaps on With The Beatles, but the product just kept improving.

Interesting....I'll keep all of that in mind for my next go-round. Helps to have some context while listening. I went in 'blind' for the debut. I've heard the pre-debut work and honestly to me it was pretty bad.IMHO Pete Best was a shitty drummer. One thing about the album that did impress me was the instrumentation though

Yes, very cool! The context might add something to hearing With The Beatles, which does has some weaker moments but it is an album where you can hear them really start honing the craft of songwriting. If they had tagged She Loves You or even done what Capitol did and put I Want To Hold Your Hand on there, the album overall would probably have been improved by those singles' energy.

The fact that they were able to basically play through an everyday gig in the studio in order to record the rest of Please Please Me's album cuts in one session is a testament to how good they were as a self-contained live band. They had spent the past 3-4 years up to that point gigging constantly and were busy on the road as they recorded that debut, so just like The Who coming onto Rock And Roll Circus red-hot after a tour and basically blowing everyone else out of the water, they were so fine-tuned it wasn't as much of an effort as it was a culmination of them playing together so much they were perfectly in synch.

One more thing...a tune like "Ask Me Why" is the Beatles doing a Bacharach impression as they covered his "Baby It's You" on the same record, and grabbing some jazzier chords from a song like "Til There Was You" which was a live staple and which would appear on With The Beatles (and Ed Sullivan). So it's kind of neat to hear a cover of a song which inspired an original song on the same album. They were basically going for a vibe that Bacharach/David could pull out of their pockets on demand.

I kind of knew that would come back to bite me on the butt. Alright, you called me out on that.  ;D I was basically just trying to point out something BIlly suggested, that a lot of people regard The Beatles as almost rock royalty, when other groups were coming up with vastly superior material.

See, I always thought that their cover of Baby It's You was one of the early examples of this John Lennon character being more than just an every day lightweight pop singer.

Comparing PPM to Surfin Safari, the latter is more to my liking. Although the instrumentation is much better on the former! Hell, I prefer the stuff on the BB Lost and Found! I was amazed at how I got bored during several tracks. I know better stuff is horizon though.

Billy, have you heard the alternate take of Mr Moonlight that has a slide guitar solo in place of the organ solo? I'm curios about your take on it, versus the officially released version.  ;D

Kind of afraid to as I hated the released version when I used to hear it on the oldies station. Kind of scared to hear it again. Hoping my opinion has changed though.

Yeah the Pete Best stuff isn't worth hearing for a non fan. I like PPM for it being raw and enthusiastic, but like I mention in my post above I knew it wouldn't be your cup of tea.

Check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9TdkGsJMIE. Oh man, I can't wait for you to get to the Beatles For Sale album. I have a very, er..."unique" alternate take of What You're Doing for you.  ;D

I...think I'm gonna wait til I get to the next album and hear the original...wouldn't want to cloud my judgment (or void my bowels...well, not until it's naturally time to, of course).

I had a feeling it wouldn't be, but I still expected more. I actually felt a strong sense of disappointment, cause I was wanting to be blown away.

If we're jumping ahead and posting Beatles For Sale outtakes that are less than flattering, why not post "Leave My Kitten Alone", which is one of the most all-out rocking covers they ever did and one of those Lennon lead vocals where he's simply tearing it up? Nah, we wouldn't want to post outtakes that show the Beatles kicking ass and sounding like a great rock band, would we... ;D

I'm gonna get to the outtakes after the albums proper! I'm hoping to hear something grand.

I will say I have Do you Want to Know a secret stuck in my head still.

There is an unreleased George Harrison demo called You Know What To Do that really knocked my dad and I out when we first heard it. It's on Anthology 1.

The aren't that many great out-takes from The Beatles. Most of the good ones are released, like "Leave My Kitten Alone." Most of the stuff from the beginning is a lot of covers, and later it's often fragments of songs that evolved or were stitched into other songs (sound familiar?), like "Everyone Had a Hard Year" and "She Can Talk to Me."  It's not exactly a Beach Boys situation where there's some gold sitting locked away on the shelves. However, I am dying to hear "Carnival of Light."

Here are some good out-takes for you to hunt down:
Isn't it a Pity
Not Guilty
Happy Rishikesh Song
Sour Milk Sea
Circles (This is a pretty odd song.)
What's the New Mary Jane (Another weird one, but I like it.)
Watching Rainbows
Come and Get It
If You've Got Trouble (Not sure you'll like it, but it has great drumming from Ringo.)
Commonwealth (An interesting song, especially John's contributions.)

Then there's the Kinfauns tape, which is also great. It's the guys sitting around playing The White Album cuts for each other.

This list is by no means definitive or correct. Most of these songs probably aren't as great as I remember them. But, I'm sure someone else will give you a better list than mine.

Edit: I totally forgot about "Thank You Guru Dev/Happy Birthday Mike Love."

There was a book where Billy J. Kramer claimed to have had at one time the home demo that John Lennon did for "Do You Want To Know A Secret", either John had given him the tape or it was for The Dakotas to learn and record the song which they did in 1963. Long story short, I think Billy J. lost John's tape at some point or something, and he claimed Lennon recorded it in his bathroom and you could hear the toilet at the end of the tape.

Maybe that's a bit of a lost Beatles legend, but it would be great to hear John singing that tune if the tape ever turned up.

It's nice to see Watching Rainbows get some love.  ;D Even though it's only a rough jam, it had the potential to turn into a really great track. Can you imagine a beatles single of proper studio version of Watching Rainbows/Child Of Nature?  8)

Don't load Billy down now ;D
If it helps With The Beatles was a great intro for me. Well Meet The Beatles LP actually but it was the WTB cuts I liked best. I had a different perspective than you though. When I heard it in 1986 I only really liked fifties and early sixties music, and it was interesting to see the way they approached albums more seriously than most bands of the early sixties. I hadn't heard much Beach Boys yet so really it was the first glimpse I had of the evolving sixties attitude about what could make up a good album.

I believe that an acetate version with John singing lead was auctioned off in the 1980's or early 1990's. I'm not sure if it was the demo, or an alternate take. I'll have to go through my books and find it.

I've seen a few places selling "Do You Want..." acetates with handwritten labels, these all seem to be for publishing purposes and a few show a "Dick James" label, which was their publishing firm at that time. I don't know if it's the same thing, most likely a dub copy of the master take but again I don't know.

The one with John recording the song in the bathroom was a tape, I've just seen another version of the story in the Billy J Kramer greatest hits album's liner notes which tells the same story (the other version was in a book from the mid 80's). And apparently that tape was made by John and given to Billy J, so it doesn't seem an acetate was cut.

A question I have is who was the song intended for? I've seen as many sources say John wrote it for Billy J specifically, and others say it was done to give George a standout song to sing on the album (the song did chart top 5 some places in the US on the VeeJay label as a single, but at that time anything labeled "Beatles" was charting.  :) )

I still prefer each member's solo albums much more. Ram is one of the best albums ever made in my opinion. Any Ram fans?

Big, big fan. Love every single track. 'Uncle Albert', 'Dear Boy' and 'Backseat Of My Car' in particular, those knock me out every time.

I consider myself a big McCa fan, but I wouldn't say his solo work is better than his Beatles'. Some albums come darn close though, quality-wise, in my opinion.

no love for john?  :-\

I love Ram, and albums like Walls and Bridges, but the solo stuff isn't near as good most of the time to me. Great stuff, but I like groups much more in general.

I listen to Yoko Ono more than The Beatles, collectively or solo. Her first two proper solo albums -- Plastic Ono Band and Fly -- are really fucking good. Do you like Can? Or NEU!? Or Faust? Think of them, except with a crazy Japanese woman moaning and screaming instead of a crazy Japanese man.

Yea, Ram is a great, under-appreciated pop album. I think it's probably the best solo Beatle album, although Plastic Ono Band usually takes that spot.

My issue with Plastic Ono Band is that, when looking at the track-listing, none of the songs stand out to me. I think the reason it gets so much praise is because of John's mythic status. Without that, its a decent album, but no masterpiece.

I like Ram a heckuva lot too.

What did you think of the remaster last year?

I actually haven't bought that one yet. Is it worth it?


I agree. On paper, Plastic Ono Band looks incredible: "ex-Beatle releases an extremely honest and personal piece of work in which he speaks his mind about everything and everybody without any sugarcoating whatsoever." But in execution, the album just lacks more strong songs, in my opinion.

LOVE Ram. If I had the money, I'd get the new reissue. Just remembered though it's on Spotify. Listening now  :-D

The Beatles were the first band I got hooked on. I watched Anthology when it came out in 1995. Those were the first albums I bought. After that I got Pepper and Yellow Submarine and became hooked.

Pepper used to be my all time favorite album until I bought Pet Sounds. My favorite Beatles album now is probably White Album.

I think lots of Beach Boys fans in the 60s felt burned by the condescending attitude of some rock writers of the period. I sure did. That said, The UK albums are a big improvement over the Capitol hack jobs. I live Rubber Soul, Revolver, Magical Mystery Tour  and the three archive sets. The Past Masters cds are great. I am not a Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Let It Be or earlier albums fan. They are a part of my childhood, but....don't do much for me now.

The sound of John's POB is fantastic, the songs....well you have to really care about John Lennon personally. I like them in the right mood but they are pretty subjective. I mean I relate to some of the concepts but he get's so specific about himself that I find it harder to relate to than other rock albums of a personal nature. Pet Sounds is perfect in this way. It's about Brian but I hear so much of my own feelings in it.

It took me quite a while before I realized you were talking about Plastic Ono Band.  :lol

I rediscovered Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band within the past two years. Prior to that, when I first listened to it in the 80's, I wasn't impressed by much except John's guitar, not as much the notes but the tone and the attitude you hear in those parts. Hearing it with fresh ears, I was very impressed with how progressive the music really is. I still find some of Yoko's vocals challenging and still found myself focusing on the instrumental tracks over the vocals, but overall it was a pleasant rediscovery if not a case of finding something I had either missed originally or just wasn't ready for in my younger years.

I also think that a certain amount of water has gone under the bridge so to speak, and music in general has embraced a lot of sounds and concepts which had been on the fringe or else very underground. We have become more tuned into and accepting of certain noises, sounds, soundscapes, etc which found their way into more popular and universal styles.

So hearing them on Yoko Ono/POB, especially the instrumental tracks, made me think even more how ahead of its time the album and the concept behind the album really was - it foreshadowed many bands' and artists' signature sounds, and it was done well before anything of the sort was accepted by a wide audience.

If it has not already, a more universal re-release of the album is in order. I think many younger bands and artists would hear familiar sounds and vibes on a record that came well before many would assume the sounds became a part of rock music.

In general the John Lennon/POB album is one of my all-time favorites, easily top-10 if not top-5. Again I think it's convenient to label it overrated but anyone saying the songs are weak isn't listening deep enough. In my opinion.

The quality of an album can also be measured in the performances themselves, rather than the quality of the songs. If the quality of the songs were the overriding factor alone, than most would consider Syd's solo albums to be less than stellar because the songs are weak. But you're not being engrossed by the album through judging the quality of the songs, it's more about Syd and that whole mystique, as well as the way he performed them.

And personally I think some of the songs on POB are terrific. Isolation, Love, Hold On, Look At Me, Mother, God...how does anyone not see the quality of those as standalone songs, and that's half the album. A song like God is a vehicle for one of the best vocals Lennon ever recorded. Isolation is a hidden gem. Etc etc etc.

Again perhaps it's fashionable to diminish the quality and influence of the classic albums people embraced like POB, or try to explain the reputation by assigning it to the"Lennon Legend", and I don't buy much of that. I guarantee in 50 years there will be new generations of kids discovering POB and embracing it on their own and continuing to ignore the trends of talking down the classics in favor of the great underdogs like Back To The Egg or whatever the latest flavor of the month may be. In my opinion.  :)

Ram is a very good album, but the real underrated gem(well, in my opinion) is Wild Life.

Make no mistake, I like John Lennon and even bought the box set that came out not too long ago. However, I don't think it will make me hip to talk down Lennon's albums. In fact, it would probably make me more hip to play them up and talk about how great they are. I, and I say this which has been earned through listening to it, do not find it the album that others make it out to be. I can enjoy the album, but I don't necessarily think it's the timeless classic that others do. But, musical taste is an opinion and two people can have differening opinions on this. Obviously, neither of us can change one another's opinions. You like the album and that's great, it's something that means something to you. I don't like the album as much, but that's okay too. I have other album that mean something to me as well.

Also, you can't deny that John Lennon is a revered figure in music nowadays. Whether you agree with this or not, I honestly believe that is one of the reasons this album is held in such high regards. The myth that surrounds the man is immense and the following is rabid.

Perhaps this is for another time, but I also find the Imagine album to be way over-produced and also not a classic record...  :P

I do think McCartney's solo catalog has been overshadowed by Lennon, of course the way Lennon died drove a lot more people to seek out his solo work at that time and for a decade or so after than would be actively seeking out McCartney's solo discs. But at the same time I see McCartney's lesser output getting almost more attention than it deserves in some cases, because scattered among some really strong material was some absolute crap that no matter how many internet fans try to convince me otherwise will always sound like crap, even if it's an original vinyl rip of McCartney 2 done with an Acoustic Signature turntable. And I have to wonder if part of this overdone praise of Sir Paul's lesser songs comes from a desire of some fans to be a contrarian or a champion of the underdogs to get a rise out of people.

It's just bizarre to see some undeserving albums being heaped with praise, of course it's just opinion at the end of the day.

And it has to be noted that there are in fact more than a few critics, pseudo-critics, wannabe internet critics, and plenty of goofball bloggers who do in fact consciously slag off on various classic albums or artists they think are "sacred cows" like The Beatles or whoever else in an attempt to do something other than share opinions about music with others. And that trend took hold most obviously with the internet message board culture in general, and also spans across genres into film, TV, etc. There are people who like to feel that they're into something so cool that most people simply won't understand, and part of that involves convincing fans that they're somehow lesser if they prefer the huge success Album X over the long-forgotten Album Y. And that's total nonsense. Not that that's happening here, I'm not suggesting that.

And of course one cannot deny that there is a certain aura of reverence around John Lennon simply because he was such a popular figure. At the same time, does this compare to Michael Jackson at all? To be honest, I'm still trying to understand an episode of the Jimmy Fallon show where they spent a good portion of the show lionizing and praising Jackson's "Bad" album as if it were some kind of milestone of popular music, something more than another MJ album and one that fell short at that. But death adds that extra aura, and a tragically young death does wonders to erase criticism and conveniently delete less-than-stellar receptions when a given product was new in the stores. I remember "Bad", and where most people I knew bought and enjoyed Thriller, hardly anyone bought Bad especially after seeing the title video and thinking what a cheesy song and video it was. Now it's a classic? Not what I remember at all, not what I think today.

I agree to some degree - Imagine as an album often gets 5 out of 5 stars when reviewed, and I give it more like a 4 on a good day. And I'm giving it 4 mostly on the strength of the song "Jealous Guy", which I think was one of the best records Lennon ever made, surely one of the best marriages of Lennon's writing and performance with Spector's wall of strings production. That song is terrific. Too many on the album, honestly, needed McCartney's input or even his presence as a sounding board. And vice versa with some of Paul's solo material.

I, probably obviously, am a bigger McCartney fan than Lennon fan. But, I will readily admit that McCartney has released some (a lot) of bad songs and albums. I think the album was Give My Regards to Broadway where he went back and redid Yesterday, giving it a horrendous '80s sheen.. *sigh.* That and many others, including Back to the Egg, to reference an album brought up earlier, aren't top notch.
 


To bring this point full circle, the same thing actually happened with one of Lennon's albums, Double Fantasy. It had received mediocre reviews upon release and was looked at as a disappointment. Then, unfortunately, Lennon was killed on that fateful day and all the reviews were erased and new ones filled with praised  were release. I think the album even won an award.  ::)

That's too bad. Albums should be reviewed on their merits and not necessarily their legacy, although it can prove to be quite difficult to separate the two.

I think it's heartbreaking that we lost Lennon the way did and it would be really interesting to see the guy alive today and what he would be doing now. I think Paul McCartney once mentioned that The Beatles would have definitely regrouped at some point as relationships were healing. Hell, 3 of the 4 reunited to play some Sgt. Pepper at (I think) Eric Clapton's wedding. And the other Beatle said he wasn't invited, but would have shown up if he was...

As always, thanks for the thoughtful post, Guitarfool :thumbsup

I agree that Jealous Guy is a good song. I also love the country-styled opener, Crippled Inside. It's a great, fun song.

He re-recorded For No One, and Here There and Everywhere for Broad Street.

And also Yesterday. And Eleanor Rigby and Long and Winding Road. And others too but I can't recall.

And thank you for a great discussion and great points to discuss! The common thread is that we share a lot of love for this music and both the criticism and the praise come from a lot of time and emotion invested in listening, and it's always cool to compare notes.  :)

I had to mention too that I have gained an appreciation for some of McCartney's early 80's singles, even though his album output as a whole does fall a bit short of "what coulda been" especially minus some of the lesser 80's sonic touches.

I hear "No More Lonely Nights" and hear one of Paul's stronger melodies and song forms, I think it unabashedly wears his romantic side on its sleeve, akin to "My Love", but there is quite a bit of sophistication in the way he constructed that melody that I think it holds up very well, again in spite of the 80's aural sheen.

The film he made - starring Ringo no less - was another in the line of 60's rockers making vanity films having the clout to finance and produce basically what they wanted to film. It could have been better, if I recall, but I need to sometime watch it again and see how I feel about it now. Remaking your classic records in any way with a modern sound is so risky to begin with, and it's almost a shame that it happened to fall smack-dab in the middle of the 80's proto-digital wave when records often had some bizarre textures and sounds that have not aged well.

I also know his duets with Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder have gotten a bad rap among some Beatle fan circles for years, but "Say Say Say" is really a damned good radio single with catchy hooks and an infectious groove. And that part Michael sings is pure early 80's hitmaking icon Michael Jackson in full force, he sings the heck out of those lines. A very dynamic single. "That Girl Is Mine" hasn't fared as well, but isn't quite as bad as reputations would suggest. It's soft/smooth radio pop from the 80's. The Stevie Wonder duet Ebony And Ivory, I bought (and still have) the 45rpm, unfortunately I think the parodies of it like Piscopo and Eddie Murphy doing it on SNL as Sinatra and Wonder shaped some opinions of it, but at the time that song was literally all over top 40 radio and left you wanting to hear more from Macca and Stevie.

I want to just throw my hat into this solo conversation.

I will say that while it is close, I typically prefer John's Beatle material over Paul, though, like I said, it is a tough contest. Solo-wise though, I typically prefer Paul's material over John's. I just don't think I am entirely on board with how John's lyric style changed. I do understand his impetus - he felt it got "more real" to remove the artistic pretenses from his songwriting. His own preferences for 50s Rock and Roll speak to this too. However, I'm not sure I agree with this particular manifesto. It seems to me that great writers (like Lennon himself) can actually touch an audience more when they take a commonly felt experience and say it in a way that no one had particularly thought to express it before. That's the kind of thing that makes me go, "Yeah! That's exactly how I feel but I've never quite been able to put it into words before."

To me, a perfect example of this is In My Life, what may very well be Lennon's best lyric, in my opinion. In My Life is obviously not the imagery-based lyric that he would delve into in the subsequent years with songs like Strawberry Fields and I Am The Walrus but it is nevertheless entirely artful. It includes turns of phrases that are entirely unique yet speak to common everyday experiences: "There are places I remember/all my life though some have changed/some forever not for better/some have gone and some remain." The song begins with a young man looking back at his life and recognizing that certain places and people have affected him in a particularly powerful way. But the main thing here is how he says it. To me here he uses language in a powerful way. He does this frequently around this period. It's not just, "She's leaving me" but, rather, "She's got a ticket to ride." Nobody, at that time at least, would have said in real life, "She's got a ticket to ride" to articulate the former, but everybody understands what it means when John sings it and thus he creates, artistically, his own way of articulating a common situation.

This is why I can never understand why people praise the Beach Boys lyrics of Side B of Today for being so emotionally revelatory. I mean, yes, those songs are brilliant - no question about it. But they don't quite hit me in significant way because they are a little too on those nose: "Sometimes I have a weird way of showing my love," "I'd build all my goals around you," etc. Pet Sounds, on the other hand, abstracts these issues a bit more, making them a bit more ambiguous yet still about very clear, everyday themes (I hope this distinction makes sense). To me, Lennon's shift to more "real" lyrics was almost like going from Pet Sounds back to Today. This is what leaves me cold about many of Lennon's solo songs. I loved almost all of them the first go around but I think the message was so transparent that I simply don't desire to go back. And unlike with his Beatle stuff too, there's simply not enough going on musically to make me discover new things on subsequent listens. I still appreciate the stuff and there are some things that I love. In fact, for a few years now I have really enjoyed Lennon's Mind Games album.

Ultimately too, I find that musically, McCartney took a few more risks, which is why an album like Ram was so hated in 1971 yet to our 2013 ears, we don't find it particularly offensive.

As much as I love Macca, I think he had a feeling for a long time that he was a great writer period and probably felt that he could have been as great a novelist, or screenwriter as a song writer. Alas, this was not true. Even after Magical Mystery Tour, Paul still felt he could make a great film.

After reading numerous bios of various rock stars (and this goes beyond rock and continues to this day...) I get the feeling that Paul is one in a long line of artists who tasted huge success and acclaim in his or her field and thought that skill set could translate into success in other artistic/creative areas. And with the commercial clout of attaching a name like McCartney, Lennon, Neil Young, Paul Simon, Mariah Carey, etc to a project and guaranteeing at least a fair return on the investment, they tried to branch out into film and other pursuits thinking that musical skill was a free pass for other art forms.

And often the results speak to that kind of thinking, and often the results would fall short of success or even achievement in that other field. Yet sometimes the results could be surprising in their quality and depth. Also, who doesn't want to explore those areas which, given the clout, they have the resources to at least give it a try and a built-in fanbase who will sample it no matter the quality?

It's revelatory to look at which artists have successfully jumped art forms and continued with some level of success in other fields, I'm thinking of those like Tony Bennett with his painting, Clint Eastwood with his directing, Mike Nesmith with his work in TV and video production, going even as far as Ringo with his acting roles which were usually well-received in an artistic sense...contrasted with those who had a one-shot deal in film or literature or whatever the case and pretty much never went back to it after less-than-favorable results.

Once the creative ego is inflated to the level of a Beatle, I guess you can't help but think you can conquer any art form you decide to try out.  :-D

I agree. And while I made the flippant remark about McCartney's desire to be a novelist I forgot about the fact that Lennon was the first to branch out into the literary scene. In fact, was Lennon the first pop star to ever do this?

I'm not sure exactly if Lennon was the first pop star to do so, as there was tons of pop stars in the 50's as well. Perhaps he was the first in the sixties; I think he beat Bob Dylan's Tarantula by a year or two.

Edit: Turns out Tarantula was published in 1971, but was "unofficially" available in 1966.

That is a fantastic question to think about: First thought, I have to say Lennon was indeed the first. The commercial clout of The Beatles, particularly in Britain in 1963-64, made it possible to have anything published at all by a "pop star". The fact that Lennon was actually pretty skilled at that kind of absurd and satirical writing and could craft a book that was deemed worthy of attention in literary circles seemed to transcend the novelty of a Beatle writing a book.

In the context of 1964, rock and roll was less than ten years old and Lennon was in his early twenties. Rock and rollers were still getting marginalized or getting a bad rap, Elvis was the only mega-star who was in the Beatles' realm of popularity and influence (and even his luster was tarnished a bit after he got into Hollywood formula films), and rock and rollers in general were still considered somehow less capable artistically by the powers-that-be.

Unless there were some self-published or little known poetry collections coming out of the folk music scene, I seriously can't think of anything significant in literature coming from a rock or pop star before Lennon's "In His Own Write". And I have to think the critical praise went beyond jumping on a popular trend like Beatlemania or over-praising anything released by a major pop celebrity like a Beatle. I'd think quite the opposite would have happened, where the literary critics would foam at the mouth to savage Lennon's work, but instead it turned out to be better than most would have assumed and especially in Britain, those critical circles actually embraced it.

At the same time the book's success in the US was of course driven by thousands of fans buying anything connected to a Beatle in 1964-65.

So, Billy

How's the listening going?

Without wading through the entire five pages as someone who considers himself to be a rather huge Beatles fan I thought I'd tackle this post. 

First off you and those who think the way you do in regards to The Beatles' being overrated are obviously entitled to your opinion.  The problem is the general consensus is that you are just flat wrong and every plaudit that has been hurdled in their direction is pretty much justified.  I can tell you first off that they are the one band that I've encountered in my years of being a music fan where a greatest hits album is not only not enough as far as appreciating the music of the band in question but is pretty much unsatisfactory.  The Beatles' obviously had a lot of hits (27 number one singles don't cha know?) but they are the one band I've encountered where it's a must to own and appreciate every album before you truly begin to understand why music in general is so much better for having known them.

You speak of them being viewed as the best of all time to the point of ignoring every other band.  It's not that every other band is ignored, it's that when placed side by side with everyone else's catalog while everyone else's catalog is not rendered irrelevant, The Beatles catalog is still better.  The reason being of every band that has ever existed they have come the closest to having the "perfect career" without any true down period or bum records.  They have some records that are better than others as is the case with any band but eliminate any Beatles' record from their catalog and you are going to sacrifice at least one or two essential tracks.  Add to the that that most of their records are essential anyhow and well you'll begin to understand why in a head to head comparison with any other act they usually come out on top.  Doesn't make the other act irrelevant but it's hard to put anyone else ahead of them in terms of catalogs.

You speak about going into a book store and seeing dozens of Beatles' books and not one Beach Boys book.  First off taking The Beach Boys' out of the equation for the moment do you realize that most Beatles books are pure crap?  That there are probably around a dozen worth reading and scores of others that are either outdated, irrelevant, skewed or filled with lies, falsehoods, half truths and inconsistencies.  I wouldn't let the amount of Beatles publications available on the market get you down.  As I mentioned most of them are full of crap.  As for The Beach Boys lack of publications?  There needs to be more but there also needs to be demand on the part of the public for more books to be put into print.  There is no reason why information the likes of what is contained on AGD's site couldn't be put into a wonderful book filled with in depth details, analysis and photographs.  But the fact that that prospective book (or books like it) haven't gone into print isn't The Beatles' fault.

The claim about "screaming girls" at Beatles concerts strikes me as a bit petty.  As you mentioned it was also something that turned you off The Beach Boys for years before giving them a chance.  The fact is back in the sixties both The Beatles' and The Beach Boys largely catered to fanbases full of teenage girls not unlike the fanbases that currently follow around today's boy band acts.  So whenever you watch old footage of The Beatles' or The Beach Boys from the early portion of their career, those teeny boppers are going to be there.  If anything feel badly that the fact that The Beatles' weren't taken seriously by the establishment/society in the sixties prevented further investigation on the part of the media into what may have been the greatest songwriters since the days of classical music's great composers.  Feel fortunate that Playboy was able to conduct an interview with John Lennon only a short while prior to his death where he was able to detail his thoughts on every Beatles song he wrote.  If not for these interviews we may have never known firsthand what one of the greatest songwriter's of all time had to say about his own compositions.

I'm sorry if some of this sounds like one big great "deal with it" post from a Beatles fan but quite frankly I think a lot of your complaints fall alongside the lines of being petty.  That isn't to say that they aren't meaningful to you but if you are going to try to get into The Beatles' you are going to need to put a lot of this stuff aside or it's going to impede your enjoyment of the catalog.  As to which record I recommend starting with?  Since you already seem to have a predisposition not to enjoy anything from the Beatlemania years, I'd say start with "Rubber Soul".  It's probably the album in The Beatles' catalog most in line with some of Brian Wilson's highest regarded work so it's usually the album I recommend to most Beach Boys fans looking to get into The Beatles.

Since in a roundabout way the subject of Beatles' books were brought up here is a short list to help you wade through what is out there and pluck out the essentials.  Most of them are sadly out of print at the moment but are essential reading if you want to learn about the history of The Beatles:

The Complete Beatles Chronicle: The Definitive Day By Day Guide To The Beatles' Career (Mark Lewisohn - In Print)
The Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Abbey Road Studio Notes 1962-1970 (Mark Lewisohn - OOP)
Drugs, Divorce And A Slipping Image (Doug Sulpy - 3rd Printing 2007 OOP)
The Unreleased Beatles (Richie Unterberger - OOP)
Eight Arms To Hold You: The Solo Beatles Compendium (Chip Madinger & Mark Easter - OOP)
Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 1 (John Winn - In Print)
That Magic Feeling: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 2 (John Winn - In Print)
Lifting Latches: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 3 Inside The Beatles' Vaults (John Winn - OOP)
Recording The Beatles (Kevin Ryan & Brian Kehew - OOP)

A short breakdown:

The Lewisohn books are generally considered among Beatles fans to be the bibles when it comes to the careers of The Beatles.  "The Complete Beatles Chronicle" deals with the day by day activities of The Beatles' in the sixties while "The Beatles Recording Sessions" delves into each particular Beatles recording session detailing what was recorded and when.  It's truly unlike any other book on the market and it's unfortunate that more bands don't have books like these devoted to their careers.

"Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 1" and "That Magic Feeling: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 2" are great companion pieces to the Lewisohn books.  Both books detail every available recording (both audio and video) available by The Beatles and also details where you can locate it.  "The Unreleased Beatles" likewise is a nice overview of much of the same information found in the Winn books although unlike those books does not inform the reader where to locate the recordings.  The book does compare favorably though in style with Keith Badman's book on The Beach Boys and in my opinion is more favorable than wading through dozens of Doug Sulpy's 910 issues trying to get an overview of The Beatles' in the recording studio and in concert.

One Sulpy book however that is absolutely essential for any Beatles' fan to read is "Drugs, Divorce And A Slipping Image" which is Sulpy's blow by blow account of the 1969 "Get Back/Let It Be" sessions which were essentially the recording sessions that broke the band.  For years a great deal of falsehoods have been put into print and gobbled up by the public at large over why The Beatles' broke up.  Sulpy's book to my knowledge comes the closest in detailing the truth behind the implosion of one of music's greatest bands.

"Eight Arms To Hold You: The Solo Beatles Compendium" breaks down the solo recordings of all four Beatles in much the same way "Way Beyond Compare" and "That Magic Feeling" do for the collective group.  The book is slightly out of date as it only goes up to 2000 but is still pretty relevant.  To me it's the essential book written on the solo years as it not only details all the solo recordings available and where to find them but also adds a ton of rare facts, stories and information behind each member's solo career, a facet of The Beatles that often is not explained nearly as well as their years together as a group.

"Lifting Latches: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 3 Inside The Beatles' Vaults" and "Recording The Beatles" are probably more suited to the diehards but are essentially reading nonetheless.  "Lifting Latches" takes you inside the vault in Abbey Road Studios and examines exactly what is on each multitrack tape.  There are also some fascinating essays near the back of the book penned by author John Winn not included in either of his previous two books.  "Recording The Beatles" gets down to the minutia as to how exactly The Beatles music was made in the studio.  What equipment they used, techniques used in recording and mixing the tracks and basically tells the tale of how records were made at EMI Studios in the sixties using the Beatles recordings as a means of explaining the process.

In closing I should note that Mark Lewisohn is coming out with the first of many new volumes detailing the legacy of The Beatles this fall ("Tune In: The Beatles All These Years") which given his past track record will probably be essential reading as well.  In addition Kevin Howlett will be publishing his book "The Beatles: The BBC Archives 1962-1970" which is essential reading for anyone interested in the BBC sessions.  Howlett had published a previous edition of this book back in the eighties but with the update coming, you might as well just wait for that one.  Of course I assume everyone by this point has "The Beatles Anthology" as published by in 2002 which is the companion book to the DVD series of the same name.  It's essential reading obviously and the only reason I didn't list it above is I assumed most everyone had that publication by now.

Has he gotten to Back In The USSR? Mike helped write that himself.

Paul McCartney is actually Mike Love in disguise. He had too much talent for one band to contain.

It's troll hunting season.  ;D

Resuming where I left off...

With the Beatles-

It won't be long- Fucking brilliant song. Blows away anything off of the debut, easily. One can hear how a band like, say, Nirvana, was influenced by this song. Love this track.

All I've got to do- Love the harmonies on this. Not as good as the opener, but few songs of this time period were. Already I hear a huge progression. 2 fo 2 here.

All My Loving- So far, this album has made me a believer. 3 for 3.

Don't Bother Me- Not bad, but my least favorite song so far. There are some cool parts here and there, but it sounds forced and lacks cohesion. 3 for 4.

Little Child- See previous track comments, although this is a bit better. It's okay. That's all I have to say, really. 3 for 5.

Til There was You- Love the opening. Nice vocals. Haven't heard the original, but this was nice. 4 for 6.

Please Mr Postman- Good cover, but can't top the original. It's good, but not my favorite. 4 for 7.

Roll Over Beethoven- Now this is better. George's vocals are better here, too. 5 for 8.

More later, but needless to say I MUCH prefer this to Please Please Me.

I agree with you, the growth is really quick. I equate it to Surfin USA being so much better an album than Surfin Safari.

It's always fascinated me how similar With the Beatles and Please Please Me are.

Both have 14 tracks, both have 6 cover songs, both end with the "barn-burner," Ringo sang one song on each and both have similar vocal deliverys... (I'm forgetting a few)

It was probably a formula the label thought they had locked down for their new hit band.

I don't hear ANY Beatles influence in Nirvana. That's one band I never "got". Just sounded like angry, depressed music from a guy that wanted to die. The Beatles always sounded joyful, especially the early stuff, such high energy, so much excitement.

It is an odd mesh of styles. What's even weirder, Kurt's favorite song was "If I Fell." He used to play it over the speakers at venues.

It's  worth it to mention that It Wont Be Long was actually recorded for the first album. I just thought it was kind of funny that Billy mentioned how much of an improvement it is over anything on the first record, because the song was first recorded for Please Please Me. The version issued as part of With The Beatles is a re-recorded version, but if I recall correctly there wasn't much of a difference between the two.

That's "Hold Me Tight" that was a remake not "It Won't Be Long".

That's crazy...songs like 'About a Girl' sound very much Beatle-esque (although it is more obvious in the acoustic version from Unplugged). Ignoring the lyrics and production...you can hear it in many of the key changes in their songs.

And it was either Cobain himself or another Nirvana band member who said About A Girl was a deliberate attempt to write a song that sounded like the Beatles.

It was a Dave Grohl quote

Cobain loved The Beatles and as it has been mentioned was specifically influenced by With (Meet) The Beatles in particular.  I remember him citing "All I've Got To Do" as a favorite.

‍

I just wish you weren't assaulted with them from the moment you're born. You can't have a conversation about music without it going back to "TEH BEAT-ULZ? OGH!" about 3/4 of the time (or more), every form of media references them endlessly (do you think it's clever to reference the same thing everyone else is referencing, or what?), the endless shitty cover versions litter television/the radio/public places (which isn't really their fault, but seriously, stop that sh*t), and the world demonizes you if you don't agree that they're the greatest band of all time or even if you have something negative to say about the band, which is obscenely annoying. It's just like enough, already, we all get it.

I know the music should speak for itself, but it's extremely off-putting. I do genuinely like a couple dozen of their songs, probably, but several others do nothing for me or I just outright dislike them. I find a lot of their stuff horribly dated in all the wrong ways, too.

Also, just wanted to say I get so tired of people putting down Paul in comparison to John when, to me, Paul was by far the better writer, performer and seemingly person, generally speaking. Lennon had some great songs and great performances but is part of the reason I'm put off by the band. A lot of his stuff just feels like a drug trip gone terribly wrong, to me. I feel like Paul gets put down solely because he wanted to write good songs and occasionally wrote "softer" material, thus this sentiment comes from a kind of macho, "classic rawk" asshole attitude that I absolutely loathe, all the while ignoring that plenty of Paul's songs had tons of balls in one way or another.

Good observation. And one step further, I find that Hard Day's Night is similarly the same kind of big leap over With the Beatles  that Surfer Girl  is over Surfin' USA.

IMO Hard Day's Night and Surfer Girl were arguably each band's biggest songwriting breakthroughs. Among other things, in both albums, both bands discovered the art of writing really nice ballads.

Yeah, there are structural similarities but With The Beatles sounds like an album with a lot more care and money put into it.

The main difference sonically between Please Please Me and With The Beatles is overdubbing, specifically double tracking. The way certain vocals and other parts were double tracked added a fullness and a certain character which Please Please Me did not have. Ultimately because Please Please Me was hastily recorded, and was basically a recreation of the Beatles' live show, with minimal overdubbing and no double tracking.

If you listen specifically to the overall sound, you'll immediately hear the more full sound of With The Beatles.

There was more popularity behind the band, advance orders for With The Beatles set some kind of sales record in the UK, but the more advanced sound through studio technology combined with maturing songwriting abilities made it stand out.

And you cannot give it a full review without including the singles "She Loves You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand", specifically She Loves You which I've already raved about several times in this thread.

And I also break from tradition here by suggesting a listen to Meet The Beatles. The flow and energy of that album, combined with trimming some of the fat in the form of leaving off a few lesser covers (while saving one cover which was top-notch for a later US release), and adding the latest US single actually improves the overall flow...and gives it a boost in excitement. Even though it did offer less tracks than the UK original.

Well worth seeking out, the Meet The Beatles album, especially on old original (very thick) vinyl.

Oops.  ;D I thought something about that wasn't right. That'll teach me to post something before checking.  :lol

This is more or less how I feel about them.  They were a good band and have an important place in the history of rock and roll, but it's all been blown out of proportion and I find that the reverence that the entire world seems to have for them has prevented me from having a personal connection to their music.

But, what has been blown out of proportion?


Why? You don't like to share you personal connections with others?

I understand this and can perhaps explain it.  It's the "everybody's doing it" mentality.  That turns off a lot of people.  It's instinctual.  But it's not applied universally -- there's some things that strike one hard enough to crack that reflex.  I liked Elvis immediately.  The Beach Boys, too.

Personally, I thought the Beatles were just okay -- nothing special.  Until I heard their later stuff I never saw much of anything unique in their work.  So that very real, honest (and correct  :-D) reaction, then coupled with the "everybody LOVES Paul and The Beatles" pandemonium, and -- voila! -- you get a big "whatever" from a lot of solid "heterosexual" music fans.  (I threw that in for laughs).

Their later stuff was kinda cool though.  Their early stuff seemed more impulse and fad -- BUT, looking back on it -- those early albums are amazingly strong with barely any filler.  So in retrospect their catalog is almost unparalleled in terms of quality for that era -- and they were much better overall than I gave them credit for.

A point separate from the music discussion.

It's just a bit odd to be living in a pop culture driven society where so much of what gets promoted in music, film, heck entertainment as a whole is driven by and dependent on the notion of "everyone's doing it". Look at the demographic which is targeted by those marketing pop acts such as Justin Beiber, One Direction, etc. All of those acts being marketed to the same audience of teenage girls, primarily, who were the same market that was driving early Beatlemania. All of the crushes, the tears, the screaming, the all-out worship from afar of these pop stars.

How do those marketing these acts successfully place them in front of their core audience, or at least those who would be most likely to be the core audience?

For the most part, can even those music lovers and listeners whose daily lives revolve around listening to music in some way name more than one song by Beiber, One Direction, etc? And I'm not singling them out, it's just that they are the most obvious examples right now and I'd say they may soon be replaced by another fresh-faced act as soon as they either grow to old to be innocent enough for girls to crush on or decide to explore a bad-boy image and start acting silly in public, as Beiber seems to be doing now.

Isn't it more than a little peer pressure involved? Someone 14 years old sees their peer group going nuts over a performer, therefore they go nuts over a performer. The actual music product is secondary to the aura and the appeal of sharing the adulation with their peer group.

Social media has made this literally explode in ways no one prior to the 2000's could imagine. Although the seeds were sown by those like Lew Pearlman and his stable of boy bands, and before him Maurice "The General" Starr with his groups New Edition and NKOTB.

Their shelf life was established ahead of time, let's face it they had an expiration date where they'd eventually outgrow the teen-crush stage, and if individual members had more talent or initiative to go out on their own, as perhaps Justin Timberlake best demonstrates, they could cross over and appeal to a wider audience. And those groups whose members never succeeded beyond the teen idol stage could later come back as adults and do a nostalgia trip for their fans who had grown up and were now looking for a nice trip into the past and had more money of their own to spend as working adults.

To lump the Beatles into that group, as just another band who was driven by teen idolatry and various fads and whatnot, is to me not only silly but completely wrong on so many levels.

Should the Beatles then be considered as disposable and flavor-of-the-month as The Jonas Brothers, Hanson, Beiber, etc? Is it better to consider them as just another pop act and then their place in history will be more accurately represented for future generations?

That mentality and the quickness to jump on various hip music-freak circles and try to "put them in their place" by saying they're not all that special is so misguided and so not based on a consideration of history and context that it's almost not worth addressing. Yet it keeps coming out, someone has to say how much they think the band is overrated, the music sometimes good but not that great, etc.

In favor of what, exactly? The freak-folk or beard-rock bands and artists that are all over critics' lists today? An endless line of acoustic singer-songwriters? Bands who do the psych-pop trip and use the exact same bloody techniques in the studio that The Beatles and BW among others pioneered in 19-freakin-66? Hip-hop as it exists in 2013? What, exactly, should those who feel a deep connection to Beatles music instead consider so we're not overstating the influence of The Beatles to the detriment of more worthy music?

I'll restate again, the music of The Beatles is the legacy, and people are smart enough as a whole to seek it out on their own terms and either gravitate to it or decide it's not for them, despite what the smarter-than-the-room revisionists and hip critics may try to say.

And since the original Beatlemania teen idol hype itself went stale as soon as they grew moustaches and beards, the music is and will continue to be the ultimate legacy. Just as it is with the Beach Boys no matter how many odd twists and turns the personal issues of the band go through...people will hear the music and the legacy will continue based on that music.

And if the music were not of such a high quality, there would not be all ages and demographics today seeking it out.

I think a lot of what you speak of can be written off as the generation gap when it comes to music that has been going on forever and will continue to persist long after all of us have perished from this earth.  Lets go back to the era of "Beatlemania" for a minute and look at how society at the time regarded them which today really can be seen laid bare as nothing else than a lost opportunity.  Perhaps Derek Taylor put it best in the "Anthology" when he stated as a critic he didn't follow or write up on any pop acts because there was no rhyme or reason to them and none had any longevity.  The Beatles obviously changed that and when Taylor came into contact with them obviously also shifted his career in an entirely different direction.  However, those were the attitudes at the time, "The Silent Generation" as they have been deemed just didn't understand "Beatlemania".

To be fair given the somewhat repressive and conformative culture especially in the United States in the early sixties I'm sure "Beatlemania" seemed very strange to the majority of society.  So what you had were dismissive attitudes alongside attitudes of sheet bewilderment to how pop culture was about to change the world.  It's truly unfortunate that nobody in the sixties had the foresight to sit John Lennon and Paul McCartney down for an in depth interview about the meanings/stories behind their songs or any type of intellectual discussion about their music at all.  Instead most of society was more preoccupied with aesthetics in particular their haircuts and other banal topics of discussion.

I must admit it does bother me for example that when listening to "The Silent Generation" speak of the pop groups of the sixties how dismissive they are of their talents.  Now I have a great deal of admiration for Frank Sinatra and the era of the big band music but I'm also realistic in understanding that The Beatles, The Beach Boys and a number of their contemporaries easily surpassed the talents of the artists' of the previous generation in terms of overall talent.  So it is a shame that society at the time aside from the burgeoning baby boomer generation missed out on probably the greatest music revolution since the days of the classical composers.  Even sadder is that the reason they missed out was due to sheer ignorance.

But again to be fair there are a lot of baby-boomers today and music fans of subsequent generations who prefer the music of the sixties who are openly dismissive of other forms of music such as rap or even the aforementioned Justin Timberlake.  Now some of that comes down to personal taste while some of it comes down having extremely high standards in terms of appreciating music.  Whatever it is it persists onwards.

However, I am not as sure that generations from now the majority of people will still harken back to the music of the sixites.  I think we are already starting to see The Big Band era of music being forgotten or looked upon as antiquated as aside from hardcore music lovers there really isn't a market anymore for the music of that era outside of being the soundtrack to your local Olive Garden restaurant.  It's also important to remember since we are talking about The Beatles that around two decades ago, the band got a huge shot in the arm with the "Anthology" project which although did not replicate the original wave of "Beatlemania" still made a lot of people who were not part of the baby boomer generation fans of the group and many of them remain fans to this day due large in part to the "Anthology era".  I often wonder if there was no "Beatles Anthology" what would the state of The Beatles brand be today?  I'm sure it would be healthy but perhaps not as marketable as it is today.  So in essence from where I stand "The Beatles: Anthology" project extended the group's shelf life for at least another several decades but I can't write off the possibly that much like the music of the big band era, that The Beatles and their contemporaries will one day fail to reach an audience outside of those aforementioned hardcore music lovers.

Back to The Beatles (and a lot of ground to cover:)

John Lennon: Saying that Paul McCartney was by far the better songwriter than John Lennon is far from fact.  That isn't putting McCartney down by any means especially on my part as it is his music which I personally tend to gravitate to when it comes to The Beatles (especially the solo years).  However, John Lennon was an amazing songwriter arguably the best of his generation and that can't be dismissed by any stretch of the imagination.  He also possessed one of the most amazing voices in the history of rock music with an uncanny ability to take the rock and roll standards he grew up with and elevate them to another level from his sheer vocal delivery.  He was a man who wore his heart on his sleeve, was unafraid of sharing his passions with the world and is someone to this day is discussed by Beatles fans more as if they lost a friend or a brother than an entertainer they never knew personality.  John Lennon was an incredible touchstone, the soul of The Beatles and his loss I still rank as the most profound loss that the generation whom he help shape have probably ever experienced.  The assassination of John F. Kennedy from where I stand signaled the symbolic end of one generation, the murder of John Lennon, the end of the next.  

Paul McCartney: There is little doubt (in fact no doubt) that revisionist history has not been at all kind to Paul McCartney.  For many of the reasons "Cried So Hard..." stated Paul McCartney has been destined to be looked upon by history as somewhat of a saccharine balladeer, nowhere near the creative genius of his late songwriting partner John Lennon.  This is obviously false in every way and what is truly upsetting is how the truth of the matter has been obscured by history.  The truth being that it was McCartney not John Lennon who was the member of The Beatles who was a part of the "swinging London" scene, who jetted over to the United States to pick up on the pop culture and revolution that was encompassing Los Angeles in 1966.  It was McCartney who brought records by groups such as The Beach Boys, The Byrds and The Lovin' Spoonfull to the attention of his mates although to John Lennon's credit he apparently was the member of the group to first discover Bob Dylan.

Macca was also equally if not moreso intrigued by experimental music than John Lennon.  According to Barry Miles both he and McCartney set up a small recording studio in Ringo Starr's abandoned flat in Montague Square with the hopes of recording experimental music there intended for release.  Obviously nothing came of this other than the fact that there is little doubt that these projects certainly influenced the unreleased McCartney sound collage "Carnival Of Light" recorded by The Beatles at EMI in early 1967, a full year and a half before Lennon's "Revolution 9" sound collage was committed to tape.  However these facts go largely unknown by the general public and despite McCartney's recent efforts to paint his craft in a somewhat broader light, most fans still want to hear him play "Yesterday".  

I should also state at this point that it is my belief that Paul McCartney did himself an incredible and perhaps immeasurable amount of harm with the infamous press release issued alongside the "McCartney" album where he announced to the world in extremely terse terms that he had left The Beatles.  The press at the time simply had a field day with this piece and demonized McCartney for breaking up the world's greatest act when in reality it was McCartney himself who tried the hardest to keep The Beatles intact in the waning days of the band.  This press release put McCartney in a bad odor for the first few years of his solo career where it became suddenly acceptable for critics to bash McCartney's musical endeavors without second thought.  Jon Landau most notably the producer of Bruce Springsteen's records upon the release of the "RAM Deluxe Edition" last year suddenly found himself having to answer for a scathing review he gave of the record back in 1971 when he was a music critic.  Landau's trouncing of a record which many now regard as one of McCartney's finest works can be seen as nothing other than a vendetta shared by many critics at the time looking to harshly trounce "the man who broke up The Beatles".  Forty years afterwards Landau at least had the decency to come forth and retract his review.  Others have never had to answer for their cutthroat actions.

Unfortunately as time (and years) went on it almost became acceptable for critics to continually tear shreds off of McCartney instead of paying homage to the great musician that was in their midst.  These type of reviews persisted until McCartney reached "Living Legend" status sometime in the mid nineties as one of rock's elder statesmen.  However the tributes and the respect paid to McCartney in this fan's opinion has come years too late and has unfortunately presented somewhat of an alternate reality as it pertains to McCartney's career.

A Hard Day's Night:  Easily the first classic Beatles album although that isn't to say the first two are all that shabby either.  To think that the majority of "Please Please Me" was recorded in one day at EMI Studios is still something that should boggle the mind of most music fans given some of the high quality songs on that record.  The covers in particular on "Please Please Me" are stunners with John Lennon in particular interpreting his idols with particular aplomb.  George Harrison isn't too shabby here either as "Chains" is absolutely FAB and "Do You Want To Know A Secret?" an underrated pop song.  

Overview: While The Beatles will always be my first and foremost musical love, I must admit that in the past several years their music has gotten a little bit stale for me.  In my opinion Apple has fallen behind the times and their line of thinking is nowhere near those in charge of marketing the music of The Beatles contemporaries.  Dylan's "Bootleg Series", The Beach Boys' endless archival releases as well as myriads of others sixties acts still releasing rare and previously unheard product to their fanbases have all done their legacy a far better service than what Apple has done for The Beatles.

In essence what I'm saying here is almost twenty years removed from "Anthology" it's time for some new Beatles music.  If not a box set on the level of MIC, then a two disc "Hawthorne" type package filled with rarities and obscurities that have still yet to reach even the most hardcore Beatles fan.  Heck go in and finish "Now And Then" if you so please Macca as I'd like to hear a "new Beatles song" on the radio.  The bottom line is there are only so many times you can listen to "Rubber Soul", "Sgt. Pepper" and "The White Album" before they all become routine.  I should know as I spent a period of around fifteen years listening to all of The Beatles' records on a regular basis.  That being said I envy people such as our Global Moderator who are just getting into the band as there are many beautiful discoveries to be found within their catalog.  They are in no way shape or form overrated and their legacy has not been blown out of proportion due to the simple reason that even if you don't care for how the public views their catalog, it's very hard to knock the catalog itself in any way, shape or form.

I keep seeing the term "revisionist history" -- but, just to qualify it for me, there were a lot of people who didn't think the Beatles were all that.  I was born after they broke up, but my father's opinion at the time was "I liked them for 5 minutes."  They grated on him and sounded whiny.  30 years later, this was my opinion of them too -- and to this day.  There's nothing revisionist about that -- just so it's clear.

Their stardom is generally pretty well established as is their longevity and appeal to today's audience.  I don't think anyone's really arguing with that.  I think what some may be saying -- or I may infer based on my own opinion -- is that despite their obvious and wide appeal -- their music doesn't match the stature.  They had no impact on blues, gospel, country -- pillars of rock.  I would even suggest that their legacy may lessen over time as baby boomers and their offspring vacate the globe.  That's arguable... and I'm not sure I even care much to defend that opinion, cuz I don't care.

That said, I like the Beatles and get into them (for some reason in the fall??) and play the mono box a lot when I am.  Then I quickly get over it (2-3 weeks) and leave the experience no greater than I was -- and unable to really stomach much interest during the "off-season."

 :shrug  It's like fast food or something -- it's tasty but I don't want to write a book about it.  They're cute.  In the end, I think it helps if one relates to the artist in some way.  Feels what they're saying.  Is moved by the under-toe.  I usually don't feel anything deeply moving in their music -- and without a whole lot of nostalgia and emotional ties to their ride -- I'm good with the few times a year I dive in.

VERY VERY nicely said, John.  I agree 100%!

-- David

I'll try to keep this shorter than before... :)

There was a mention of big band music as a style that got pegged as coming from a previous generation. I agree, however I think a key element is being missed for what will prevent the Beatles and bands of the 60's generation from falling into the same category.

Attainability combined with relatability.

I'm speaking as a musician who also teaches young musicians, and it's part of how I keep up with what younger listeners are interested in.

Big band music has become as much nostalgia as it became impractical. If you were (or are) a musician interested in big band, where is your outlet? Are there many big bands out there to join? Are there many recording and actively touring and performing? Can a random trumpet player decide to form a big band and after making a few calls and calling rehearsals make it a reality?

Then you see the self-contained bands like The Beatles. They look like people around you, regular guys in other words. No super-human aura or unreachable celebrity status like Elvis, or even Michael Jackson in his superstar years. These were four regular looking lads who played two guitars, bass, and drums. If you wanted to be like the Beatles, grab three musician friends and start playing songs together. And write some too, if you could.

Most bands from the Beatles onward had that same element, the fact that you did not need to join a union, practice sight reading and learn a book full of dusty standards before you could even think of joining a working big band. Non-musicians watching the Beatles saw four guys playing music, whereas when you'd see Elvis or even Sinatra doing the same thing, you saw either a full-on stage production, choreographed to the nines, or in Elvis' case a very talented guy with great looks that made him appear like he was too good to be real.

Also the aspect non-musicians may not realize: The sounds many artists in 2013 are still chasing on their recordings are nearly the same sounds that bands like the Beatles and their peers developed in the 60's. Look at the hype around a band like Tame Impala...I'd argue they're chasing those sonic elements from all the usual 60's landmark albums and songs.

The sounds survived every generation, people in their teens still want to hear certain things and will gravitate to them.

Yet, sounds and certain sonic gimmicks alone cannot sustain a style of music that lacks in songwriting. Look at dubstep - it's already stagnant in many ways. It was new, bold, trailblazing, fresh...then people noticed they were hearing a lot of rehashes of similar themes built around a sonic hook known as the "bass drop". How can you sustain an entire genre of music based on one sonic element?

Short answer, you can't. Just like you cannot keep a style like big band (as much as I love it) vital and marketable by rearranging the same Ellington charts and songbook numbers which have been on bandstands since the 1930's. There is only so much you can do with the same old material.

And eventually anything new in such a style will sound so close to the benchmarks of the original golden-age of that style that folks will go back to the originals. How many ways can you rework "Satin Doll" so it sounds like something other than "Satin Doll"?

How many tracks can a dubstep artist release with the same bass-drop hooks and structure before it becomes rote formula?

Look at two of the bigger summer hits of 2013 - Daft Punk and at least in the US, Robin Thicke. Radio-friendly, catchy as hell, great grooves, sound great on any system as party jams. But they're essentially records from 1978. The Thicke single is a near-copy of Marvin Gaye's record which formed the sample to make the groove. Not saying it's not a cool production, but if you can play the Marvin Gaye record and get the exact same groove and basically the same good-time vibe, is the singer Thicke anything more than a guest artist on a Marvin Gaye record?

I'm just saying if the majority of hit records today were using similar sounds as big band, and if big bands were something more attainable, perhaps the style would not be considered as old-fashioned and retro.

On the flip side, the fact that you can listen to any number of rock, alternative, country, etc songs and hear sounds and certain grooves that were on records from the Beatles and other 60's artists, it remains a vital sound. It isn't nostalgia if you hear a band in 2013 with a hit record featuring drum sounds from Sgt Pepper, or a certain guitar sound from Revolver.

As long as the sounds remain current and marketable (and attainable), the bands which pioneered those sounds will remain in the public eye. And deservedly so, because unlike styles like big band, or bossa nova, or doo-wop, or acid jazz, or whatever else, they have longevity and staying power through the timeless elements of their music.

If I didn't have younger students on a weekly basis who are excited about Beatles, Who, Stones, etc music, I'd say that perhaps the style/genres of the 60's bands could fall into the nostalgia category very soon. But I don't see that happening.

How old is your father by chance?  Because that is another issue I wanted to address but forgot about in my last post.  The point being that during the era of "Beatlemania" that the girls were much more easily won over than the boys.  History however has written it that the day after The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show, tons of teenage males went out, bought guitars and formed garage bands thereby hothousing most of the rock acts that would dominate the decade of the seventies.  I'm not saying that this didn't happen and in fact there is evidence that youngsters by the names of Steven Tyler, Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen did just that in the wake of The British Invasion.  However, I think the average teenage male living in The United States at the time of The Beatles' appearance on "The Ed Sullivan Show" weren't as widely won over as history would like us to think.

I think the reason being is there were a couple of factors at play.  My father for instance in 1964 was just recently enrolled in the Peace Corps and just starting to put his feet out into the adult world as it were.  He has told me on several occasions he remembers Derek Taylor's "The Beatles Are Coming" campaign of late 1963/early 1964 but can honestly not remember much else firsthand about The Beatles other than their music was all over the radio in the following months.  He wasn't a fan.  He and a lot of his friends (all in their very late teens to early twenties at the time) were all into folk music and more of the non confrontational folk music of the era (read: Not Bob Dylan).  From where I stand from the stories he's told me, he and his friends were kind of squares.  They wore madras shirts and stuff like that.  None of them to my knowledge wore The Beatle haircut.  The point being that there was this pocket of the baby boomer generation that didn't necessarily go mad for The Beatles.  My opinion is they felt they were a bit beyond all that and "Beatlemania" was for the girls.  My dad did dig The Beach Boys though and has told me a story about being pulled over by a copper for speeding along to "Fun Fun Fun".  So maybe not as above it as they thought.

I think though even if you watch that "Ed Sullivan Show" you'll see some teenage guys in the audience and they are nowhere near as going as nuts for The Beatles as the girls are.  In fact they are pretty stoic perhaps regarding The Beatles the way many of us regard Justin Bieber today.  

Another factor is and I believe this to be true is that The Beach Boys by early 1964 had already cultivated quite a loyal fanbase.  I have a friend whose father grew up in New York at the time we are discussing and he says that his youth wasn't dominated by The Beatles or The British Invasion but The California Sound.  He loved The Beach Boys, Jan And Dean and all that stuff.  Even the somewhat more obscure surf groups.  So my feeling is there had to be others like him at the time that really remained loyal to The Beach Boys and the bands like them even in light of Beatlemania.  Of course this pocket of fans was easily dwarfed by the majority (including my mother) who loved both The Beach Boys and The Beatles.  

See but that is exactly what I dig about Sinatra.  He was sort of this alpha male who not only possessed one of the great singing voices known to man but just had this aura about him that really defined the male of his generation.  I loved how he dressed, how he carried himself, the way he spoke.  His appeal is that he wasn't a regular guy walking down the street.  He was The Chairman Of The Board.  To me it is he not Steve McQueen who was The King Of Cool.  Unfortunately in Sinatra's case as is the case for most males of his generation have been written off as being somewhat stuffy or antiquated by today's standards but in reality during their era they were anything but.  I love The Rat Pack and I probably love them more for their persona than their individual or collective contributions to entertainment. 

Since when does having an impact on blues, gospel, or country matter when evaluating a rock-pop band? Country was a genre that was so closed-minded and "traditional" that they did not allow either a drum set nor too much electricity in the form of guitars and whatnot on their main showcase stage, the Grand Ole Opry, until 1974. That's a fact that few today realize, especially since country has crossed over since the 60's - it was a very uptight and closed style of music. No drums allowed on the main stage until 1974 - can you imagine that? "Longhairs" like The Byrds were not allowed on that stage, then when they finally were they got jeered and heckled - despite members of the band like Gram Parsons loving country music with all their heart and soul and wanting to be a part of the legacy. But, no, the "image" didn't fit.

So The Beatles were expected to have an impact there?

Gospel music - a niche market. Those performers who say they were impacted and influenced by Gospel music outnumber those who actively buy the records, this has been the case since the 60's. Apart from Elvis' sacred albums, name one contemporary Gospel artist without consulting a Google search. Kirk Franklin, perhaps? That style is grounded in tradition, and traditional sounds, like The Five Blind Boys still feature. Again, how and why would a group like The Beatles influence a very specific, very niche style of music?

Blues - A very specific style with a specific set of rules. If you take to the blues stage and try to vary the formula by changing song structure or venturing too far outside the accepted song forms, rhythms, and chord structures which haven't changed since the 40's for the most part, you get shunned by the core audience. Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys didn't do blues at all, their legacy as influential musicians seems pretty secure. Are the Beatles a different standard?

I totally respect and honor the opinion if someone just doesn't feel as close to the music and says so. But there is a difference between doing that in a level-headed way, and going to the extremes which I have seen too often of trying to bash the band outright or tear down a musical legacy by applying certain criteria or for reasons based on something other than the history behind all this music.

And I'm not singling anyone out, but can we agree there is a difference between someone saying about any artist "they suck" versus "I never really got into the music"?  

And what you dig about Sinatra is exactly the difference between his generation of musicians and the Beatles generation and all that followed in their wake. You could walk, dress, and act like Sinatra to emulate him, but his aura remained untouchable no matter how much you applied yourself to working at doing what he did. His talents and his whole act was so removed from most people's reality, due to the fact that he was such a unique and gifted talent.

Compare that level of attainability to the thousands of teenagers watching Ed Sullivan in February 1964 who were inspired to start a band and play music, and with a few cheap instruments, some good friends, and a few chords they went ahead and started bands of their own.

I suggest it was because what they saw and heard in The Beatles was close enough to their own realities - as regular people if you will, not possessing incredible looks or sharp clothes or even a trained voice - that they felt a more personal connection. If you didn't look or sing like Elvis, if you couldn't sing or dance like Sinatra or even afford the clothes, you could still do what you saw The Beatles doing.

That's how I feel about the Stones - or Nirvana, for that matter. For the most part, my tastes do not align with the critically acclaimed bands. You know, the ones that are in Rolling Stone every week.  I lived through the grunge era, I was in Seattle....couldn't escape it. and there were times I really wanted to! My taste in music leans more towards the softer side, hence, I became a fan of the melodic Beatles and Beach Boys and Byrds and Badfinger.

I guess I can appreciate it from both sides.  From a music perspective I'm far more in "Camp Beatle" than I am in "Camp Sinatra".  I actually think those who subscribe to the school of thought that once you've heard "Fly Me To The Moon", you've gotten gist of Sinatra aren't exactly wrong.  Much of his catalog sounds like well other songs in his catalog.  Also the fact that he didn't write his own music is a major strike mark against him in my book which is why I feel it's a pity that there was a generation back in the sixties who felt Sinatra's music was more serious or more important than the music of say The Beatles or The Beach Boys.  I understand why they felt this way but it's unfortunate not to mention more than arguably inaccurate.  The Beatles and The Beach Boys wrote their own material, Sinatra aside from a few credits did not.

However from a purely aesthetic point of view I'm in "Camp Sinatra" all the way.  It's probably what turned me off by and large to the grunge movement of the nineties despite the fact that in my opinion there were some great music to be found within that genre.  The thought that these musicians would show up onstage looking as if they were loaded out of their minds was a complete turn off to me.  I felt it to be extremely disrespectful to their audience who likely didn't care because for the most part they were just as loaded if not more so than the musicians on stage.  Likewise I'm a huge fan of Bruce Springsteen's catalog but it has often baffled me how someone who is worth millions of dollars can continually sing about hard luck?  To me Sinatra looked like a million bucks, carried himself like he was the alpha male of his generation and never pretended to be anything other than what he was.  That is why I respect the heck out of Sinatra.  Kind of dig where pop culture was at too when he was at his peak too.  

Man...you're  not kidding about what it's like for a neophyte. I kind of 'cheated' and skipped ahead. Two things...right now, I'm not that crazy about Sgt Pepper. But...Revolver is fucking incredible. I'm going to go back, though, and go in order.

‍

Sgt. Pepper takes quite a bit of listens to "get" if you know what I mean. It grows on you, but hey, it definitely doesn't grow on everyone. I can pretty well do without When I'm 64 and Within You Without You (the better of the two, but a little too long in duration IMHO).

Well, yes, Rubber Soul, Revolver and, in my view, The White Album are better albums than Pepper but I would still say that Pepper is a phenomenal album and certainly in my top 20 personal favourites. The ones I like best on the album are (perhaps in spots unconventionally) Pepper, Lucy, Getting Better, She's Leaving Home, Within You, Good Morning, Reprise, and, of course, Day in the Life. For some reason "Good Morning, Good Morning" gets put down a lot but I love the hazy rockers that Lennon was doing in this era: And Your Bird Can Sing, Good Morning Good Morning, and Baby You're a Rich Man are three great songs to listen to on a sunny, summer day.

Abbey Road is my least favourite of the big five (RS, R, SP, WA, AR) though, again, it's a great album. Come Together is not my favourite hit - after a run of singles like Day Tripper, We Can Work It Out, Paperback Writer, Eleanor Rigby, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, All You Need is Love, Hey Jude, and Get Back, I find that Come Together lacks a little something (though I could say the same for Hello Goodbye). Furthermore, the seventeen minute and a half run from Maxwell to I Want You is seventeen and a half minutes of lesser Beatles for that era, in my view. That still means that the music is better than most of what was being made at the time, but not necessarily at the standard set by the band, especially when compared to Side B of Abbey Road which may be the best album side they ever produced. Again, Abbey Road is probably in my top 25 albums (Side B, and Something are really crucial here though) so don't take these criticisms as severe. Also, AR is definitely a great sounding record. The band at their most pristine.

Part of being a cultural force equates to reaching across boundaries of all sorts.  But you're right, that's a weak point as written.  I may have been reaching for something like "they didn't have an impact like --- or they ain't pillars like blues, gospel, country" -- they weren't that important.  Came out prematurely but... the rest of my post was really good!

Well, I agree with you there.  I hope I conveyed those ideals.  I would also add, it's lonely at the top.   ;D  Elvis took his fair share of lumps.  Was Clapton God?  Was Hendrix the best?  I think it's their turn to be tested... and generations come in and reevaluate.  As they should.  And we can't be there to defend it forever, if that's one's prerogative.  It would be interesting to see how well they hold up.

In 1964, my father would have been 20/21.  But his younger sister was/is the biggest Beatles fan on the planet.  But I don't know if that had much to do with it.  There was a line around that generation... Elvis, Beach Boys, and Doo-Wop golden oldies, malt-shop, 57 Chevys, Greasers.  Versus the younger kids that went for the Beatles, touchy feely, and more of the froo-froo, fluffy, puffy-shirt stuff of the later-60s.

Maybe it was the birth control pill?

I like both.  Perhaps I got more of a bond for the former (with a lot of huge exceptions).  Instinctively I relate to the less serious side of art.  I like Sha-na-na.  But... I have a firm sense (and need) of dabbling in the latter.  I don't think I could take either camp too long.  I usually listen to jazz anyway!   :lol

Not sure how many people are aware of this, but When I'm 64 was deliberately put right after Within You Without You because the two songs are polar opposites. Side 2 opens with this mystical, dead-serious philosophical and exotic song, which is immediately followed by one of McCartney's "schmaltzy" songs. IMO it works great - the contrast and change in mood could not have been more drastic.

Personally I like When I'm 64, yes it's schmaltzy but in a good, catchy way. I particularly like the harmonies and woodwinds in the line, "You'll be older too." That and a couple other lines make the song a bit more than a standard schmaltzy tune.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone heard the Lennon-McCartney interview from 1967 just as Pepper is about to come out (I think)? It's the one where they call Within You, Without You the best thing that George has done. For some reason, this point sticks out for me. I still find it really interesting that a few years later when Lennon was being interviewed after Abbey Road with Something and Here Comes the Sun, he stated that he still thought Within You Without You was George's best song. I've always been a bit fascinated by what music Lennon and McCartney were into through this period and I wonder what it was about WYWY that appealed so much to them. Outside of WYWY, Lennon frequently downplayed Pepper as an album, in part probably because he didn't want any single thing defining him as an artist.

Great post! The clarification of the first point was needed, I read it a certain way and reacted to that when your message was different than what I reacted to.

It's a solid point but at the same time I'd point out that The Beatles as a whole influenced all styles of music, and for proof of that look at the wide range of artists who covered Beatle tunes from jazz to soul to classical to country to Sinatra. And most musicians, of a certain age especially, will point to their music as a universal influence across any lines of style and genre.

I might say they are up there with those other styles.  :) Just like Sinatra, Ellington, Elvis etc..."Beyond Category".

On the second point, I agree, and I think some artists like Michael Jackson are due for a serious re-evaluation. Because as I posted earlier in this thread, I see his music which at the time it was released was not widely praised or beloved and in some cases was considered something of a letdown by his fans. Yet it seems in the shadow of a tragic death, his entire catalog is being praised...

...and it's just not that good. In fact in some cases, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny and it didn't when it was still fresh in the record stores. Yet, the earlier Jackson 5 brings tears to my eyes because it's so good and Michael himself was too talented to be real, like a voice that's one in a billion from a little kid, basically, with the soul of a 40 year old, and of course Off The Wall and Thriller are and always will be essential albums for anyone's music library. *Essential*

But his death has seemingly wiped clean all of the things he did post-Thriller (let's say anything after 1987), and a lot of those things were not only embarrassing but also tarnished his legacy, his image, alienated all but the most devoted fans, and made a lot of people question his judgement, professional, personal, and musical. Be3cause pardon the pun, a lot of it was *bad*.  :)

Or maybe the negative imagery obfuscated some good songs? Some great songs? Or perhaps the negative reactions he got then were actually warranted, the music really was not that good?

There is a classic case for reevaluation.

I've noticed a shift in Clapton recently too. The music he made which fans thought was more cool or intense is perhaps not what they listen to regularly now. Goodfellas helped Layla's mojo and legacy immensely. Certain songs and solos may have held up as classic rock staples, but it's honestly hard to listen to some of Cream's extended jams, especially Ginger and Jack. And Clapton's 80's sound and tone? Didn't dig it then, don't dig it now.  ;D  No reevaluation necessary there.

Yet he was in the 80's one of my bigger influences while learning guitar, especially his Cream and early 70's era.

Will George be re-united with his ticker-tape machine?

Have you read Geoff Emerick's book? I'm not one on assumptions but I'm assuming not because Emerick goes into some pretty deep detail about how and why he also felt Within You Without You was a very special song to record, from the musical to the technical, and even personal aspects of it. Or if you do have the book, go back to the sections on that song, they're very inspirational from a musical sense.

I'm not one to hector anyone into buying a book, so if you'd like the quotes maybe I can pull a few scans from the pages if it's not available online somewhere.

Basically Emerick, Martin, Lennon, McCartney, et al watched as a song blossomed from a dull, dirge-like song George demo'ed for them into something beautiful and unique, which had elements in the music literally no one else had done extensively or was doing. And that also includes the way certain traditional Indian instruments were recorded, and that is one factor of many in why Emerick won the Grammy for engineering the Sgt Pepper album.

Hint: Listen to what George Martin wrote for the strings to play, the technique and the way they attack certain notes. It was a totally new sound for classical strings, at least to that degree, and after WYWY it became a fad among other arrangers writing for strings and is now is common.

And listen to how close and how resonant  and vibrant some of the traditional Indian instruments were recorded and sound - that's Emerick's innovation, literally *no one* mic'ed nor recorded and processed/mixed those traditional instruments that way, and most engineers had never encountered them at all let alone devised new ways to capture their sound. After that, everyone wanted that sound from those instruments, which originated with Emerick and The Beatles in 66-67.

Again, that explains the Grammy Emerick got for his work on Pepper.  :)

But hearing certain things in 1967, it was new and different.

That's the hint.  :-D

Thanks GF! Personally, I love the song. Emerick's book is always one I've wanted to read but has forever slipped through the grates. I should get to it. Don't recall the Lennon/McCartney interview from the time, do you? It was on youtube at one point but I can't find it now. I think there were bits of it on the "Making Of" sections on the remasters a few years back where Lennon is talking about the variety of music on the album, ending with the description of a "happy go lucky Northern song," which I always assumed was 64.

I'll have to look for that interview, it does sound vaguely familiar but it's not one that you see as often as others. Very cool!

And I left out one key part of that last post - Beatle George!  ;D

He could have been credited as both co-arranger and co-producer on that song. Up to that point, he was sort of in the shadows, he was of course a Beatle and contributed what he did, which in some cases were key to the songs, but at the same time he was a shadow figure when it came to creating the songs and being actively involved.

On Within You Without You, he blossomed musically. He acted as both a musical translator and arranger for the Indian musicians, and as a tutor of sorts for George Martin, who was classically trained but did not have the knowledge of the music that Harrison had and could not offer much in the way of direction for the Indian players. So Harrison took the baton, so to speak.

Indian music in many ways is different both in structure and foundation from Western music, in that it is based on cyclical rhythms and relies on a different way of time-keeping and ensemble playing, as well as the way notes are phrased and "attacked" in those phrases. Different than a group of symphony string players, let's say.

So there was George Harrison, the silent Beatle, instructing the Indian players on how to play within a more Western song structure yet retain their unique rhythmic and ensemble interplay, and basically instructing George Martin on what they were doing and helping Martin fit a Western string arrangement into the Indian song form.

It was a *huge* leap musically for a guy in his early 20's to go from twanging a few sitar notes on Norwegian Wood to basically constructing what at the time was one of the first blends of traditional Indian and Western pop and classical music. It was the fruit of his studies of Indian music leading up to this, and showed everyone including his bandmates that he was in fact not only devoted to those studies but actually had developed a skill and understanding of the foundations of that music that allowed him to construct such a grand piece of music.

That info changed my perspective of the song, as well as my opinion, and now I enjoy it very much and can see where John and the others would have such high praise for it.

One of George Harrison's shining moments as a Beatle.

‍

I can definitely see them doing that for a point such as that. I don't think either are bad songs. When I'm 64 is definitely catchy, but there is just something about it, I don't know. If I listen to the album straight through, I don't skip either song. I guess in terms of the rest of the album, they are my "least" favorite and even though I say I can do without it, I pretty well always sit through all of Within You Without You and get into it. The 5+ minutes is a bit much, that was my only quibble. I'm a big fan of George's love for the Sitar (the droning sound in WYWY is great) and the sounds he used that were influenced by India all the way through The Inner Light.

I love The Inner Light. I must have listened to that song every day for about six months after he died.

That's my favorite of George's Eastern-influenced tracks. I didn't even know what those sounds were when I first heard it - it was just the song on the b-side of Lady Madonna, but I loved it from the start.

I had trouble "getting" Sgt. Pepper until I heard the mono mix. All of the hype for it is justified. The tonality and balance in the mix is PERFECT.

I'm left hanging here. What did Billy think of side 2 of "With The Beatles"? I have to know.

I was never a huge Beatles fan, but when I first heard the mono box set a few years back I was blown away. It gave me a whole new appreciation for their work. I rarely ever, (minus the last two albums), listen to their stereo mixes. Seriously, anyone who hasn't bothered giving the mono set a listen is truly missing out.

:lol I'm going to continue with it, but have had something happen IRL that is kind of taking precedence right now.

As a huge huge record geek, my problem with The Beatles is that your uninformed man in the street can trump whatever you know with the safe claim that 'The Beatles are the best band ever though, right!', and in a straw poll of 'everyone' your splutterings about the wonderfulness of the Peppermint Trolley Company lp will see you tagged as, at best a deluded crank.

I feel the same way. Makes it hard sometimes. Music is so subjective that IMHO it is impossible (not to mention ghastly and stupid) to be correct about saying any one band is THE greatest of all time.  With that said...

I feel like a complete moron after listening to the rest of the discography. Was I seriously that critical? Was I so blinded by irritation at many people praising the Beatles and dismissing every other band that I let that blind me?! I had intended to resume posting my thoughts on each track last night, but I ended up playing through the rest of the stuff without taking notes. Needless to say, I am now of the opinion that 'Tomorrow Never Knows' may just be the greatest song ever written.

I'm really excited to hear about your track by track opinions of Revolver, because that's my favorite album of theirs.

So THERE! :P

:lol

Just as an aside, on Face book today, I heard a fascinating piece of audio, in which Randy Bachman solves the mystery of the opening chord to Hard Days Night. If it has been something you have wondered about, he nailed it. Of course he heard the raw tapes at Abbey Road with Giles Martin. That might have helped....

Actually, The Who is the greatest band ever. EVER.  :p

Billy, I'm curios about your thoughts on my earlier post about my thinking that The Beatles became more "serious" starting around the time of the Beatles For Sale album. That's not to say that they weren't a "real" and serious band already. It's just that, going through their albums from the start, I've always seen a certain point where there is a definite step up, in terms of song writing, and the production of the songs and albums on the whole. It's almost like there was a switch  turned on, and they all collectively thought "Wait a minute. We're good, but we could be very, VERY GOOD!". It's like they all stepped up their game.

I can do this.

Taxman Great pop song

Eleanor Rigby Classic slice of orch pop...really great

I'm Only Sleeping Nice

Love You To Great

Here, There and Everywhere Pointless bit of pastichery...why bother.

Yellow Submarine Horseshit

She Said She Said ALMOST fantastic, yet there's that awkward middle section in 3/4. Dreadful.

Good Day Sunshine "Anyone got a lame song for Davy to sing on this Monkees lp?"

And Your Bird Can Sing "sh*t John, we need a song" "GIVE ME 3 MINUTES"

For No One 'oh good, another pastiche'

Doctor Robert "sh*t John, we need a song" "GIVE ME 2 MINUTES"

i Want to Tell You flawless

Got to Get You into My Life 'oh good, another pastiche'

Tomorrow Never Knows best thing ever!


Some of that may sound a bit harsh, but there was a LOT of competition around in '66. For an album by the 'greatest band of all time', I think it's kinda lame that And your bird can sing and Dr Robert made the cut...they just sound like unspecial B-sides.

There's a HUGE scene of record geeks like myself who sweat over rare and amazing 45s by unknown groups. I can tell you now- if Dr Robert/AYBCS were put out as a 45, and were really rare, by an unknown group they'd be kind of 'c- list' collectibles. Not bad, but nothing special.

I have a really big problem with Paul's pastiche music. Got to get you into my life is pretty nice, but is it Otis Redding? No. It's never going to be as great as the real soul deal, so why bother.

Overall it's a proper mixed bag. I much prefer Sgt Peppers. This record doesn't sound like a band, and not in a good way. George should have gone solo, because he seems like the only one with a strong, confident vision.

My Go-To Lp is Beatles "Love Songs" double lp. Has best tracks of "white lp" without a doubt they excelled at love songs.

 ha and to think when they were at the top of their game the Who FRONTED for Herman's Hermits.

of course top of the game is subjective I dont prefer the later part of their career from Quad forward.

More Beatles related grousing I see.  First referring to Mr. Dylan's "Man On The Street": One of the benefits about The Beatles' being the widely accepted anointed ones is that it provides a cogent argument against anyone saying that Taylor Swift for instance is the greatest musical act of all time.  Admittedly it also lends to the kind of thought process that Bergen brings up but in my opinion you have to take the good with the bad and in this instance the good far outweighs the bad.  Also in reference to the aforementioned "Man In The Street" who is to say that he knows anything other than say one or two Beatles songs to begin with.  Try asking him some questions about the subject matter at hand before you attach so much weight to his word.

Now "Love Songs" that is one LP that deserves the compact disc treatment.  Has some rare remixes that George Martin prepared specifically for this LP in 1977 although how rare they are considers whether or not you consider them to be manipulations of the original masters or not.  You know though as soon as I've said that, perhaps I should take it back.  I mean as nice as it would be to see the seventies LPs ("Rock And Roll Music", "Love Songs", "Ballads" and even the putrid "Reel Music") available on compact disc, there are most more interesting and substantial projects they should be sinking their teeth into.

I enjoyed The Capitol Albums CD's, because those are the albums I grew up with. Still wish they would complete it.

Reported on this board in February with link: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15012.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15012.0.html)   ;D

One of the coolest and most joyous pieces of live audio I've heard this past year.

Holy sh*t...If I Fell is beautiful.

One of the few songs Lennon wrote for his first wife, if I recall correctly.

Yes!

The more I listen the more I want to slap myself for being dismissive before. My wife had a good comment when You've got to hide your love away came on...we were talking about how the Beatles and the Beach Boys influenced a majority of music afterwards, and she said something like 'Eddie Vedder basically owes him having a career to this one song'.

What really gets me is how crystal clear and dynamic the actual sound was right from the very beginning.

 Question for those more knowledgeable than I...although George Martin was credited as producer, how much did he actually do vs the band?

That was exactly how I felt when I "discovered" the Beach Boys in 2005. Thats how I still feel.  :lol

Glad I always liked them ;D. Billy I think George Martin did an awful lot until maybe around 1968 or so. Through 1967 they gradually could do more, but he was a creative guy so they usually listened to his suggestions. Having said that, Abbey Road had more from him than anything since Pepper.

Also I really like seeing you discover more sixties music!

Our local 93.7 is about to play Revolver in its entirety. Just came back from hospital due to Shingles so I fired up a bowl for the pain and the wife & I are going to hear it all the way through for the first time together

Good Day Sunshine is on right now...so far this might be my favorite album by anyone.

Final judgment... my favorite ever. Any band, all time. I should change the title of this threat to The Beatles *gasp*

Good Day Sunshine is one of the few Beatles songs I don't really like.

Really? The arrangement slays me.

‍

That's the one thing I hate the most about it.  :lol This song, and Got To Get You In To My Life. Brass works on a few of ther songs, but there are a few songs where it becomes intrusive. By the way, you're question about George Martin? He was ESSENTIAL to their sound. He really was like a fifth beatle. I recommend going on e-bay or maybe amazon and trying to get a copy of the out of print book The Beatles Recording Sessions, by Mark Lewisohn. It really goes into a lot of detail about just how much he did for the group in the studio. I'll put it this way, George Martin is one of my biggest music influences, as far as the producing and arranging of a song goes. I'd list him in my top three favorite producers, with Phil Spector being at 2, and some dude called Wilson at number 1.

I thought Dr. Robert was ace, myself. Hell, I even like Yellow Submarine!

Dana came up with a *great* line about the Beatles v the Beach Boys. 'There isn't a "better", per se; f*** apples and oranges...more like sunrise and sunset. They're both the same, yet different...either way they're both beautiful'.

Damn I love this album. The sequencing is ace, the songs and vocals top notch...and so far ahead of its time it's crazy. The sound quality blows the competitors out of the water. I must confess I heard it in stereo...that said it 'sounds' better than stereo Pet Sounds.  Not vocally, or anything...just talking about how crystal clear the sound was. Tomorrow Never Knows sounds like it could've been done in the 90s, sonically speaking.

It's crazy...I went from (blind) dislike to curious to being a fanatic. I want to hear everything, released and unreleased. I think my opinions on Please Please Me might be different than it was on page one of this thread.

I envy you, you have a lot to discover.

This takes me back to when I was a little boy and my dad played Beatles music for me for the first time. I have very fond memories of hearing these weird, yet amazing songs like Strawberry Fields Forever, and I Am The Walrus. Then my dad got both volumes of Past Masters on cd, and it was love at first listen. I miss those days.  :(

I'm so grateful to my dad for giving me the gift of the love of music. I couldn't even to begin to put into words how much music has enriched my life.

That's how my dad was with me. He was an older man...46 when I was born. He only liked the artists hits. He had dozens of compilations from the artists he liked. But...he had such a diverse taste. In the car I'd hear Led Zeppelin, Eagles, Frampton, ect. Or, I'd hear BB King or James Brown. Rod Stewart. Crystal Gale. Frank Sinatra. Cream. Chicago...all eras. Collective Soul. Alanis Morrisette. Wings. The fat boys. My dad bought me this thing for my PlayStation where you can make music and beats. I took an electronic music course in college on his suggestion. I owe my almost career due to my dad's exposing me to music of all kinds. Hear it all, as that's the only way to know what you really like.

Well, from what I've heard from the Beatles they sum up everything I love about music.

My dad liked stuff from the 1960's, from when he was a teenager and young adult. But he didn't just like the hits. He collected an artists entire music catalogue. Just to give you an example, my dad's Eric Clapton collection at the time of his death was probably 70 cd's. Everything from his earliest recordings in The Yardbirds, to The Blues Breakers, Cream, Delany and Bonnie, Blind Faith, etc. All the way up to his then current solo album. He did that with mostly every artist. He loved Clapton, Hendrix, The Beatles, Zeppelin, CCR, The Band, Chicago, Dylan, The Byrds, etc. But he also collected the ultra obscure groups like Bubble Puppy, Fever Tree, The Lemon Pipers, Glass Harp, The Strawberry Alarm Clock, 13th Floor Elevators, etc. Some of the best times of my life were spent in cd stores literally spending two hours just looking through random crates and boxes of cd's.  ;D

Its funny...he hated Roxy Music and the Beach Boys because they were in his mind lightweight and the Stones derivative. Yet to hear him do a mix tape with Pump up the Jam followed by CCR was just bizarre. Heh. I rhymed.

My only exposure to the Beatles was on the oldies station or 20 Golden Greats on the tape deck in his red 1983 Chevy Impala.

Oh...one last thought for tonight. Steven Tyler owes his career to the end of Hey Jude. 8)

This is kind of off topic, but going back to The Beatles for a minute( :lol), I think you'll dig Sexy Sadie off the "white album".

The most Pet Sounds influenced thing The Beatles ever did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fxb0ecs2NsE

Yeah, we still haven't gotten a CD release of the Hollywood Bowl LP or Let It Be, the Washington Coliseum show (which was remastered and streamed on iTunes briefly), the Budokan concerts and the Shea Stadium documentary on DVD.

I doubt we'd see a CD release of those old compilations, particularly because the Beatles were not very fond of how they were constantly being repackaged themselves and were left out of the selection process.  Lennon asked to be involved with the Rock and Roll Music album but Capitol declined.  With the Past Masters, Red, Blue, and 1 albums on the market, there's really no need for any other Beatles compilations.

I like the Beatles (I had a massive phase going on for a full year and a half a while back) but I haven't been digging them as much recently, especially since I got into the BB. McCartney, Lennon, and Harrison were all phenomenal songwriters, but I can't really say I've ever been touched by any of their songs (with the rare exception, eg Here There and Everywhere) in the same way I have by the BBs, because I didn't really feel that the love was genuine. With something like Pet Sounds it's completely different, as PS is half an hour of Brian and Tony Asher pouring their hearts out for the listener, and the love feels achingly genuine.

Then again if you'd never listened to a Beatles album in your life up to now I suppose I'd have to expect that kind of a reaction.  :lol
The post-Rubber Soul Beatles albums are all very good, many of them masterpieces (with the exception of Rubber Soul itself, which doesn't stand the test of time half as well as their other albums in my opinion). Best one is Abbey Road - the medley will blow you away.

sounds more like Friends to me....pretty awesome. There's an alternate version of Here There & Everywhere that actually prefer to the released version

Friends wasn't out for another two years!

its funny... for me from A Hard Day's night on, I don't hear any duff tracks. Also, I agree about not feeling the love like on Pet Sounds lyrically; however I'm moved by the albums themselves and the obvious joy they had creating masterpieces.

I agree about Rubber Soul...its really damn good but not only is Revolver better....Help! is too. But really...asking which Beatles album is the best is like asking which finger is most vital. I now see why people obsess over them. The thing that gets me... it is unbelievable that any one person could be so talented....and here's a band of four of them. Its almost not fair. Can you imagine if Brian had worked with them on a project, and George Martin would've worked with the BB?

I know...just saying that's the first vibe I got from listening...wasn't influenced by it, but had a similar sound. That's another thing I love...BW and Macca had different sounds but the same approach in a way; or vice versa.

This might sound really stupid...but was The White Album a conscious decision to return back to basics like Brian did with Wild Honey? I'd think so in a way just because of the title Wild Honey Pie :lol

Oh man, can you imagine the Beach Boys doing Here There & Everywhere? That would've been breathtaking.

Ah. That song. Just, er... just wait till you listen. :P

It was definitely a conscious decision to return to back-to-basics, but IMO had little-to-nothing to do with Brian and/or the Beach Boys.

@Judd- With Carl on vocals!Or And I Love Her!

@ego was just wondering, as it seems a lot of artists did the same thing in 1968. So in a way, Brian ended up setting a trend by trying not to!

Another random thought...anybody else feels that part of I Want You (She's So Heavy) sound like late 70s Luther Vandross before it gets to the trippy parts?

Out of interest, what did you think made the sequencing of Revolver so good? To me it just felt like a rather scrambled collection of very good songs. Although, obviously, ending on TNK is a great way to go out.

I dunno... I heard the album previously but on shuffle. As is, the album is more cohesive to me. Why? Well to me it shows off each band member but does it in a way where it sets a mood. Dome gripe about Yellow Submarine (I saw several discussions on other forums) but to me it serves the same purpose as Sloop John B does on Pet Sounds.

Fair enough. Though I do think I prefer Sloop John B. :P

Re-listening to The White Album, and I totally forgot how damn good some of these tracks were. Martha My Dear and I Will are so underrated; they're some of the best on there!

Good question - no doubt he had a big influence on much of their sound, the only question is, how much? In one interview he said, to the effect, that prior to their midddle stuff he acted as an "encourager" who tried to get them to do more interesting stuff. Somewhere around their middle stuff they didn't need encouraging anymore, and he became more of an "enabler."

Trivia: The instrumental parts for "She's Leaving Home" is the only Beatles song not scored by Martin. Paul was in a rush to complete the song (for some unknown reason), and Martin was working on something else when Paul called him to write the score, so Paul called this other well-known London scorer to do it for him instead. When Martin found out later he was really pissed off, but when they went to record the instruments he went ahead and conducted it anyway.

"She's Leaving Home" without the vocals. That's Martin doing the countdown in the intro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8zu4S58Tgs

If you're starting to get into the Beatles you'll probably want to check out some of the sans-vocals, sans-instruments and alternate tracks. Guitars on "She Said She Said" is one of my favorites:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAN7HByXXxY

I doubt it.  "The White Album" was the product of it's environment.  90% of the songs that ended up on "The White Album" were written during The Beatles' sojourn to India during the first quarter of 1968.  Obviously spending their time in the foothills of the Himalayas living a very stripped back lifestyle only afforded them few comforts of home one of which were their acoustic guitars.  So John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison wrote a lot of songs there all of which could be easily replicated with sparse backing.  Although they obviously did embellish some of the songs once they began recording the album in May of 1968, a lot of the songs retained their sparse and basic spirit in which they were composed in.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that John had also grown tired of highly-produced stuff and wanted to go back to "the basics." The plain, unadorned cover of the album was symbolic of that move I think, too.

I've seen that quote ascribed to a lot of different time periods though.  I think the main issue is that John Lennon was never a fan of production.  I think George Martin has even been quoted as saying that John Lennon came up to him around the time of "Let It Be" and told him "We don't want any of your production garbage" or something of that nature.  As talented as John Lennon was in other avenues as far as creativity and musicianship went, he preferred to leave the production work in the studio to someone else whether it be George Martin, Phil Spector or whomever.  He would basically give the producer or arranger a very general idea of what he wanted and tell them to make it so.  Then they would come back to him with their wares and he would either say ya or nay. 

This thread is a real treat by the way.

I will also add that Revolver is my favourite album by anyone.

I will also add that while The White Album is back to basics in the sense that it is not as overblown as Pepper, it is also anything but basic and not as "roots" oriented as something like John Wesley Harding or basic rock and roll oriented as something like Wild Honey. I think that The White Album is definitely The Beatles at their weirdest and most bizarre and it is ultimately their most anti-commercial album. And I love it. The White Album is what you play in order to say, "You think you know The Beatles? Well, listen to this!"

I knew a guy once who said he hated the Beatles ... except for the White Album.

Come to think of it, I seem to recall meeting someone else who told me that, too.

White Album is a great album, but it's only maybe #5 or so on my ranking list of Beatles albums.

Just listened to it all the way through. I quite like it but Revolution #9 can only be listened to once for me. The good songs on there are pretty bad ass and make up for the weaker cuts.

Really, the only album I'm not digging is Let it Be. When I hit my second listen hopefully that will change

"Let It Be" is a bit of an acquired taste.  What you need to know going in is first off it's the one Beatles album that the band couldn't be bothered with to complete properly.  They pawned it off on others (most notably Phil Spector) to bring to it's conclusion and by the time it was released, the band was no more anyhow.  The other thing worth knowing is not only is it the record that basically broke the band but is also the record where John Lennon was strung out on heroin for much of it's creation, which explains his lackluster contributions to the record.  George Harrison's best work from the period when "Let It Be" was being recorded was left off the record in favor of two substandard Harisongs.  Paul McCartney as customary shines throughout however and it is his compositions which save "Let It Be" from the abysmal fate it could've potentially endured.

This one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-BRsxOtz8

I feel the same way about the alternate take of "Here, There And Everywhere".  It's vastly superior in my opinion to the version that is on "Revolver" which unfortunately in my opinion suffers from a great deal of overproduction.  The harmonies are just far too lush and layered whereas on the alternate take they are scaled back appropriately.  I like Macca's scratch vocal on the alternate take too.  He sings the song in a slightly higher registrar than on the "Revolver" version and I always preferred it that way.

Actually with the long organ notes I'd say that that alternate take sounds more like a Smiley Smile track. I'd say this has more of a Pet Sounds feel, especially Here Today.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHwLPJ_0LYY

Holy sh*t...Helter Skelter is BAD ASS. I've heard of balls to the wall but this is DICKS TO THE BRICKS. Damn this band was kickass. On the compilation I made for my wife this is followed by I Want You (She's so Heavy) and the result is hypnotically enticing. I just had an eargasm.

Thank you guys for helping turn me on to this wonderful band of geniuses.

Clapton's Guitar - While My Guitar Gently Weeps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzDyycsXmN0

A bit sloppy playing, actually, but it worked out great anyway. Can't notice the sloppiness behind the vocals.

Now check out modern day McCartney KILL "Skelter".. he can still hit the high notes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um7iNmIJ0tU

Jeez, the turn around on your opinion of this band is surprising. But, I guess it goes to show that they truly made some great music.

Also, the story goes that Paul wrote "Helter Skelter" in reaction to The Who's "I Can See for Miles," which is crazy to think about because "Helter Skelter" blows that song out of the water.

I think it shows that Paul has a great songwriting range if he could put "Honey Pie," "Blackbird," and "Helter Skelter" all on the same album. Even "Hey Jude" came from the White Album sessions.

Oh man, when my dad and I first heard that version it was like a gift from God himself.  ;D

BTW, if you're listening only to the Parlaphone albums, you're going to miss a few songs released only as singles, and/or which appeared only on the American versions of the albums.

This, IMO, was a notable artistic breakthrough in '65 and one of my favorite Beatle songs: We Can Work It Out. Best played loud or on headphones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0kKjDmiypY

Rain, an even bigger artistic breakthrough in '66, recorded between Rubber Soul and Revolver. Prelude to stuff on Revolver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQCwSqyaRo0

One of the least known Beatle songs - Hey Bulldog:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8DfB-wqp5g

Fun kid's song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDdo7T9BkxM

It's All Too Much, another lesser-known song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oes9_poAIg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-BRsxOtz8

Check this one out!!! SFF

Personally I like the "official" version of Here, There and Everywhere best. It's such a big departure from the rest of Revolver that it really does a fantastic job of adding something different.

Yep but nothing trumps "Yesterday", "I'm Down" and "I've Just Seen A Face" all recorded on the SAME DAY!  June 14, 1965.  A pretty impressive day's work from a working musician. 

OK, this is a MUST-WATCH. First take of "I'm Looking Through You." I can't decide whether I like this version better, or the released version. I like the middle-8 in the released version (which this lacks), but much of the rest of this version is really, really good. I particularly like the verses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IIvxT_Dow4

Compare to the released version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KulSQjjQVPE

I had a friend in college who thought this song was, like, the culmination of human civilization, or something.

Don't forget about these:

I Feel Fine, including what may be the first use of feedback in a song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXU5hzgxpUY

Day Tripper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhdPDI9OeY8

Paperback Writer, the other side of the Rain single
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G6H2tQCaOA

Lady Madonna, a great piano driven White Album-era single
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfthrizXKOM

Revolution, the more "rocking" version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF_TdJv4nQ0

Don't Let Me Down, great Let It Be outtake
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB9tqgdCt5I

The Ballad of John and Yoko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY-ftTvsC7M

And this oddity, You Know My Name...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DkaRUtp3w8

One of my favorite George songs, a real deep cut. Epic bassline in the chorus too...Old Brown Shoe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x0FUZgbtHc

@Bubbly,

Yeah I knew I was forgetting several. Thanks!

I Feel Fine is awesome!

All of the other stuff is on Past Masters.

He saw Pete Townshend had said it was one of the grittiest sounding songs ever written...so Paul said "f*** that" and then Helter Skelter.

‍

Holy sh*t...he rocked the hell out of that

I've never liked the "comin' down, comin' down, comin' down fast" bit, and the group plays a few seconds more of the music before the verses kick in, and the OCD in me finds that annoying as hell.  ;D

That's pretty damn impressive; that and the fact that Please Please Me was recorded in one day. I re-listened to it and my opinions have changed. Not their strongest by far, but the foundation was already there. I also take back what I said about the vocals as well.

 I'd actually heard 'Ive Just seen a Face' before but didn't know it was the Beatles. I thought it was Paul Simon when I heard it some time back! :lol  For the Lennon side, 'No Reply' followed by 'I'm A Loser' is also a great one-two punch. That's what I'm loving...there are so many great moments, and they come in pairs.

I still am not the biggest fan of 'Mr Moonlight', but the worst song award now  has to go to 'Flying'. I'm on the fence with 'Octopus' Garden' as well.

Will be sure and check out those videos. I did a separate 'acquisition'  of the singles, so I have them too.


Yeah, but that riff is meaner than a rottweiler on bath salts, so I kick for it.

You'll also "get" Let It Be, but it'll take time. It took me years. Having a few Get Back sessions boots to put things into context kind of helps.  8)

I'm going to check out Let it Be Naked too.

By the way...your signature is ace ^_^

Wow. I've been a Beatles fan all my life, and I never realized that I've Just Seen A Face at times sounds quite a lot like Simon and Garfunkel or/and Paul Simon.

Mind. Blown.  :o

It'll be more ace when I include a link to a song from your album, to promote it for you.  8) With your permission, of course.

Yeah...I once downloaded a whole bunch of Simon and Garfunkel tracks expecting to find it. Gave up, then, well...yeah.

That opening is killer, too.


Of course!  I wish I could take credit for that quote...I 'borrowed' it from by dear friend Mike Wright, who is not only a professional wrestler but also a damned fine video game writer.

I've Just Seen A Face is one of those songs that I kept hearing  before I knew it was The Beatles, specifically the "falling, yes I am falling" part. Same goes for Hey Jude. I actually thought that Fool On The Hill was a solo Paul McCartney song. I kept hearing and seeing him play it on an early 1990's tv concert special, and didn't know it was a Beatles song until I saw the Magical Mystery Tour movie.  ;D

I am a sucker for Beatles "scratch vocals".  I love the scratch vocal on the Anthology version of Sgt. Pepper's LHCB (reprise).

I prefer Let It Be... Naked to the official release. Sequencing is much better and it feels much more cohesive to me as an album.

Definitely give "Don't Let Me Down" a listen on the Let It Be Naked album.  THAT performance is amazing!

Plus the other live rooftop tracks, I've Got A Feeling and One After 909 sound really hot!

Yeah... it's one of those things where if you don't get it, you're not going to.  All of their albums are pretty damn good, I don't understand how anybody would need somebody to tell them which songs they should listen to when it's generally accepted that almost all of them are great. 

Once you've told us you don't like Mr. Moonlight, I don't really know where to go from there. 


It's like saying "I've heard Picasso is a good painter... but I don't like how everybody says that.  Can you tell me which of his paintings I should look at that I might like?"

It's art, if you don't like it you just don't like it.  I find the beatles to be one of the most exciting, creative, beautiful bands I've ever heard.  I wish you did!

Try reading the whole thread next time. This one entirely disproves your argument.

Eh I can't say that I agree.  To me "Let It Be...Naked" is just another chapter in the ongoing saga that is lets make something of value out of the "Let It Be" recordings.  Truth be told, there isn't a compilation of the "Let It Be" recordings that isn't flawed in some way and that is unfortunate because there are some great songs on that record.  As I mentioned previously "Let It Be" was the one Beatles record that it was painfully obvious that The Beatles themselves wanted nothing to do with and it shows in the various different configurations of the record we've gotten since 1969.

Glyn Johns' "Get Back" mixes are probably the most accurate representation of the songs themselves but he also made some abysmal choices in selecting early unfinished takes of songs over more polished versions from later on in the project.  Phil Spector's mix is what John Lennon once equated it to which was Spector's attempt to salvage something out of some of the most uninspired music ever committed to tape.  Unfortunately as is sometimes the case with Spector his production was far too heavy handed and did little good other than to slather on a coat of gloss onto Glyn Johns' "Get Back" mixes.  Spector should be commended for one thing though that unlike Glyn Johns, he did make copious use of the final two days of the "Let It Be" project which resulted in the bulk of high quality material from the sessions.

"Let It Be...Naked"?  Well to say it isn't held in high regard by Beatleologists would be an understatement.  The problem is in the concept: Someone evidently thought that by removing Spector's gloss job that alone would make "Let It Be" a better album.  The problem is even after you removed the gloss you are still left with the same basic tracks which with the exception of the ballads ("Across The Universe", "The Long And Winding Road" and "Let It Be") don't sound all that different from their Spectorized counterparts.  I understand that "Let It Be...Naked" actually featured some alternate versions and this too is a sticking point.  What is the point of presenting a stripped down version of a record when you don't make use of the masters on the original LP?  "The Long And Winding Road", "I've Got A Feeling" and "Don't Let Me Down" are all alternate versions and I believe that "Don't Let Me Down" and "I've Got A Feeling" are EMI sanctioned forgeries cobbling together two rooftop performances per song in order to create a new facsimile.  

As someone else mentioned up the chain perhaps the best way to enjoy or at least understand "Let It Be" is to get your hands on some boots and hearing the debauchery for yourself.  The Twickenham Sessions are essential listening for any Beatles fan as they not only provide insight as to why the band imploded but also demonstrate that even the most competent and talented musicians can sound downright amateurish when their heart isn't into the music they are playing.  That aside there are some versions of "Get Back" and "I've Got A Feeling" that were captured by the Nagras that absolutely blow the versions on "Let It Be" out of the water.  They will probably never see official release as despite the thirty minute "Fly On The Wall" disc, it's quite evident that the Nagra recordings aren't what the parties in question consider to be of releasable standard.  

Who the f*** are you?  He said "what's a good beatles song"  I said "they're all good".

I dont' need to read the entire thread to say that.  Try staying the f*** out of my conversation next time, I wasn't talking to you.

Ron, what he was referring to the fact that after listening to every album in order, my opinion has changed to the point where I'm now obsessing over the music. I'm a fan now. That's what he meant. Actually sitting down and listening to every thing all the way through, without prejudice or distraction, make a huge impression on me. I have since admitted that my initial opinion was extremely faulty. There wasn't a need to respond like that.

In any case, thanks again for everyone here who pointed me in the right direction.

Man, some people have had some pretty short fuses these past days...

Or no fuse at all.  ::)

Billy, I agree with what others here have said about Let it Be...Naked. I would avoid it until you've listened to all of their albums, and some of the boots. I've read that the version of Don't Let Me Down has elements from up to three different versions.

Yikes. Okay, I gotta hunt down get back and fast. Just got the anthology series. Man I wish I would've watched the anthology on TV.

I watched the Anthology on tv when it came on, and remember it well. At the very end of each episode, they had a count down to the premiere of the "reunion" songs. The final ten seconds of the count down were the longest of my life.  ;D It felt like an hour.  :lol Just so you know, when the anthology was released on vhs and then later dvd, there was a lot more than what was shown on tv.

Look for the "Glyn Johns mix" of the unreleased Get Back album. Actually, there were two mixes that Glyn Johns did. I only have one of them, and i'm not really sure about the difference between the two. I think each had a different track list. These were the initial compilations of material from the Get Back sessions that were rejected. The project was more or less given up on until Phil Spector "rescued" it a year later. When Let It Be came out in 1970, the group was already over, and I don't think anybody really cared all that much one way or the other.

How were the "reunion" cuts received when they were first released? I imagine most people were going crazy for them...

Does anybody still listen to those songs? They seem more like something you listen to once or twice out of intrigue and then kinda forget about (which I did, until just know  ;D)

I swear to God I remember one of the songs being a number 1 hit, but looking back at the charts from the time indicates otherwise. I've always really like Free As A Bird. I didn't really like Real Love at first, but it's grown on me. Hearing them sing in harmony again is kind of an emotional thing(for me at least). I can't really understand why these songs aren't really accepted or thought of as Beatles songs. They have yet to be included in any kind of "best of" compilation, which in my opinion sucks. I mean, John, Paul, AND George all sang a line in Free As A Bird, so it feels more like an authentic Beatles song than Real Love(which still has some kick ass Beatles harmony vocals).

"I've Just Punched a Face" seems to be going through something similar that I did last year regarding the Beach Boys - the exception being, I never really disliked the BB's for any particular reason, I just didn't pay much attention to them and didn't have any strong feelings about them, either yeah or nay. Even the Pet Sounds I had bought several years earlier was just "OK." However, in spring of last year I started getting into Good Vibrations, then read somewhere that it was originally supposed to be on an album called Smile, which was never released, except that the recording sessions had just been released several months prior. So on a whim I bought TSS, got hooked, and then started buying every BB album I reading everything I could about them. "I've Just Punched a Face" seems to be about where I was in maybe June of last year. I predict by early next year the novelty will wear off and he'll just regard the band as one of his favorites, but cease obsessing over them. ;)

It's kinda fun "discovering" something that lots of people liked but you always scratched your head over, until you finally check it out and "get" it. After some while of checking out their stuff and reading all you can about them, you've absorbed most of what you're reasonably going to absorb, and the initial obsession wears off. Then you don't listen to the music as often - which can actually be nice because on the occasion you do listen to it, it's a bit "fresh." There's a few Beatles albums I've been deliberately avoiding for about a year just so that I don't get tired of them.

Lately I've been going on a bit of an Animal Collective "thing." But their repertoire I find palatable is a bit limited to date, so after just a little more than a month I think I'm starting to run against a wall.

Oh hell  yeah...that's where the fun is. I'm excited about how much there is for me to discover. It's downright eargasmic. Yeah, I just came up with that, all by my lonesome :lol  But seriously, I feel like a big musical void in my life has now been filled. I've been through the Beach Boys catalogue, released and unreleased, booted and (extremely rarely) unbooted, and it feels good to hear something were an entire world basically awaits me.

Now I need to get you listening to The Who and Jimi Hendrix.  ;D

They weren't received very well from memory.  "Real Love" was actually banned by the BBC for some reason which I can't recall which resulted in massive "Beatlephobia" press.  All these years later while I appreciate the sentiment of Paul, George and Ringo wanting to include John Lennon in the project, the quality of John Lennon's home demos along with the rather limited technology available at the time made for some uneven recordings.  John Lennon sounds like his vocals on "Free As A Bird" and "Real Love" have been pumped full of helium which was the major complaint a lot of fans and critics had at the time and still do to this day.  It also didn't help that the original Lennon demos of the reunion tracks had already been heard via the LLT and the untouched demos are actually quite beautiful (especially "Real Love" which in it's demo form has a haunting quality to it that does not translate to the "Anthology" track)

Jeff Lynne did an interview last year where he mentioned I believe that the chance for any future reunion tracks from The Beatles is slim to none.  For those unaware there is actually a third (and possibly fourth) reunion track that has yet to be heard.  The track that could possibly see completion at some point in the future is "Now And Then" (aka "I Don't Want To Lose You") which is another Lennon demo actually recorded in the same sitting as "Free As A Bird".  "Now And Then" was the second song that Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr worked on in 1994 but the technology available to them at the time did not allow for a tape hum present on Lennon's original demo to be removed.  Although the trio did return to the song a year later allegedly completing a new backing track for it, it was ultimately abandoned.  For what it's worth the tape hum issue was eventually rectified several years later so that would no longer be a issue should Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr wish to return to the track someday.

The fourth reunion track is perhaps the most mysterious and may have actually been the better option available to Paul, George and Ringo instead of trying to resuscitate John Lennon's demos.  The original plan for the "Anthology" was for the trio to record some incidental music for the film but once they got into the studio they weren't keen on that and instead hit upon the idea of recording some new music.  This is when the idea was proposed for McCartney to approach Yoko Ono to see if they could procure some John Lennon demo tapes.  However in 1995, the trio actually attempted something which in my opinion should have been the crux of the entire "Anthology" project all along and that was they actually recorded a brand new song of their own.  This track allegedly a McCartney-Harrison composition entitled "All For Love" was recorded around the time of the completion of "Real Love" but failed to appear on "Anthology 3".  It's been suspected that the track is either unfinished or one member of the trio (many presume to be George Harrison) was not keen on releasing a Beatles track to the public with no John Lennon involvement.

One final footnote.  In June of 1994, McCartney, Harrison and Starr gathered at Friar Park to record a new version of "Let It Be".  It is suspected that this didn't get very far allegedly because both the somberness of the tune and absence of John Lennon weighed too heavy on all hearts involved.  Instead of resulting in a new version of "Let It Be", this session gave birth unto the oldies jamming session that can be seen on the "Anthology" DVD set although one track from this session ("Blue Moon Of Kentucky") was broadcast on ABC as early as 1995 I believe.

Tradition?  ;D

I would quite literally give my left nut to be able to hear All For Love, unfinished or not.

No....not the left one!!!

:lol

Speaking of left ...

Y'know what I always wanted to know? When did Paul get his first left-handed guitar.

Great segue! I do remember something I read a LONG time ago...might have been in the Chet Flippo bio of Paul.

Well, the right one is the biggest so....

























































































What, to much info?  ;D

:lol

Seriously though Billy, have you checked out Free As A Bird and Real Love? Thoughts? Somebody on YouTube posted a "speed corrected" version of the "Beatles" version of Real Love, and it almost makes me dislike the released version. I didn't realize just how much John's original demo(and therefore, his voice) was sped up.

Back in 1995 I heard them and liked Real Love more. Its funny... my wife reminded me that I wrote the reviews of the Anthology CDs for the school paper (we've known each othcker since 1989) and that I was just starting to get into them until I discovered the Beach Boys. I found it in a box in my attic. I should do a scan....I was a pretentious yet sarcastic guy back then. Still am the latter. Huh...I barely remember that.

I did a project for school where I wrote about the decade of 1960 to 1970. It ended up being several pages long, going as far as having a bibliography in the back, and even a front cover.  ;D

I'm not sure if this is allowed, but here's one of the Get Back album mixes by Glyn Johns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yZig-VAcaU

There is always something interesting to be found in revisiting and relistening to something like Free As A Bird or Real Love. My listening tastes have changed through the years, anymore I can't help but to listen for the hooks of anything new I hear, no matter the style or the artist. If it doesn't grab my attention in some way, even in the overall groove of a track minus the individual elements, I don't latch on immediately.

Short attention span? I don't know. Maybe I just don't have as much patience as I did when I was younger. But I like songs that jump out of the speakers in some way.

Revisiting Free As A Bird and Real Love, I think they have actually aged better than expected. A lot of folks needed to remove the novelty factor from the songs, get over the issues around them, and just listen to what's in those grooves. They are good records, good hooks, the songs are good songs...

...I will say Real Love has a better studio groove than Free As A Bird. I know *why* they went with "Bird" first, as the lead-off on Anthology 1 and with the countdown schtick and all that, but Real Love has just a bit of an edge. Maybe the faster tempo? Less dirge-like? Again, I know why they went the way they did.

Now onto the main point...*emphasis*

There was an interview with Geoff Emerick in one of the studio recording magazines a few years ago. He, of course, was brought back into the group to engineer the "new" tracks as well as sift through all the tapes for Anthology, as many people feel it was that magic of him being 20-22 years old with a willingness to experiment that lined up perfectly with the direction the Beatles were going in 1966 when they joined forces.

What he said about Free As A Bird was a game-changer, and to be honest I choke up if not get a tear running down my face whenever I listen to what he zeroed in on from that song. Real Love too, but to a much lesser degree.

George Harrison's guitar.

On Free As A Bird, George plays some of the most intense, emotional, and vocal lead guitar I think he's ever played, bar none. He's at the same time crying, screaming, talking, laughing, and everything in between with the way he plays those notes. It's incredible.

And I had not noticed that or picked up on the raw emotion of what George played until someone intimately involved like Emerick mentioned it in a public interview.

Listen to George's lead guitar on Free As A Bird, but with the mindset that Emerick suggests, that it was George speaking to John, perhaps as he said a "thank you" to an old friend, or as I'd add someone basically pouring everything that made their style their own onto a track - not knowing they wouldn't be around for more than a few years after this, but wanting to sum up a life of music by putting their best on display for the ages, in the company of the group of folks (minus one) that was there back in the glory days.

There is always something beautiful if not essential to be found if you take the time to find it, in many a song like Free As A Bird.

That's why it does sort of bug me, just a bit, to still hear the carping about Lennon's voice or the other sonic things folks have had issues with for years...for me, that guitar work alone is worth the price of admission, and I'd challenge anyone willing to revisit the song to spend some time with it and pick out the hidden gems in that track. And Real Love, which I feel has some terrific drumming that only a few folks can do right, and correctly, yet every drummer seems to think they can because it's so "basic"...oh yeah? Try it!  ;D

I think the Reunion Sessions themselves are far more interesting than the two songs they produced if that makes any sense.  Much like guitarfool mentioned, I feel that with a band such as The Beatles who performed at such a high standard throughout their career, that you can look at any song you wish in their catalog and pick out something worthwhile about that particular song.  It doesn't necessarily mean that some songs aren't better or weaker than others.  I'm going to be honest.  In my opinion "Free As A Bird" is a mediocre Lennon song.  It's something that he fiddled with for all of ten minutes on tape at least back in 1977 and to our knowledge never returned to it.  It does have a melancholy haunting feel to it but then again that could be said for much of Lennon's work during the househusband years as he was certainly going through a very reflective period of his life and that was borne out in his writing.

I think McCartney, Harrison and Starr did the best they could do with what they were handed.  Of the four tracks they were given, "Real Love" was the most complete and that is why in my opinion it's the better song of the two that were released.  I'll get back to this in a moment, but first I want to touch on the rumors that have existed basically since the "Anthology" project became known to the public back in the early nineties and that was that George Harrison wasn't necessarily a willing participant in the sessions.  Paul McCartney had been talking up a potential "Beatles reunion" project since the mid eighties and at that point was actually enthusing about working on new music with Harrison and Starr.  However, George Harrison was consistently lukewarm to the idea of a potential reunion claiming among other things that McCartney was only name dropping the phrase "Beatles reunion" in order to help market his latest LP (which I believe at that time was "Flowers In The Dirt").  He also later made the statement that he would much rather continue working with The Traveling Wilburys than reunite with McCartney.

As the story goes, at some point in the early nineties, George Harrison suffered some financial reversals.  I'm not sure if this was fallout from the disaster that was Handmade Films or not but as the rumor goes, Harrison lost a lot of his fortune.  He was subsequently informed that a easy way to recoup some of his losses (i.e. cash grab) would be the proposed "Anthology" project that was being bandied about at the time.  Therefore, if you believe this version of the story the main impetus for George Harrison even participating in the "Anthology" project was for financial gain not necessarily due to any desire to record once again with McCartney.

So that being said, that all ties in very well with the reports that we've gotten back regarding The Reunion Sessions including the mixing of the "Anthology" albums themselves.  The reports basically state that Harrison was often the voice of dissent when it came to many different aspects of the project from vetoing tracks off the album, to griping with McCartney during The Reunion Sessions themselves and finally calling the entire shebang off after the completion of "Real Love" when both McCartney and Starr wanted to continue on with more reunion activities.   In fact there was a quote from McCartney from around the time of the release of "Flaming Pie" where he mentions that while he was able to get Ringo Starr around for a couple of sessions, Harrison made himself unavailable to him to the point where Macca couldn't even get in touch with him.

So forgive me if I really can't latch onto anything stemming from The Reunion Sessions with any emotional depth.  The songs just don't do it for me and as I mentioned the demo of "Real Love" specifically packs a heck of a lot more emotional punch than the "Anthology" version.  So as I mentioned of the two songs we've heard "Real Love" is in my opinion the better of the two because it is the more complete composition of the two and it is something that Lennon worked on like crazy over the course of five years as opposed to "Free As A Bird" which was forgotten after one sitting.  Oddly enough there are some Beatles scribes who believe that "Now And Then" (again a one and done performance but significantly more developed than "Free As A Bird") might have been the best song of the lot.  Unlike the other two songs, "Now And Then" wouldn't have been able to be turned into a Beatles celebration piece and instead would have been a somber, reflective piece in the vein of McCartney's "Here Today" with the ability to stir strong emotions from the listener given the events that had befallen the song's author.  

It's always been a possibility in my mind that this is the reason why we've yet to hear "Now And Then" released in any form that despite the fact it's one of Lennon's strongest unreleased works, it's just too damn sad considering the events of 12-8-80.

That was a great post. I've always loved George Harrison's guitar work in Free As A Bird. That was one of the things that first caught my ear when I heard it and Real Love. I think I might now have a new appreciation or respect for it now(even though I loved it to begin with). Although I do agree with JohnMill about the reunion tracks being very emotional and somewhat tough to listen to. The fact that George may have only accepted being involved with the "reunion" because of financial issues kind of puts an overall bittersweet feeling to it, but...just listen to them doing the harmony vocals at the end. So it's not all four of them singing in 1995, and they're singing with a pre recorded performance from John. But it's still all four of them singing together again, along with some of the best guitar playing George ever out on tape, with the ever present and loyal Ringo Starr back beat.

Question for you long time fans...if you had to choose, which period to you end up gravitating to the most? So far for me, I like each era very much for different reasons (how many other  bands could have several different periods within a span of 7 years) but right now I find myself really digging some of the earlier work especially so right now.

I will always gravitate towards the early period because that's where you can find the sheer enthusiasm and excitement that isn't really there for me in the later records. It's all good, though, mostly.

(edit: I find it kind of funny that you're just getting into The Beatles now, being a hardcore music fan for such a longtime - but ultimately it's great, you're getting to discover this stuff that most people have held near and dear to their hearts for a long long time. To listen to some of the Beatles music with absolutely fresh ears - that's something, man)

I'm listening to the early 'One After 909' right now...God...they were so much more vital than so much of what their contemporaries were doing. I see what you mean about the enthusiasm...it is so damn contagious. I wish I could play guitar and sing songs like I'm hearing right now...'All My Loving' just came on.  Love the groove, man.

Yet, when I hear things like 'Strawberry Fields Forever'...I'm really  hearing a mix of psychedelia and (in) spots proto-trip hop and Iwonder...how can anybody top this? Or 'Penny Lane', for that matter. No wonder Brian scrapped Smile...it certainly would've been awesome but if I'd heard those two songs back then I'd sh*t myself. Sometimes listening to stuff like that and 'Paperback Writer' is intimidating as f***!

The Beach Boys gave birth unto "Paperback Writer", at least the vocal arrangements.  George Harrison speaks about it a bit in the "Anthology" about how The Beatles had to change their sound a bit vocally in order to compete with The Beach Boys citing "Paperback Writer" as an example of the shift in terms of vocal arrangements.  So yeah for the record: The Beach Boys were one of the only (if not the only) act to really challenge The Beatles enough to the point where they actually chose to alter their sound a bit.

Anyhow in response to your original question.  "White Album", "Let It Be", "Abbey Road".  To me that is the period I gravitate to.

That's the incredible thing... the two IMHO greatest rock bands of all time were pushing each other to new heights, and us the listeners were the winners. Can you imagine, though, if Brian hadn't broke down, what he possibly could've done in response to Sgt Pepper? Or, what the Beatles would've done in response to Smile?! It's mind-boggling.

Good album choices John (of course, they're all good :lol )...as of right now, the White Album might be my second favorite after Revolver.

Interesting that through the 70's Lennon would slag off Dylan, The Rolling Stones, and pretty much anyone else. But I can't recall one quote of him slagging off Brian or The Beach Boys.

I don't think John was really into The Beach Boys in the same way Paul was. He did express interest in "The Little Girl..." single and of course probably did keep up with them during that time, but it doesn't seem they really motivated John to make more exploratory music....John was moved in that direction by drugs more than anything else, I'd estimate.

I think you're right on that.

Right now I'm heavily into the 1969 Get Back period, but that might be because of a recent purchase of a 17 disc box set of the sessions.  ;D But on the whole, I'd much rather hear anything from 1966 and on, as apposed to their earlier period(which was awesome in itself, don't get me wrong). Since you really like the "White Album", here's the unreleased complete version of Sexy Sadie(one of my favorite Beatles songs). I won't tell you what's different about it...I'll let you figure it out. The first time I heard it, I didn't know anything about an unreleased "complete" version. Needless to say, when I figured it out it was one of those "Holy sh*t!" moments.  ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oifQ8syuy4s

I love it all but especially the mid-period - everything from Ticket to Ride to Penny Lane is a really exciting period. But, yes, as far as albums go it's Revolver followed by White Album for me too, though Rubber Soul is following close behind.

Was John Lennon influenced by The Beach Boys? Maybe a bit though probably not to the extent as Paul and even then I do think that the cross-pollination has been exaggerated a bit by both sides. You can hear Lennon's influences fairly clearly, whether it was 50s rock and roll, or Motown, or Whiter Shade of Pale, or Bob Dylan, or The Byrds, it's there.

My point wasn't that John was influenced by the Beach boys. My point was that he seemed to place them on level of respect that he didn't seem to place other Contemporaries.

Because he didn't slag them off? I don't think that tells us much. I think it suggests more that they simply weren't significant enough to him to mention.

I recall a press conference in 1966 when they are asked their favourite American group and Lennon quickly rattles off, "Byrds, Spoonful, Mamas and Papas" while Paul chimes in with "Beach Boys" which Lennon doesn't acknowledge.

Well, Billy, I'd like to formally welcome you into the ranks of Beatles fandom.

To start you off, here's something everyone has to experience at some point: http://www.truthcontest.com/entries/the-present-universal-truth/beatles.html

Also, Paul or John?

john, no contest.

I lean more towards Paul, but more because I prefer his solo work to John's. As far as the music from the Beatles is concerned, I can't really say because they played off each other perfectly . I don't think I can really choose! I used to think Paul was just some sappy (but talented) guy, but hearing stuff like Helter Skelter fixed me of that.

You won't think of Paul in the same way after hearing this! Especially the last minute or so.  ;D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMku3xatgAU

I see Paul more as an experimenter than John. John always seemed to want to be "cool" and "edgy" but Paul allowed himself to write weird genre experiments like Honey Pie, etc. and record homespun albums like Ram, etc.

That said, I idolized John to a much greater extent than Paul during younger years...  It's just the popular consensus that John was "cooler" (whatever that means)

Same here...I didn't realize Paul was and indeed still is.

Jay- thanks for posting that! Paul seems like a really cool guy in addition to being talented as hell.

Paul McCartney has actually recorded and released a few "experimental" albums as part of a band called The Fireman, I believe. I haven't really looked into them to closely, but I think he's tried some techno inspired stuff. Then there is "oobu joobu", which is a fun journey in itself.  ;D Did you catch some of the links I posted earlier in this thread? They may have been pushed back a page or two.

Oh yeah...I've checked out every link in this thread...found some great stuff there (thanks again, everybody!)

I knew about his techno project...another reason why Paul is badass.

Paul has some pretty cool unreleased stuff himself. Here's one of my favorite songs he ever recorded, but never released. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDzhSFibucM

Here's the original politically incorrect and not very family friendly version of Get Back. This makes Helter Skelter sound like She Loves You, as far as pure punk attitude goes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEYVOrPRbkw

Holy hell...even when fucking around they are freaking dynamic.

Ha;f expected to hear 'Let's Go mo'fos!'. The instrumental track is badass as well. Just awesome *)

For me musically it's pretty much been Paul McCartney for the past decade or so.  It hasn't always been that way as I definitely went through a John Lennon phase at one point.  However, Paul McCartney has obviously had the longest career of the four with the most musical output.  He also had a flat out amazing band in the seventies called "Wings" which unfortunately will always be obscured due to the fact that most of the general public merely sees them as the backing band for McCartney's seventies output.  But Denny Laine and Jimmy McCulloch were great musicians and until you really get into the "Wings" material you don't realize how superior that band was to every other group of musicians Macca has had touring behind him since. 

As has been brought up in this thread McCartney's output is certainly the most varied of any of The Beatles.  He has collections of experimental music, classical music and has dabbled in almost every genre of music there is (well with the obvious exceptions of rap and other niche forms of music).  Heck he even most recently ventured into "The Great American Songbook" as it were with "Kisses On The Bottom". 

As for John Lennon's solo career: The decade of the seventies certainly brought about some revelations in terms of truly high quality John Lennon music.  Most Beatles fans consider "John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band" a masterpiece and the album the scores of musicians during the grunge movement were trying to make but never quite could.  Quite frankly it's a fantastic album as is it's successor "Imagine".  "Double Fantasy" is also a solid record although somewhat eclipsed in my opinion by the posthumous and hard rocking "Milk And Honey".  The rest of John Lennon's catalog ebbs and flows.  There are some gold bars to be found but also a lot of material which would've easily been elbowed off any Beatles record at the insistence either Paul McCartney or George Martin.  To be fair you can also say the same thing about a number of tracks from Macca's seventies output (namely almost the entire "Wild Life" album).  One thing you do come to appreciate when listening to either John Lennon or Paul McCartney's solo output is what great filters these men were for each other in the sixties.  Both men were capable of writing some great music without the input or review of the other but the absence of John Lennon in Paul McCartney's life in the seventies (and obviously vice versa) allowed a fair share of sub-par material onto their respective solo albums.

I would be remiss at this point not to mention George Harrison who not only is the Beatle I identify with most personally but also in my opinion has the best solo album of them all: All Things Must Pass.  Although to say George Harrison's solo career was uneven would be an understatement, his highs were about as good as anything his two "former ex-wives" ever put out.  I'll always consider Roy Orbison's loss not only a great loss in terms of losing a legend in the world of music but unfortunate in the sense that I believe that "The Traveling Wilburys" were about to do some really great things together including forming their own record label.  As Jeff Lynne once put it "We were feeling so great, had this great band, were going to make tons of records and then Roy died".  Those five guys had a dynamic and synergy that was of a Beatleesque nature.  Just five guys who enjoyed the heck of being around each other, legitimately enjoyed playing on each others records and making music together and it's a shame that Roy Orbison was taken so unexpectedly.  Anyhow George Harrison's solo career is certainly one that is deserving of further exploration by any music fan.  Check out 33 & 1/3 and tell me that "Beautiful Girl" wouldn't have been a major hit for The Beatles if it had been included on one of their later albums?  Quite frankly an amazing song by an amazing man and musician.

He was obviously aware of them.  Whether they influenced his music or not is another debate entirely.  Again John Lennon wasn't all that much into production.  He loved straight forward rock and roll and for all of his experimentation with tracks like "Tomorrow Never Knows", "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "A Day In The Life" at heart never ventured much from the fifties rock and roll he grew up with.  His idolization of Chuck Berry was perhaps second to none and he also loved a great deal of Motown music and stuff in that vein.  Dylan no doubt was an influence although as other people mentioned his tolerance for artists like Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan and others began to wane as the years went along. 

Of course one of the saddest aspects of any discussion of John Lennon is where his music would've went had the events of 12-8-80 not occurred.  We know that during his trip to Bermuda with Sean in 1980, Lennon became heavily influenced by the music of Bob Marley and tracks such as "Borrowed Time" and "Beautiful Boy" certainly were influenced by the music that Lennon was listening to at the time.  He was also beginning to occasionally frequent nightclubs at the time and getting exposed to records by acts such as the B-52s.  He also had kind words for Bruce Springsteen's latest record (which would've been "The River") and mentioned that he wished that he had made "Double Fantasy" more rocking like Springsteen's record.  Four years later, "Milk & Honey" would prove to be that rocking record but sadly Lennon wasn't around to see that come to fruition.  He was also writing some fantastic ballads at the time quite possibly some of the best work he had done since the sixties or at least the early seventies with songs like "Real Love" and "Grow Old With Me".  As I mentioned up the chain, "Now And Then" was solid as well although obviously unfinished.  In fact the argument can be made that a lot of Lennon's home demos as aired on the LLT and some found on the "Lennon Anthology" are as fascinating (if not more so) than a lot of their finished works that resulted from them. 

So back to The Beach Boys for a moment, with Sean Lennon being such a fan I wonder if John Lennon had lived, if his son would've eventually gotten him into The Beach Boys in a big way?  Then again Sean like most youngsters of his generation was a huge Michael Jackson fan growing up so...ugh I don't even want to think about that.  The Macca-Jacko experiment was enough for me.

Yeah it's truly unfortunate how watered down "Get Back" and to a lesser extent "I've Got A Feeling" became once the band moved the entire shebang to the Apple basement.  I mean even "Two Of Us" rocked during the Twickenham phase of the project.  Now understandably in order to get these songs up to commercial, releasable standard they had to cast them in the best light (i.e. "Two Of Us" becoming acoustic) but with the possible exception of the final rooftop performance of "Get Back", the song seemed to have lost a great deal of it's luster as the sessions progressed. 

By the way if anyone wants to check out the song that in more ways than one probably inspired "Get Back", check out Jackie Lomax's "Sour Milk Sea" written by none other than George Harrison with every Beatle except John Lennon adding their talents to the backing track.  Quite frankly a fantastic record and one of the ones The Beatles let get away. 

I always really liked the electric version of Two Of Us. It would have been a welcome inclusion on the Anthology tracks, and probably would have been one of the more interesting tracks on the Vol. 3 set, along with "Wake Up In The Morning"(or Because I Know You Love Me So, as it's sometimes refered to). That being said, the acoustic version as seen and heard in the Let It Be movie is probably the definitive version of the song.

I wanted to comment on the issue of "Free As A Bird", with George Harrison's guitar contribution and a few replies to my earlier post about George's involvement being shaded by his not wanting to be there for the events themselves as much as doing it for the money.

With something like a musical performance, is it as important to base an opinion on what we can listen to and feel a certain way based on what that person did or didn't do leading up to the actual moment where the performance happened, or is it more a case of taking what we each choose to take and feel from that performance itself?

My perceptions on that track were altered significantly by reading what Geoff Emerick had to say about George's guitar on Free As A Bird. He didn't go into that area in his book, yet it was a key point in that magazine interview, that there was a lot of emotion seemingly pouring out of George's guitar during those solos and fills.

So there is Emerick who engineered those sessions, he sat in the same room as George as he played those parts, he set up and dialed in George's sound in the control room, then later mixed it - and he was there basically the whole time watching it.

Now the backstory is that Emerick's book took some heat because of a few harsh observations he had about George in the studio back in the Beatle days. He and George never hit it off personally, and that may shade some of it. Emerick was much closer to and remained close with Paul personally and professionally up to the present, naturally some of that also shades his commentary. But when George did really rise to the occasion and the challenge and do something great, Geoff mentioned that too. So it wasn't all one-sided.

And when someone who had specifically pointed out those sessions where any of the Beatles was in the studio "going through the motions", or seemingly not being intently interested in contributing to what was going on beyond doing a job that day or looking for the payout to come, when he keyed in on something George played on Free As A Bird, it was a genuine expression of emotion that at least Emerick picked up on, remembering Emerick was sitting a few feet away from George as that song unfolded in the studio and saw what was going on in that room, besides controlling those sounds as the head engineer for the project.

I'd focus just as much attention on that as the perhaps negative spin on the whole proceeding being suggested by mentioning George was there for the money, he needed the money, he didn't want to work with Paul but for the payout to come, all of those. They are facets of the story, but would they serve to overshadow the enjoyment of or judgement of the tracks which resulted from those sessions?

If we put all of the backstory of the days leading up to what eventually became a legendary or a moving musical performance, and if there is a negative behind it, it may enhance the story of how it came to be but it shouldn't overshadow the enjoyment or perception of the musical moment itself.

Ultimately we don't know his mindset as he tracked that guitar part for Free As A Bird, and unlike Emerick we were not sitting next to George that day pressing the record button as he played it, so part of my newly found appreciation and emotion behind listening to that guitar work comes from the part itself and the words of the guy who was second only to George that day in making that part happen as we can hear it on the recording today.

Even though I've listened to it a zillion times, today I listened to Julia and for the first time ever, noticed that they double-track John's voice (and I think his guitar, too) starting when the refrain begins. I think there's even a section where they start triple or quadruple-tracking.

Odd how you can listen to something a thousand times, but not notice something until listen #1001.

This is one of the nerdiest Beatles websites I've encountered:
http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/AWP/awp-beatles_canon.shtml

Got my daughter into the Beatles now like I did with her and the Beach Boys last year. I asked her which she likes better. She said she likes the a bit more but both are 'the best singers ever'

You're kinda leaving me on a cliffhanger with the "she likes the [blank space] a bit more."

I think he did it on purpose.  ;D

:lol

Was typing from my phone...she likes the Beach Boys a bit better, but is digging both.

By the way...she thought 'Helter Skelter' was 'pretty cool' but thought it was Audioslave at first :lol

Your daughter is lucky to have such a musical education, and coming from a great teacher.  :)

When she was three we went to go visit my aunt in the retirement home. There was a piano in the lobby. We sat her down at the bench cause I figured it would make a great picture. She started trying to play chords rather than bang away randomly. On her sixth birthday last month a made a down payment on a keyboard for her and I've been teaching her drum programming... she's a very quick learner.

For the record...her favorite Beatles songs right now are If I Fell and Strawberry Fields Forever.

Forgive me for interrupting such a great conversation, but I'd like to join in by listing the top songs on each core Beatles record, just for fun:

1. Please Please Me - Twist and Shout (awesome cover! Beats the Isley Brothers' version easily!)
2. With the Beatles - Little Child (I'd go with Money but The RS version is so much better, Mick really rocks there)
3. A Hard Day's Night - either I Should Have Known Better or Things We Said Today, can't decide. (btw, I think the cover art of the album is one of the best by any artist)
4. Beatles for Sale - What You're Doing. Such a beautiful singing by Paul!
5. Help! - Tell Me What You See, hands down. It's my all-time fave Beatles song! (if we talk about the North American release, then it's the title track)
6. Rubber Soul - tough choice between What Goes On (sweet vocs by Ringo) & Norwegian Wood.
7. Revolver - Eur. And Your Bird Can Sing / Amer. Got to Get You Into My Life
8. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - With A Little Help From My Friends. So wonderful & friendly!
9. Magical Mystery Tour - Penny Lane (if you asked me 3 years ago, it'd be "The Fool on the Hill"). Generally, MMT is my favorite ever record by the group & honestly, every song except All You Need Is Love is great here!
10. The White Album - Piggies (lovely benign melody & vocals by George combined with funny pig sounds). Though Helter Skelter is very cool! I'm also a huge fan of Wild Honey Pie - gotta love some quirky stuff with creepy vocs.
11. Yellow Submarine - March of the Meanies. Nifty suspicious orchestration.
12. Abbey Road - Maxwell's Silver Hammer, full stop. Yet... the alternate highlight of the album is Here Comes the Sun, imo George's best achievement within the band. Absolutely stunning song!
13. Let It Be - Get Back. No wonder Paul still performs this rocking number in concerts.

Mind that some of the selections are done in comparison with the other tracks from respective albums & as individual cuts I won't listen to them. Especially Little Child, Twist and Shout & March of the Meanies.

Small note about Billy's daughter: from reading the stories about her, what she likes etc., I think she beats out even our friend EgoHanger. He posted that he's been digging the old music since 3 or 5 y.o. But he never mentioned he tried to play piano chords or drummed at such a young age. So, Jaymie is the coolest music-oriented child!

8)

For me it kind of spoils it yeah.  There is something definitely off about those "Reunion Sessions" perhaps even moreso than anything that went on during The Beach Boys' C50 last year.  It all seems to center around George Harrison too.  I'm not knocking George in any way and in fact could see his point of view but watch the "Anthology" DVD sometime.  He's cranky throughout or at least more times than not.  One of the long standing rumors about George Harrison is that by 1966 he already had his fill of "Beatlemania" and while he could be prone to nostalgia himself ("When We Was Fab") as well as the some backstage footage from his "Dark Horse" tour where he is clearly enjoying the heck out of watching a "Thank Your Lucky Stars" performance of "This Boy", Hari choice to live his life in the present and didn't seem to be much for reminiscing or at least didn't take much pleasure it in. 

Again I think Hari finally found the band he always wanted to be in when "The Traveling Wilburys" got together.  Whenever he spoke of those guys there was palpable joy in his voice that at least I never heard when he reminisced about The Beatles and quite frankly knowing the evolution of George Harrison as both a musician and a person, I can fully understand why. 

JohnMill, that's a great insight.

I got the impression George suffered from "little brother" syndrome within the Beatles, and that goes back to Liverpool when he first became friends with John and Paul. All those stories about the younger George trailing John and Paul on dates, on songwriting sessions, when they were ditching school, and having a whistle which he'd blow to "announce" he was there...to John and Paul's horror especially when they were with some young ladies and wanted to make time, or whatever.

Those are things set in place in the teen years, and I think it was mutual that all sides carried some of those feelings with them throughout adulthood.

The stories of George in the studio with the Beatles suggest he was at times brushed aside, George Martin admits guilt that he never worked as close with George's music at certain times in favor of Lennon-McCartney, and that George working in the studio could be aloof, sarcastic, and at times cantankerous.

Yet when George Harrison was working on something of his own, like the Lomax productions, the Indian-flavored songs where he was the voice of authority and knowledge and the others had to look to him for guidance and assurance, his temperament changed and he almost came alive in a different way.

I think George felt overshadowed, perhaps rightfully so, but having validation or having people look to him for the creative leadership was a major factor in his happiness.

Consider when he took the trip to America, just prior to when the Beatles regrouped for the "Get Back" project. As I always reference, George was hanging around with the likes of Dylan, The Band, any number of very musically progressive artists at that time...and they were all giving him the respect of someone equal to if not surpassing their own musical judgements. He was elevated among that group of peers in the music business to not only an equal but one whose tacit approval *they* sought.

Then he goes back to England, and Paul is telling him how to play guitar on a batch of songs that at some points were as dreary in their delivery as the group's warehouse-like surroundings? Having just come from musical pow-wows with Bob Dylan??? No wonder George openly argued some of that, and eventually packed up and walked. It was Liverpool again, his musical input was marginalized.

Then witness in the glow of his American trip how many songs he wrote which would become both the highlights of Abbey Road and his own All Things Must Pass. It energized him. As he can be heard on a Get Back bootleg, he clearly states how many songs he has, if they don't make a Beatles album he'll say f*** it and release his own record. And he did.

With the Wilburys, remember it was George who put it all together. He was working on songs, called some friends, called more friends, and there was the Wilburys. It was George who got it going, he was the de facto "leader" who pulled them together. No wonder he thrived in that - not only was he an equal, but the band's whole persona was fictional, and he was not "Beatle George", nor was there much interest in asking at that point "Hey George, is Paul going to be involved?". It didn't matter.

JohnMill: I'm sure you know the "Carl Perkins And Friends" cable TV special from around '86, where George, Clapton, Brian Setzer, etc came together to play with Carl Perkins.

Many say George stole the show. His guitar playing was terrific. His knowledge of and reverence for the old Sun records and various rockabilly classics like "That's Alright Mama", including some near-perfect replications of Scotty Moore's guitar parts, was incredible. In the years leading up to that, George as a guitarist was not all that visible. Yet here he comes blowing people off that stage with his guitar work.

I won't forget Brian Setzer's take on that show. I love Setzer's music, he's one of my favorites, let me say before going on. And Setzer's life as a musician has been driven by the rockabilly records he loved, specifically Eddie Cochran and the usual Sun material.

And there's Setzer, who had spent his life chasing those sounds of the old records on his own guitar work, who says he was amazed when George shows up with a Gretsch guitar, plugs in, and gets those EXACT sounds Setzer himself had been obsessively chasing his whole life. I believe he either asked George on the spot or called him later to ask basically how the hell do you get THAT SOUND??? I'd post George's reply if I could remember. But needless to say, George in that situation was in his element, he knew the music and loved it, and he was with people who shared that.

No one told him when to play or not to play that night.  ;D

I'm still not digging the Let it Be album that much, and to be honest I think Abbey Road is great but not as good as its reputation.  In fact, I would go so far to say that I think George was the only one on top of his game during the last two albums. It's pretty interesting to read the above concerning George...he's the one person in the band I know very little about apart from Wikipedia. Not familiar with his solo music, but am interested in learning more.

You might find this version of The Long And Winding Road easier to take in. I love this version, and can't for the life of me figure out why it wasn't released on Let It Be as is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6AuKENgmLQ

Let it Be might sound great on paper (The Beatles working with Phil Spector!,) but it's a pretty weary album. But, I've grown to like it.

Also, if you're interested in George's solo work, his first album, All Things Must Pass, is filled with songs he wrote as a Beatle, but was never able to put on an album. Also, certain versions have a jam section with some pretty notable guests.

It took me years and years, and then some, to "get" Let it Be - then it finally kicked in  :o; wait and see what happens.  I recently chanced upon a '76 Japanese vinyl copy and it sounds grrrreat.

George was on fire from the White Album onwards, imho.  I'm currently rereading the Geoff Emerick book and he relays Harrison as a fairly dour, humourless individual who stuggled to complete with J&P (bar the Indian tunes) until the later period where he grew in confidence and relaxed a bit.

I think the sound of Abbey Road is fantastic, although some of the songs are patchy.  Side 2 is a pretty good run tho'.

Out of the four Beatles, I sometimes think that I like George's solo work the most. Especially the Cloud Nine album.

How is the Emerick book? I'm thinking of buying it. Is it the best as far as analyzing the recording of the music? That's what I'm really interested in.

I do like several of the songs on Let it Be, but the album as a whole isn't up to their previous standards IMHO. It just sounds tired to me...mainly the production is lacking. Again, this is a comparison to their previous work...a 'weak' Beatles album is most other bands' all-time best.

The whole lack of production factor was one of the goals of the Get Back project, from what I understand. The project was the brainchild of Paul, who I think envisioned it as a way for the dying group to get back to their roots. I think a major problem is that The Beatles by then weren't the same group and no longer had the overall passion that they had in their pre fame teenage years, or even the interest in trying that hard anymore. The only one who really put his heart all the way in the project was Paul, and even he seemed to lose interest near the end. The whole thing was kind of DOA by day 1. Kind of like the Smile project, in that there were factors that insured that the sessions  were doomed to fail almost as soon as they began.

Re the Emerick book

IMHO - it gives pretty interesting rundowns of the sessions Emerick was on (especially Revolver Pepper incorporating Penny Lane and StrawberryF, Magical M, most of the Beatles and Abbey Road + post) and provides a balanced amount of technical detail without going insane; a bit like the juicy session morsels we get from Mr Desper.

There is some speculation about the disintegration of the relationship and some opinion about George Martin's role, but isn't too badly done.

Geoff E obviously had a great raport with Macca, and some of his Macca recollections border on bone-smoking; which may irk strident Lennon fans.  The overall focus is clearly on the music and depiciting the instutionalised attitudes of EMI during the Beatles tenure.

The writing is assisted by a guy called Howard Massey and I'm unsure what level he may have influenced or embellished some of the detail.

It takes a few chapters to kick in, and I could have done without some of the filler (eg, GE's side-splitting drunken practical lark of swapping around the shoes outside doors of a hotel rooms) - a sessions diary may have been the best approach.

All in all, good - and hey, I'm reading it for the second time which is always a good indicator (and mainly 'cos I can't remember sh*t these days  :old)

(edited to fix up a really useless spelling mistake)

Thank you for that. Think I'm going to pick it up. I'm looking for details about the recording process especially on Strawberry Fields.

Would it be considered to be the best book overall on the band and if not which one would be?

Strawberry Fields gets about 5 pages, with a slight interlude for when I'm Sixty-Four (dude) and a Ravi Shankar session.  If you were to read this, wiki, listen to the anthology version and other youtube bits and pieces, you may well become an expert and party favourite.

In terms of Beatles books, I have read very few -   

I enjoyed "The Love You Make" by Peter Brown and Stephen (Heroes and Villians) Gaines
I have read the Albert Goldman book about Lennon - it's fuckin' mad (and is complete tosh)

and will defer to those who have.

Even though it's old and kind of outdated(it was published in 1987) I'd say that The Beatles Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn is still essential if it's strictly details about the recording process that you're interested in.

albert's book is gnarly!!!!! go read it bill!

Revolution in the Head by Ian Macdonald is my go to on a song by song basis, but if you're looking for a greater overview I quite enjoy Bob Spitz's The Beatles. And Phillip Norman's Lennon is good.

Billy all you really need is The Beatles Complete Recording Sessions by Mark Lewison. One of the best of its type.

Unfortunately like a lot of Beatles books "The Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Abbey Road Studio Notes 1962-1970" is OOP but it's far from the only book you need.  In fact the Lewisohn book while invaluable as a resource (especially for other authors like John Winn) really only gives an overview of The Beatles' recording sessions comparatively speaking in terms of books that have been published since.  I posted this up the chain and since a moderator made the request, I hope he doesn't mind a repost.  Here are the essential Beatles books you need to have on your shelf.  Unfortunately many of them are now out of print and will command a high price but get the ones that are in print if you can:

Since in a roundabout way the subject of Beatles' books were brought up here is a short list to help you wade through what is out there and pluck out the essentials.  Most of them are sadly out of print at the moment but are essential reading if you want to learn about the history of The Beatles:

The Complete Beatles Chronicle: The Definitive Day By Day Guide To The Beatles' Career (Mark Lewisohn - In Print)
The Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Abbey Road Studio Notes 1962-1970 (Mark Lewisohn - OOP)
Drugs, Divorce And A Slipping Image (Doug Sulpy - 3rd Printing 2007 OOP)
The Unreleased Beatles (Richie Unterberger - OOP)
Eight Arms To Hold You: The Solo Beatles Compendium (Chip Madinger & Mark Easter - OOP)
Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 1 (John Winn - In Print)
That Magic Feeling: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 2 (John Winn - In Print)
Lifting Latches: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 3 Inside The Beatles' Vaults (John Winn - OOP)
Recording The Beatles (Kevin Ryan & Brian Kehew - OOP)

A short breakdown:

The Lewisohn books are generally considered among Beatles fans to be the bibles when it comes to the careers of The Beatles.  "The Complete Beatles Chronicle" deals with the day by day activities of The Beatles' in the sixties while "The Beatles Recording Sessions" delves into each particular Beatles recording session detailing what was recorded and when.  It's truly unlike any other book on the market and it's unfortunate that more bands don't have books like these devoted to their careers.

"Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 1" and "That Magic Feeling: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 2" are great companion pieces to the Lewisohn books.  Both books detail every available recording (both audio and video) available by The Beatles and also details where you can locate it.  "The Unreleased Beatles" likewise is a nice overview of much of the same information found in the Winn books although unlike those books does not inform the reader where to locate the recordings.  The book does compare favorably though in style with Keith Badman's book on The Beach Boys and in my opinion is more favorable than wading through dozens of Doug Sulpy's 910 issues trying to get an overview of The Beatles' in the recording studio and in concert.

One Sulpy book however that is absolutely essential for any Beatles' fan to read is "Drugs, Divorce And A Slipping Image" which is Sulpy's blow by blow account of the 1969 "Get Back/Let It Be" sessions which were essentially the recording sessions that broke the band.  For years a great deal of falsehoods have been put into print and gobbled up by the public at large over why The Beatles' broke up.  Sulpy's book to my knowledge comes the closest in detailing the truth behind the implosion of one of music's greatest bands.

"Eight Arms To Hold You: The Solo Beatles Compendium" breaks down the solo recordings of all four Beatles in much the same way "Way Beyond Compare" and "That Magic Feeling" do for the collective group.  The book is slightly out of date as it only goes up to 2000 but is still pretty relevant.  To me it's the essential book written on the solo years as it not only details all the solo recordings available and where to find them but also adds a ton of rare facts, stories and information behind each member's solo career, a facet of The Beatles that often is not explained nearly as well as their years together as a group.

"Lifting Latches: The Beatles Recorded Legacy Volume 3 Inside The Beatles' Vaults" and "Recording The Beatles" are probably more suited to the diehards but are essential reading nonetheless.  "Lifting Latches" takes you inside the vault in Abbey Road Studios and examines exactly what is on each multitrack tape.  There are also some fascinating essays near the back of the book penned by author John Winn not included in either of his previous two books.  "Recording The Beatles" gets down to the minutia as to how exactly The Beatles music was made in the studio.  What equipment they used, techniques used in recording and mixing the tracks and basically tells the tale of how records were made at EMI Studios in the sixties using the Beatles recordings as a means of explaining the process.

In closing I should note that Mark Lewisohn is coming out with the first of many new volumes detailing the legacy of The Beatles this fall ("Tune In: The Beatles All These Years") which given his past track record will probably be essential reading as well.  In addition Kevin Howlett will be publishing his book "The Beatles: The BBC Archives 1962-1970" which is essential reading for anyone interested in the BBC sessions.  Howlett had published a previous edition of this book back in the eighties but with the update coming, you might as well just wait for that one.  Of course I assume everyone by this point has "The Beatles Anthology" as published by in 2002 which is the companion book to the DVD series of the same name.  It's essential reading obviously and the only reason I didn't list it above is I assumed most everyone had that publication by now.

I guess it got lost in the last 14 pages  :-D   but a few of us have been referencing the Emerick book throughout the thread. An essential read for those into the studio element, some backstories you don't see elsewhere.

Related to the specifics of recording, here's what to buy:

Kevin Ryan and Brian Kehew "Recording The Beatles", the ultimate techie geek manual to Beatles studio stuff, here's a link http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/ (http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/)

Mark Lewisohn "The Beatles Recording Sessions"

Andy Aledort "Beatles Gear"

Geoff Emerick "Here There And Everywhere"

Alan Parsons - special note, go to his website for all kinds of info on recording, there will be a book as well compiling all of this info, but the website has the full courses and downloads. Here: http://www.artandscienceofsound.com/ (http://www.artandscienceofsound.com/)

The Beatles Anthology book


All of those I'd highly recommend for studio recording information. If you're a student of the Beatles' recording techniques and how those records were made, including what equipment and technology they used, look for the above books.

If you want long-winded dissertations on how significant something George said during take 44 of "Not Guilty" could be to the band's history, look elsewhere... ;D

If you go to their website which I posted above, the Ryan/Kehew book "Recording The Beatles" is currently in stock through the website and ready to ship. JohnMill, is there a retailer listing it as out of print?

Amazon is currently listing it as out of print or at the very least they don't carry it themselves.  The price tag for a new/used copy of "Recording The Beatles" is astronomical on Amazon and the other out of print books I've listed aren't exactly bargain buys either.  "The Unreleased Beatles" though is back in print on Amazon since my OP around a month or so ago.  Only three copies left in stock though at the moment.  As I mentioned the book could be the fraternal twin of the Badman book in terms of how it's laid out.  Good read.

The companion for the Emerick, Lewisohn, and Ryan/Kehew books, which are very much studio-centric in their focus, is the Andy Aledort "Beatles Gear" book. I cannot recommend this enough for those interested in what instruments and equipment was used by the Beatles through their career.

It set the bar so high for any similar projects, going from their earliest guitars and amps seen in the classic Liverpool and Hamburg photos to exhaustive research into how they came to own and purchase certain instruments we see in all the photos. Who else tracks down exact production logs from companies like Rickenbacker and Epiphone, and digs up sales receipts for this stuff? A brilliant reference.

The post-Beatles chapter on how a New York guitar repairman was hired to get John's original Hamburg model Rickenbacker 325 into original playing shape after year's of John's ham-fisted modifications and poor-quality paint jobs is compelling, it reads like a good novel or something with a terrific though ultimately bittersweet outcome.

Keep in mind that those ultimate classic guitars we associate with the Beatles are ones that each of them held onto and whose families or estates still have possession of, with few specific exceptions like McCartney's first and original Hofner violin bass which was stolen and never recovered, or one of George's Gretsch guitars which fell off the back of a car and was run over during a tour in the 60's.

As a wanna-be guitar collector with more passion than money to truly participate in the hobby (  ;D ) , I can safely say that if any of those iconic guitars like the Lennon Rickenbacker ever came up for sale, and I doubt they ever would, they'd be the most expensive instruments ever sold. The assorted "Beatle guitars" that have been offered for sale were marginal at best in the history of the band, in some cases they were never used on any recordings or live appearances.

Just a bit of a thread detour on a personal experience with the "Mojo" surrounding certain instruments associated with the Beatles.

Part 1, the Hofner "violin" bass as played by McCartney. Hell, let's just say it, McCartney made it an icon among basses.

This is a 60's photo showing the two variations McCartney played. The one on the left is his model dating to around 1961, note the pickups being closer to one another and the different "Hofner" name on the headstock. He can be seen playing this bass later in the Revolution promo film, as well as briefly in some Get Back era photos shortly before the bass itself disappeared. It has so far not been recovered, one of the great lost pieces of rock history. His newer Hofner, again note the changes in the pickups and the headstock/name, is on the right. This is the type he still plays in concert today.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/270424_240675372610328_4835751_n.jpg)


When I was in college, there was a music shop just across the street from where I had some classes. During breaks, I'd usually go into the shop to see what they had gotten in, as they had a rotating stock of cool vintage guitars and basses coming in weekly. This was around 1993.

So I walk in one day on a break, and hanging on the back wall was an original Hofner "Beatle Bass", from the mid-60's, and with a price tag of around $1,600 US, which at that time in the early 90's was of course high but not out of line with the demand. Since they knew me from hanging at the shop, and probably knew I didn't have the funds to purchase the bass but was a big Beatles fan, they let me take it down, plug it in, and give it a test drive. It was the first original Beatle Bass I had ever been able to play.

I take it off the hook, and immediately it felt lighter than I'd imagined. It was hollow, and honestly it felt very cheap, like the wood construction was cheaper wood than I expected. Kind of like a JC Penney guitar versus a Fender, right? And the hardware and neck and everything else felt somewhat cheap as well, given the iconic stature of this exact model bass.

Oh well, I plugged it in to some random bass amp they had, fiddled with the controls a bit until I could dial in a standard sound, and started to run a few lines of "I Saw Her Standing There", in E of course.  ;D

And it was only when I played it that it hit me, as I was able to get THAT SOUND which we tone freaks all strive for. Nothing more than the Beatle Bass plugged into a random amp, and there was that specific McCartney bass thump that I had been hearing for years. Kind of dull, very thumpy, not at all like a Fender or any of those abominations of electric bass that had been developed since the 60's...it just oozed character and vibe.

And honestly if it were not for the Beatle connection, I doubt this model bass would have been unique or sought after in any way, as it felt like any number of department store lower-tier 60's instruments that you could score at pawn shops for less than a hundred dollars. Yet McCartney made the sound of this bass his own, he *owned it*, and it gave those Beatles records something very unique and different.

And it may seem overblown to go into such detail, but something about getting that much closer to the music I grew up obsessing over that day in a guitar shop was a terrific experience, I guess I understood some of what went into the music by the simple act of plugging in that unlikely Hofner bass which Paul became forever attached to in the history of the band.

Hofner now makes reissues, for obvious reasons, which are a bit overpriced (for obvious reasons), but anyone who plays guitar or bass should try to seek out one of the 60's Hofners and give it a test drive. A lot of things make more sense after actually playing one.  :)

My favorite Beatles book has always been A Day in the Life: The Music and Artistry of the Beatles by Mark Hertsgaard, published in 1995 around the time of the Anthology series. A great book that delves into each album, each song and focuses more on the music of The Beatles, instead of the personal lives. This was my Beatle bible just when I was getting deep into the band about 14 years ago.

That story of Paul's missing bass is interesting. I thought that he used only one Hofner as his "main" bass. I have a tour program from Paul's 1989-1990 world tour, and there is a then current picture of a Hofner bass with the original Candlestick Park 1966 set list taped on the back of it. From everything I've read and heard, whenever Paul plays a Hofner in concert, it's that very same one.

I have that same tour program, I saw him on that tour in Philly, at the old Veterans Stadium. That original Hofner bass on that tour was a highlight for me, as I had read he was going to get it set up to be worthy for the road.

The story I heard about that, how Paul came to pull that bass out of storage basically, was that Elvis Costello had asked Paul to work on the song "Veronica" with him. And if my memory is correct, Elvis asked Paul to use his "Beatles Bass" on the session, as Elvis is quite the obsessive fan himself. So Paul did, and I believe he even added a Rubber Soul-like descending bass hook on Veronica as a bit of a wink and a nod.

Again, that's from memory!  :)

Look closely at any photos of Paul holding a Hofner, and focus in specifically on the way the pickup magnets are situated. The *original* Hofner he played before becoming famous has the pickups very close to each other. Watch the "Revolution" promo, it's that same bass. There is another photo of John and Paul clowning around playing the basses like violins, you'll see them both as in the photo above.

This earlier Hofner, which also is in nearly every photo with Pete Best, is the great "Lost" McCartney bass.

The other one came very soon after Hofner slightly changed their designs, and this bass is the one with the 1966 setlist taped to the side, is also the one seen more often in TV and video appearances, and is exactly the same model I had a chance to play in that guitar shop 20 years ago.

I think after the Hamburg and Liverpool days, McCartney for some reason may have preferred the later-edition Hofner bass which is what he still plays on tour today.

Fascinating stuff, guitarfool! Thanks so much for all this great info. I wonder...does anybody have any theories as to the disappearance of the bass? Does it have anything to do with Paul being dead?  :-D

Thanks for that info guitarfool2002. For some strange reason I was under the impression that Paul only played one Hofner throughout his whole career. Kind of a silly thought now that I think about it.  ::) What I'd really like to know is, what ever happened to that beautiful red Rickenbacker bass Paul used in the I Am The Walrus "performance" sequence in Magical Mystery Tour?

Ordered the Emerick book!

I was very wrong about Sgt Pepper. Listened to it and Magical Mystery Tour last night.  Speaking of which Is read that Flying is considered to be a weak song but I thought it was a tight little jam myself.

You ought to get the boxset that came out last year. It's fab.

The mono box set is great. It's a sleek slip case with mini LP replicas, plastic jackets, and a booklet about the differences between the mono and stereo mixes.
The stereo box set is just your average long box with the digipak reissues.

The mono box has the nicest packaging of any box set I have.

Yeah they really went the extra mile with it and effectively copied by Dylan on his mono recordings box.  Both are highly recommended.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Both are great packages, despite the fact it's a bit hard to take out the middle albums like Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited. I love that they texturized The Times They Are A-Changin'.

The stereo set has each cd in a mini LP replica too, with a booklet in every one. It also comes with a "making of" short film on dvd. It also has the Past Masters set, although it's "redone" with both albums on one cd.

Oh, I didn't know they re-created the LP's for the stereo box set.
The booklets and short films also come with the regular, non-box stereo releases. And the non-box Past Masters comes in two CDs.

I recently went on e-bay looking for prices on the mono set, and I was confused to see that every copy I found had the package in a square box that wasn't anything like the "long box" that the stereo cd's were packaged in. I thought the "long box" was for both the stereo AND mono set? I don't want to purchase the mono set only to find out that I got ripped off and didn't get the full package that it's supposed to come in.

It's a square box, so you're not getting ripped off on that front.
There was supposedly some replica box sets being made by a Chinese company, though. So be careful who you buy from.

Here's someone's comments:
Here's a discussion on them: http://tinyurl.com/lc5p6hz

I think you're confusing digipaks with mini LPs.

The fact that I have to ask what the difference is tells me that you're probably right.  :lol

I have not seen anything to suggest what happened to McCartney's original Hofner bass, other than it was stolen. A very, very odd footnote in the Beatles' story. I think basically every other instrument they've owned or were seen playing after becoming famous has been accounted for except that one. In most cases they still own or their estates own the really famous ones.

Good and bad news on McCartney's famous Rickenbacker bass. Updates on these things come and go all the time, but as far as I can tell that bass is still owned by McCartney - the good news. The bad news is that the paint job(s) it had in the 60's are long gone, and if anything the bass is still natural finish, as it has been since the 70's.

Some history: Rickenbacker's three stock finishes which were most common were Mapleglo (natural), Jetglo (blue), and Fireglo (red sunburst). Lennon's original 325 was Mapleglo natural, then he painted it several times, and later got a Jetglo blue 325. Harrison's 12-strings were Fireglo, as were McCartney's bass.

McCartney was offered a chance to buy a right-handed bass in '64, but declined. Then Rickenbacker crafted a left-handed version for him, offered it as a gift instead, and he apparently took it when the Beatles were in Los Angeles to play the Hollywood Bowl. But he didn't use it much until he was going for a heavier, "American" bass sound on Paperback Writer, around that time in history.

Sometime around '67, McCartney and the others had been seeing a variety of bands come to clubs like the Bag O' Nails, and they'd have guitars and basses painted with all kinds of exotic and psychedelic designs. So he did that to his Rickenbacker bass, Lennon did that with his Gibson J-160E acoustic/electric, and most famously George did it to his Sonic Blue Stratocaster which he named "Rocky".

Then soon after, in a total shift, one of them had heard that having too much paint and finish on a guitar or bass impedes the natural tone and sound of the wood, and that stripping it down to bare wood and applying a very thin, clear-coat sealer on top would be better. Thus, you see Lennon in later '68 with a natural-finish Epiphone Casino, and soon a natural-finish Gibson J-160E as well. And Paul likewise had both the psychedelic paint he added as well as Rickenbacker's original red Fireglo factory finish stripped off and the bass became natural.

*This* is the Rickenbacker bass you'd see him with on stage throughout the 1970's, and on all his big tours. At one point he put a "Red Rose Speedway" logo sticker on the body of his bass, and also had some of the more wild curves and wood cuts on that bass sanded or shaved down, or rounded off a bit more than was originally from the factory. But that is the same 1964 lefty model he got as a gift back in '64.

For guitar fans and collectors, the 70's saw a lot of very valuable and really nice guitars and basses destroyed by people wanting to sand off the original finishes to make them "natural". I never bought into the tonal reasons for doing this, a lot of people think it's crap but others say it does change the tone, and considering stripping off original Fender custom color finishes would in some cases cut the value in half, not to mention Fender had some custom colors which they simply cannot replicate...a lot of really nice instruments were ruined in favor of sanding them down to bare wood finishes.

To this day I never understood that, but such were the 1970's.

The best reason I've heard for why McCartney does not play the Rickenbacker as he does his old Hofner is a simple one. The Rickenbacker is a heavy bass, in comparison to the lightweight and hollow-bodied Hofner. McCartney is no longer a young man, I doubt his back would handle strapping on a Rickenbacker bass for too long during a show.  :-D

Here are two photos that aren't near as common, one showing a '65 show where it was one of the very few live shows Lennon ever played with his Sonic Blue Stratocaster, and with McCartney playing the usual later Hofner bass:

(http://www.laster.it/files/Lennon_stratocaster/john_astoria_1965_300.jpg)

Lennon for that tour and anything afterward would more often play the Epiphone Casino on stage.

And this is a somewhat rarely seen backstage shot showing Paul holding the left-handed Fireglo finish Rickenbacker bass which we were discussing. He took it along on tour as a backup instrument, as far as most people know there are no stage photos of him playing that bass from this time. It would become his main studio bass, though, after Paperback Writer. Notice he is wearing the Hofner bass, and that George is tuning his Gibson SG while his Casino sits on a chair. Lennon is wearing his Casino, and holding his Gibson J-160E which still has the original finish:

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/hekawi/beatleswithricbass.jpg)

I never thought I would see someone pick Little Child or Tell Me What You See as favorites. When we still had an oldies station up here, they played deep into the Beatles catalog, but never those two. When I am out doing my solo acoustic thing, I can play pretty much any Beatles song and people know them - songs that were never singles, but they're part of everyone's consciousness now, I can't think of any other band I can do that with.

I've spent so much time listening to this stuff over the month that I can do this now.

1. Please Please Me - Twist and Shout. Freaking awesome ...one of the best covers of anything by anyone.
2. With the Beatles - All My Loving. Very moving melody that never fails to bring a smile to my face.
3. A Hard Day's Night - If I Fell. My personal favorite song by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Period.
4. Beatles for Sale - No Reply, with Eight Days a Week a close second.
5. Help! - I've Just Seen a Face. Another one of my all-time favorite songs, with the added bonus of my having loved the song for years without knowing it was the Beatles.
6. Rubber Soul - In My Life
7. Revolver - Tomorrow Never Knows
8. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - A Day in the life
9. Magical Mystery Tour - The entire thing could be  tied for first. If I HAD to choose, then Strawberry Fields Forever. If you only count the ones from the actual soundtrack, then I am the Walrus.
10. The White Album - Helter Skelter...so badass.
11. Yellow Submarine - Does this count? Still need to hear it.
12. Abbey Road - I Want You (She's So Heavy). See comment on 'Helter Skelter'
13. Let It Be - Don't Let Me Down

I'm pretty sure Don't Let Me Down isn't on Let It Be... was on Let It Be Naked, though.

:lol  Had it playing on Winamp as I was typing that.

Across the Universe.

In terms of composition, "Little Child" is a contender for being the nadir of Beatles songs.  The performance is another matter entirely with the highlight being John Lennon's exceptional vocal and harmonica.  "Tell Me What You See" is another matter entirely.  I remember the first time I heard it was on a record called "Beatles VI" (damn good record by the way) and it immediately struck me as being different than any other Beatles track I had heard previous.  It has this real haunting quality to it and J&P's vocals on it are superb.  I also like the keyboard bit that is somewhat accentuated throughout the track.  Nice track.

Helluva favorite song to have, that's for sure.

And with Yellow Submarine, all you really need to hear are 'All Together Now', 'Hey Bulldog', 'It's Only A Northern Song' and 'It's All To Much', the four newer songs that only appeared on the soundtrack. Otherwise, Yellow Submarine soundtrack is just made up of other Beatles songs from other albums and George Martin's score. Lennon's 'Hey Bulldog' is especially awesome.

Ah what the hell:

Please Please Me - 'Please Please Me', their first truly classic single. Ear candy pure and simple.

With The Beatles - 'It Won't Be Long', a really great tune from John, one of the most underrated Beatles songs ever.

A Hard Day's Night - 'If I Fell', such a beautiful, amazing tune. If it weren't for 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and 'In My Life', this would be my favorite Beatles song.

Beatles For Sale - Either 'No Reply' or 'Eight Days A Week'. I can't decide.

Help! - 'You've Got To Hide Your Love Away', one of John's early triumphs. Wonderful.

Rubber Soul - 'In My Life', which is fantastic, but man 'Norwegian Wood' is a close second.

Revolver - 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. Genius.

Sgt. Pepper - 'A Day In The Life' of course, the zenith of the album by far. Spectacular song.

Magical Mystery Tour - Well, with the fuller album version on CD, it's 'Strawberry Fields Forever, my #1 favorite Beatles song. Otherwise, I'd say 'I Am The Walrus'.

The White Album - 'Dear Prudence'. Simply sublime.

Abbey Road - 'Something', obviously. One of the best love songs ever written.

Let It Be - 'Across The Universe', a stunning song, and Phil Spector's overdubs actually work well on this track.


You'll note that, with the exception of Abbey Road, my favorite songs on each album are always John's songs. That's not really an accident since John Lennon is my favorite Beatle and he's second only to Brian Wilson as my favorite musical visionary.

Whoa! I've never seen a picture of John in concert during the Beatles era playing a Fender!!  :o I've only seen him play a Rickenbacker or what I think is an electric Gibson, but I may be thinking of the Casino(I can't quite remember what it looks like). I'm thinking of the guitar that John played during the Budokan 1966 shows.

John Lennon was amazing to say the least.  It's been said that at the time of his passing that his best days were long behind him but I couldn't disagree more.  One of the things that makes his death so tragic in fact is that I fully believe he was heading into another renaissance period in his career.  He was finally beginning to enjoy making music again and I think a lot of the music he was working on in 1980 was easily some of the best music he made in the last decade of his life.  I believe for instance that "Real Love" would've been a proper hit for either Lennon or The Beatles at some point during the eighties and it's unfortunate that Lennon was never fully able to realize the song in the way he intended it.  The same goes for "Grow Old With Me" and countless others from this period.

You know one of the saddest things about John Lennon's legacy is how he has become exactly how (according to Paul McCartney) he feared he was going to become once he died.  Macca has stated a few times now that Lennon feared being canonized and made into "Martin Luther Lennon" and unfortunately that is exactly what has happened.  I understand that Lennon believed heavily in promoting peace, non-violence and campaigning for the issues he was passionate about.  But this only represents a very small period of time in his life relatively speaking.  Unfortunately slogans and songs such as "Give Peace A Chance", "All You Need Is Love" and "Imagine" have all but dominated any discussion of John Lennon since the man's passing and while those are great songs and beautiful ideals, John Lennon as a human being should not be defined by those songs alone.  In fact, I believe the way John Lennon's legacy is currently being represented in pop culture will eventually lead to him becoming remembered or more appropriately pigeonholed as a symbol of if sixties idealism and counter culture alone and not for the amazing songwriter he was.  Hippies, the peace movement and other images of the sixties are already being parodied in contemporary press and thus being made to appear that they didn't mean as much as they did to the generation who lived through those years.  I would hate to see John Lennon's legacy added to the list of things to parody or pigeonhole as the years roll along but I fear this process has already begun.

Since Billy likes Helter Skelter so much, I figured I'd do him a solid and post the original mono mix, which is considerably different than the stereo mix. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz92iBUKvvw  8)

I find the stereo mix to be better. Any mix that gives me 50 more seconds of this song is favorable  :)
I'VE GOT BLISTERS ON MY FINGERS

That's weird...you quoted the response to my post yet it showed up under my name...that's weird :lol

Oh no...it's good, but the stereo is much better. That awesome guitar part during the verses is buried in the mix :(

The mono mix has always confused me. They faded it right before the fade out-fade in part, right? But if you listen very closely to the end, the bass is playing the same riff you hear right as the song is fading back in again on the stereo version.

That's not the first time that's happened. I've seen stuff under my name, but it's another persons post. Confused the hell out of me the first time I saw it.  :lol

Major holy sh*t moment: I just now realized where Duff Mckagan gets his thick, crunchy sound from.

‍

God...to have seen them live back then must have been incredible. That photo gave me goosebumps for some reason.

Reading this thread, it's always neat to discover a "new" band even if they aren't new. I went through this with Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett in 2011-12.

I think what did it for me was Strawberry Fields Forever, and I Am The Walrus. Of course I had heard the "hits" like She Loves You, and I Want To Hold Your Hand, but it was something about the Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour era that planted the seed of curiosity, to use a really bad analogy/cliché.  ;D

I wanted to do this one first, on the topic of those short-lived psychedelic paint jobs they added in the summer of '67, and which can be seen in the clips like "Magical Mystery Tour", the "All You Need Is Love" and "Hello Goodbye" videos, etc. The only paint job to have survived and remains intact as far as I know is George's "Rocky", the matching Sonic Blue Strat to Lennon's which is still owned by the Harrison estate and is something of an icon among guitar freaks.

I had mentioned Lennon's Gibson J-160E acoustic/electric getting a pysch paint job: This happened in or around June 1967, pretty much when they all did the same thing. This was also a "matching" guitar to George's, as there are some staged photos of John and George receiving them at a music shop:

(http://tlb.hwcdn.net/g5a9r2d3/cds/media/f84/8030bc9c6f882/view.jpg)

(http://tlb.hwcdn.net/g5a9r2d3/cds/media/f11/ee72727d32565/view.jpg)

(http://www.thecanteen.com/herejohn.jpg)

(http://www.beatlesbible.com/wp/media/6209_john-lennon-george-harrison-rushworths-liverpool_07.jpg)



These of course became their main stage and studio acoustics for years to come. What you don't see as often is a photo of Lennon's guitar with the psychedelic paint job. Not only were they not touring, obviously, but the film and video from that time usually showed John playing a Martin acoustic, and I'm unaware of any Abbey Road studio shots of Lennon recording with the painted up guitar.

The only photos I'm aware of came from a series of photos showing John's home studio for a magazine article. There is one color shot:

(http://www.beatlesource.com/bs/scans/pix/johnhomestudio/johnhome4a.jpg)

And the other B&W:

(http://www.beatlesource.com/bs/scans/pix/johnhomestudio/johnhome3.jpg)


Those who have certain Beatles bootlegs will know of the series of home recordings and comedy bits Lennon would make with guests like Ringo, where they'd use various taped sounds in John's Mellotron and build skits around them, like nightclub acts, lounge singer skits, etc. Some of these skits would end up in a more polished form on a song like "You Know My Name", and some of John's Mellotron's tape loops would show up on songs like that Spanish guitar intro on Bungalow Bill, and rejected mixes of tunes like "Flying" with the big-band outtro ending with a show-biz "Yeah!". But a lot of these ideas started in this exact home studio setup, with him simply playing certain keys on the Mellotron and recording them.

Note John playing the famous Mellotron in this one, as well as the bank of tape machines where he'd record his demos and the various skits:

(http://www.beatlesource.com/bs/scans/pix/johnhomestudio/johnhome1.jpg)


The psychedelic paint job on this guitar didn't survive, as mentioned before Lennon had it sanded off and the guitar went back to a bare-wood natural finish, and can be seen in clips like the Bed-In where he's recording Give Peace A Chance. This exact guitar was eventually on display at the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame. For whatever reasons Lennon did not use the guitar in its painted form all that much, or at least wasn't filmed or photographed with it after it got the paint in June '67.

Eh you probably wouldn't have been able to have heard yourself think given their audience.  If you are talking about experiencing the mania aspect of it all, then yes I'm sure it would have been an incredible experience.  However more times than not Beatles live performances were lousy.  There are some exceptions but especially on the big tours of America for example, the insanely large crowds they played to, the fact that technology hadn't advanced so that they themselves could hear what they were playing and the fact by the end of their touring years they themselves didn't really want to be onstage anyhow more times than not made for some lousy performances. 

What would you say is the "best" Beatles show?

I would love to have seen them performing in the Kaiserkeller. One of their really wild shows.

Well John Lennon went on record as saying that the show The Beatles performed in Stockholm in October of 1963 was their best live performance aside from the stuff they did in Hamburg that wasn't recorded (not to be confused with The Star Club material that was recorded and subsequently released in the nineteen seventies).  Most of the Stockholm performance is on "Anthology 1" and Lennon is right as it is a great performance as not only are The Beatles in top form here but this performance captured the band before Beatlemania effectively ruined almost every attempt to capture a recording of the band live in concert. 

There are other shows worth checking out all of which have been officially released in some form or another over the years either on LP or VHS.  Things like "Hollywood Bowl 64'', "Shea Stadium 65'" and "Tokyo 66'" are all worth checking out for their individual merit(s).  There have also been rumors as to one of the projects Apple has in the pipeline is a DVD/Blu-Ray compilation of live performance footage shot throughout all of The Beatles tours.  So we'll see.

JohnMill, is it this October '63 Stockholm show (performed in the studio)? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE1vKRrtVXI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE1vKRrtVXI)

You are right John the Stockholm show is outstanding.  But there were only 5 tracks issued on Anthology 1 and I believe another 3 or 4 tracks were left off.  It is simply criminal that the Beatles/EMI/Apple have not issued this show in its glorious entirety!

Oh my God yes. SFF is so hauntingly beautiful and the production is 30 years ahead of its time.

The clips I've seen from Shea on You Tube were ace. But yeah I meant being there with all that energy. At the start of this thread I mocked Beatlemania yet now I get it fully.

Welcome to the dark side. You will now enjoy conversing with many Beatles fans but there is always the backlash from those who when you bring them up will roll their eyes and proceed to tell you why they aren't that good.

Great interview with George Martin about Strawberry Fields Forever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFPMrXpWX04

'Strawberry Fields Forever' is ,as I said, my #1 favorite Beatles song and it's probably my favorite song that John ever wrote, though 'Jealous Guy' is my favorite solo track of his. Both songs are beyond beautiful.

They all wrote some of the best songs in history. Well not Ringo  but he was an absolute beast of a drummer so that made up for it.  I can't choose between john and Paul. Can't. They played off each other so perfectly and their vocals were ace. Then you add in George and it's just...wow. if I had to choose I might lean very slightly towards Paul... who just may be my favorite artist ever besides BW.

Shameless promotion of my own posts on the Music Banter forum (http://www.musicbanter.com/pop/49280-beatles-vs-beach-boys-62.html) (which I've linked here before, but might as well do another shameless promotion in this thread too).

BTW, I've noticed if you do a google search for "Beatles vs The Beach Boys," that page I linked ^above^ is the very first search result! I'm famous!

/shameless promotion

I laughed out loud.

‍

I've seen and heard George Martin tell this story countless times, and I never get tired of it. Having him tell me this story in a one on one conversation is on my "bucket list".  ;D

I always liked the verse he came up with on the fly.  It's a pity they didn't develop it more:

He wraps his many arms around me
winks and blinks his eyes to charm me...
So wouldn't it be nice?  
Paradise?  
In an octopus' garden in the shade

Every show I've seen on film or video has had that energy, that live spark which these guys could switch on and off at will, the way it seems. And musically, besides them missing a few cues and telling in-jokes between tunes to each other, the videos and clips I've seen have been solid and tight.

Heck, even the poor-quality bootlegs like the Philadelphia 1964 tape and similar ones can have bad sound quality issues, but musically even those are not that bad.

I've wondered if we were to sit someone down with all existing live tapes and ask for their opinion of the music itself, whether that opinion would be more favorable than the common versions of the Beatles live story have been?

Yes, they got sick of the road, yes, the road started to wear on them where it felt like an assembly line so they delivered an assembly line type of set to almost every audience, but hearing and seeing various shows can change your mind after years of hearing more negative things about these shows.

Around 12 minutes of live Beatles, playing the NME show in 1964. They can't hear a damn thing, they make a few comical mistakes with the songs and missing cues, but tell me they're not getting by on that pure rush of energy and adrenaline that they could call up at will on stage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG-DXGKDBcA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG-DXGKDBcA)

Now, just how musically bad were these shows at the height of their worldwide fame?  ;D

Vancouver 1964 has been a favorite lately. It's a great show if you can get past the fairly distorted sound quality. It has an awesome live version of You Can't Do That. The other thing is, I have never heard a Beatles show where they were having so much fun! John and Paul seem to crack each other up at one point on every single song. I don't know what got into them, but they were having a blast that day!  ;D

Just Listened to MMT for the third time. The American release is possibly my favorite right now despite being cobbled together like 20/20 was a couple of years later. Is it just me or does Flying sound like 90s downbeat electronica? I so want to cover that song...

I think when people on this board call 20/20 a mishmash, or cobbled together album, it's a bit of a cop-out. Besides the two SMiLE tracks, everything was recorded after Friends, so it's not like they were really dipping back into the vaults. It sure is an eclectic mix of sounds, but then again, so is The White Album....and no one is calling that a hodge podge.

I wouldn't consider MMT cobbled together, either, really. I mean, it is, but no more than any of their other soundtrack albums before then. Songs from the film on one side, contemporaneous songs not in the film on the other. It works quite well.

It's interesting that a lot of the feedback I get from new Beatles fans over the years is that "Magical Mystery Tour" is their favorite LP in the early months of their fandom.  I think beside from the fact that there are some really great tracks on that record, it's just so accessible containing one entire side of hit singles and the soundtrack side itself isn't too shabby either obviously.  There is actually another American LP similar in approach to "Magical Mystery Tour" entitled "Yesterday & Today" which is most famous for it's infamous pulled "Butcher Cover".  The thing is, "Yesterday & Today" is almost a mini greatest hits album for the mid sixties period pulling tracks from "Help!", "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver" in order to craft a surprisingly consistent LP.  While it is not the best of the Capitol albums (in my opinion anyhow) it is still a highly enjoyable release with tracks such as "Yesterday", "Drive My Car", "Day Tripper", "We Can Work It Out", "Nowhere Man", "If I Needed Someone" and "I'm Only Sleeping" finding their home within the framework of one LP.  Given how quickly The Beatles' music progressed from "Help!" - "Revolver" you'd think this would make for an uneven mess but again the album hangs together rather well and is a recommended purchase if you can find it in a used record bin at a reasonable price.

PS: Have you had a chance to watch MMT (the film)?  A lot of Beatles fans think it's a huge collection of garbage but I've actually always liked it.  It's quite reasonable to assume that The Beatles weren't taking this project seriously (well Macca may have) but there are a lot of interesting sequences which although they've been criticized for not being able to hang together as a cohesive film are quite enjoyable nonetheless.  The recently released DVD adds some deleted footage as well including the "Fish & Chips" segment which although illustrated in the original MMT LP picture book, was cut from the final version of the film.

Haven't seen the film, John, although I have seen (and enjoyed) Help! recently. MMT now has a contender, though...I'm listening to Abbey Road all the way through and I'm on the medley. 8)

The Flying scene in the MMT movie is probably my favorite scene. Supposedly, some outtakes from the final sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey were used. It's a very psychedelic looking scene. The Blue Jay Way scene is trippy as hell.  ;D

The medley is so dang good... Sun King might be my favourite thing they did.

I like the MMT movie, but it is deeply, deeply flawed. The musical numbers are fabulously done (The Fool On The Hill and Your Mother Should Know are probably my favourites), but the filler is so awkward and aimless you wonder if that's what they were going for.

In my opinion it's the flaw of every Beatles feature not entitled "A Hard Day's Night" which benefited from a brilliant screenplay by Alun Owen.  The remainder of The Beatles' attempts to do the "Hollywood thing" are confusing to put it lightly.  Have you ever seen a feature film that Macca did in the eighties entitled "Give My Regards To Broad Street"?  It's exactly as you described MMT.  Some brilliant musical sequences held together by a plot that is anything but.  The film is extremely hard to watch in my opinion and aside from the fact that it's Macca up there on the big screen really doesn't have anything else to offer the audience from an entertainment standpoint.  Basically with the exception of AHDN, in any type of feature when The Beatles are performing music, it's worth the price of admission alone.  Everything else though is in my experience has proved thoroughly confusing to say the least to it's audience.

Just imagine if they had included the "I'm Going In A Field" scene with Ivor Cutler!  :lol

Strawberry Fields Forever is one of my favorites as well. I love the "morse code guitar part" in the beginning. Hadn't noticed for years until someone pointed it out to me on a forum.

Neither had I, until you just did! :lol   Pretty freakin' cool!


My copy of Geoff Emerick's book just arrived today; just got home an hour ago and about to tear this bad boy apart in a bit.

I always thought that it was a Mellotron, not a guitar. If I'm thinking of the same part you guys are.

No, it's after John sings "Let me take you down cause I'm going to..." Way in the background there is a high pitched guitar playing a morse code thing. Right behind John singing the "Strawberry Fields...nothing is real".

Serious question to Bill: What is your favorite film with The Beatles? Mine is Magical Mystery Tour, Ringo's really fun to watch there. Also I like their Shakespeare sketch, here's the link if you haven't yet seen that, enjoy:

A Midsummer Night's Dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxXkdYr5JYg) (Utterly entertaining 60s artifact! The chasing scene with "girley" John & lion Ringo is sth. else!)

Naw that's a mellotron.

If so, I wonder what setting it was on...

Ditto for me. My favorite Beatle film is Magical Mystery Tour. I am sucker for surrealism, and Magical Mystery Tour has it in spades.

I love surrealistic films/cartoons too! Let me ask, what is your fave MMT scene? I for one like the singalong moment in the bus. Aunt Jessie was hilarious when she tried to dance can-can while sitting.

I think my favorite non-music scene is the one based on a dream Lennon had. He is the waiter and he keeps shoveling spaghetti on the table for Jessie to eat and she is worried she can't eat it all. Aside from that I love "I am the Walrus" and the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band strip tease. So weird.  :lol

I always liked Ivor Cutler for some odd reason.  ;D He always has a Buster Keaton-like "stone face" throughout the movie. It's like he's determined to not have a good time.  ;D The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah scene is weird as hell. I always liked the song though. Some people say that the story in the song is another "Paul is dead" clue.

Fun fact: It's rumored that Paul very briefly exposes his penis during the "The Fool On The Hill" sequence.

Re: The "Morse Code" on Strawberry Fields, first verse...

I'll say from the start I don't know exactly what made that sound. I can recommend listening (and watching) one of at least three video appearances where Paul himself demonstrates how he played that intro on the Mellotron - One is on Anthology, one was his "Chaos And Creation" live at Abbey Road performance, and the other was something around his Oobu Jubu series.

He plays the flute "stop", which was like engaging a stop on an old pipe organ but with the Mellotron it would engage a set of tape loops installed in the machine featuring the sound you wanted. He plays the intro, then holds a chord and reaches over to a knob which slowed the tape machines down and would change the pitch in real time, just like slowing any tape down on any machine. That was a neat demonstration he did because in pre-internet days short of actually seeing a Mellotron or playing one in person, many folks didn't know how they did that pitch-shift effect back in '66.

Now the mythology around the Morse Code part reached the absurd, where the urban legend was that the code actually spelled out "J L", and other related stories - totally untrue.

And some evidence (soon to come) suggests that the bleeps themselves were a byproduct of having to change the sound setting on the Mellotron, like in later MIDI setups where you'd need to throw (digitally) a series of program changes to change your sounds. But the Mellotron is primarily an analog, mechanical instrument and isn't reliant on a computer or anything like that...so if you did change those patches or tape banks in real time, it was a mechanical change that shouldn't have produced a computer-like noise when doing so.

Right? I'd like to know for sure, therefore the challenge: I have not seen one yet, but can anyone find an example of someone replicating that sound with a Mellotron in use?

And this more solid proof from the actual studio sessions: Listen to the series of sessions for SFF. On take 2, the Morse Code bit isn't there, but Paul is playing the Mellotron part minus the slow-down/pitch shift.

Then starting at take 3, every time Paul reached over to turn that knob to slow the tape loops and get that pitch drop, you hear the Mellotron start bleeping the Morse Code pattern just afterward, like it was responding to Paul's real-time pitch manipulation. Every time Paul drops the pitch on those earlier takes, even in later verses which got buried after they did the famous tape splice to get into the brass-and-drums heavy section, the Mellotron answers with that series of bleeps.

Is it the Mellotron making those beeps: From the evidence on early takes 2-3-4, *yes*.

Have I ever seen anyone since 1966 duplicate those beeps on a Mellotron when playing the song on a vintage Mellotron? *No*.

OK, I'm going to nominate guitarfool2002 for poster of the year...for every year he's been a member here.  ;D Seriously, your posts are always really great and always informative.

It's been a while since I've listened to the SFF session tapes, but I'm going to tonight!  ;D  Maybe somebody here might be able to help? Mr. Desper maybe?

On a somewhat related note, is it true that there is Morse Code on Sail On Sailor?

That was very nice, thank you very much!

So I was just listening to the Strawberry Fields Forever sessions, and I noticed something. Is it just me, or does the tone of the beeps change slightly between certain takes? It seems like the pitch may be slightly higher or lower on certain takes. I believe I noticed it the most on takes 4 and 5 specifically.

Is it true that the lack of Beatles on Spotify is more down to the deal with iTunes than anything else? If you had to make a prediction for when The Beatles catalog might start showing up on Spotify, what would it be? I know I'm setting myself up for disappointment here but, if Apple Records/the remaining living Beatles & the estates of the departed Beatles wants to something big for next year (50th anniversary of the Ed Sullivan appearance, etc.) getting the catalog on Spotify would certainly do the trick. (Though I am more so hoping next year will get something akin to 'Anthology 4').


I've had fantasies of a Sgt. Pepper Sessions Box Set going through my mind and so I ask: Did the bootleggers get a hold of everything or is there a pretty good chance that if such a set was released that it would contain alternate takes and the like that even the most hardcore of Beatles collectors haven't heard? Also, would they be able to include vocals only tracks and instruments only tracks versions of all the songs (ala: Pet Sounds sessions)?

From what I understand what might be on tap next year is the DVD issue of "Let It Be" (which seems to continually get pushed another year with each passing year) and possibly a DVD release of assorted live performance footage.  Those have been the rumors that have been bandied about this year although nothing definitive outside of "street rumors".

I think you'll find as far as alternate takes go, there is still a wealth of material at the disposal of whomever should choose to compile it when it comes to The Beatles.  The issue seems to be judging from interviews given around the time of "Anthology 3" that the powers that be believe that everything of value in the vaults was released as part of the "Anthology" series and any further releases of that nature would be akin to scraping the bottom of the barrel as they once put it.  While it's true that the "Anthology" series probably did capture the best bits and bobs of what EMI has in it's vaults, as I've previously stated there are literally hours upon hours of Beatles multi-tracks on which to draw future archival releases from.

The problem is as Beatles author Richie Unterberger states in his book "The Unreleased Beatles", that while all of The Beatles archival material may eventually be available to fans, this won't likely happen in our lifetime.  According to Unterberger, essentially the way music is distributed to the public will have to change before the vaults are opened for the public to enjoy.  Right now there is no feasible way to market the bulk of this material to anyone outside the diehard fanbase or collector.  Collectors for years have been clamoring for The Beatles to set up a "pay site" where for a monthly fee, Beatles fans could download whatever they wanted from the archives in digital format.  However, realistically we are probably decades away from a pipe dream like that being a viable option as a method of distribution for something of this scale.  So we wait...

I have made vocal and instrument only mixes of the album using the MOGG files which are pretty easy to find out there. It's amazing how out of tune John & Paul's backup vocals on "With A Little Help" are without the music or conversely how beautiful they are on "She's Leaving Home".

As far as Beatles archive rumors, there is supposedly going to be a Live AT The BBC Volume 2 set released in October. I'd love it if the early Pete Best BBC appearances are included, but the sound quality is pretty bad from what I've heard. There is also the odd unique song that wasn't included on the first BBC set, "Beautiful Dreamer".

"Beautiful Dreamer" is one that just didn't work.  A lot of the Merseyside groups plied their hands at adapting old standards giving them the beat music treatment and well "Beautiful Dreamer" should have just been left alone.  It's embarrassing to say the least and one has to wonder if the BBC didn't suggest an adaptation of this standard to The Beatles.  Probably not though as by this time they were already including things like "A Taste Of Honey" and "Till There Was You" in their set. 

Anyhow, a new BBC set while interesting is probably justifiably scraping the bottom of the barrel as I mentioned before.  There are I believe five cuts that The Beatles recorded for the BBC that have not seen official release, one of which is the aforementioned "Beautiful Dreamer".  Three of those performances come from the Pete Best appearances which as you mentioned is below the Mendoza line when it comes to being of releasable standard.   There are some interesting improvisations though such as the "Crimble Medley" heard on the "Anthology DVD" where they mash together their first five singles along with "Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer" and a collaboration with Rolf Harris on "Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport" which I'm actually surprised wasn't officially released on "Live At The BBC" in 1994. 

I don't know there is just so much more interesting material in EMI's vault, where they really shouldn't have to paw through the BBC archives again to release an archival package to the public.  Of course I'll buy it if it comes out and I hope it does include the Pete Best material.  Best has done several appearances at "Beatlefest" weekends over the years and all reports are that he is a class act all the way and was appreciative of the royalties he received from the "Anthology" project.  So it would be nice to see another windfall coming his way.

I also wonder why "Tie Me Kangaroo..." with Rolf Harris wasn't on the BBC release, could it have been something with copyrights or some kind of clearance issue with Rolf Harris as the Beach Boys apparently had with their appearance on the Andy Williams show not being released? I had that performance on a BBC cassette boot several years before the official release, and was sure a performance that interesting would have made it, and the sound quality was just fine. Anything that rhymes "dingo" with "Ringo" deserved to come out!

Of course after this week, Rolf Harris seems to have some bigger issues to deal with than a Beatles tape... :o

Which will probably torpedo any chance of it being on any future archival release.  Unfortunately in today's PC society, any type of major brand (including The Beatles) wouldn't want to have their public image tarnished by being associated with anything like what Harris is engaged in at the moment.  

It's something I've often thought about in regards to The Beatles archival material.  While there isn't anything necessarily salacious in the archives that we know of, certain things like "No Pakistanis" will probably never merit official release because of the aforementioned PC issue.  While anyone with an IQ over two would understand that "No Pakistanis" isn't a racist song (it is in fact anti-racist), that still didn't stop the pundits in the eighties from jumping all over it after hearing a bootleg tape of the recording.  Macca had to answer for it too, having to explain the origins of "Get Back" as being a bit of a protest song.  

JohnMill, that is a good point. I think some of the reluctance to release certain material comes down to protecting an image, or not wanting the public to hear these celebrities unfiltered, as they would be on certain studio session tapes, for example. But realistically, the image of The Beatles could be just as harmed in some circles by the tales of their sexual exploits on the road, on tour, whatever, yet it doesn't seem to be much of an issue for the general public even as the stories kept coming out in various books and the like.

With Rolf Harris, in light of this week's events, I think you're right about that particular piece of audio.

And then there is Carnival of Light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnival_of_Light) which, AFAIK, is the only truly unreleased Beatles full track left (as opposed to alternative mixes, early days jams and the like). Somewhere else I read that there exists only 2 copies of it - McCartney has a copy and I think maybe Geoff Emerick has the other. And Paul has said that it will, in fact, be released someday.

The world awaits.

EDIT: The Wiki article states there is also a master version at Abbey Road studios. So maybe there's 3 copies?

The multi-track for "Carnival Of Light" has always resided in EMI's archives.  It was recorded on January 5, 1967 during a session that also saw work done on "Penny Lane".  From all accounts it's Macca's "Revolution 9", a rambling collage of sound effects featuring all four Beatles and was recorded to serve as a soundtrack for a rave that was being held at The Roundhouse Theater around this time.  It has been slated for official release twice to my knowledge, the first being on "Anthology 2" where it was supplanted by the instrumental "Within You, Without You".  The reason being because allegedly George Harrison felt that "Carnival Of Light" was too self indulgent to merit an official release.  Subsequently it was also slated for release as the soundtrack to a Linda McCartney photo montage/film on The Beatles but in the wake of her death in 1998, that film has yet to see release.  It's also possible that since "Carnival Of Light" is a Beatles recording, that Macca would have some difficulty including it in any project of a solo nature although as you noted, he has been promising to release it for around a decade now.

My enthusiasm for this track has been tempered by the knowledge that both the track's length and the lack of commercial appeal of a fourteen minute sound collage means that the track will probably be edited in some form if it ever is officially sanctioned for release.  To me that is a major bummer and almost defeats the purpose of releasing the track at all.  My hope is that if the track is ever released officially that it will be used as the bed for fourteen minutes of rare Beatles footage (or photographs) on a DVD release where we can hear the entire track for ourselves.  

In the end, it's unfortunate that Beatles fans are somewhat screwed in that the two most sought after archival items, "Carnival Of Light" and the 27 minute "Helter Skelter" are so lengthy that there is probably no way they could ever be officially sanctioned for release in their unadulterated forms.  

PS: There is one other completely unreleased track in the Beatles archives that was only discovered a few years ago.  The track was recorded during the "White Album" sessions and it's a McCartney composition entitled "Etcetera".  It is a solo McCartney recording performed in one take and prior to it's discovery either in EMI's archives or McCartney's own tape cache was thought to have been lost to time.  The music itself is apparently identical to "Thingumybob", an instrumental Macca would later donate to the Black Dyke Mills Band.  Unlike "Thingumybob" however, "Etcetera" is said to feature lyrics.  Interestingly, George Harrison would also use "Thingumybob" to form the track for one of his unreleased compositions entitled "Maureen" a track he claimed he wrote with Bob Dylan likely during their Thanksgiving holidays during the Winter of 1968.  

That's some pretty cool info. Thanks for that, John.

I've been wanting, along with everyone else, to hear "Carnival of Light" and the twenty-seven minute "Helter Skelter" for a while now. I think at some point, we'll probably get them. I can see not wanting to release them due to how long the songs are, but The Beatles fan base is so massive, that I'm not totally sure you could say it would be "uncommercial."

I had not heard about "Etcetera," but it sounds like it could be pretty good. Perhaps all three will be included on some compilation, a revamped Rarities.

That 27 minute version of Helter Skelter has been on my "bucket list" since I first read about it back in the early 1990's. I doubt that I'll ever get to hear it. But then again, the full ten minute take of Revolution that basically turns into an early form of Revolution #9 was on the list too. I didn't think I'd ever get to hear it, until it literally appeared out of the blue one day.

There is one other "genuine unreleased beatles song" called Tip Of My Tongue, but it looks like no copy has survived.

If they were to release "Carnival Of Light" there is no doubt it would sell. The hype alone would drive the fan base, and I'd bet you'd sell tens of thousands of copies to various DJs, electronica, and EDM fans who have heard the rumors about this track. Whether the legend equals the reality wouldn't be a factor here.

That's the problem, I think, with some Beatles release decisions. Overall they've done a good job minding the store and keeping the legacy, but at the same time do they realize they could have a successful release if they didn't focus most on the type of fan who would buy things like the #1s, and Red and Blue hits comps? And as mentioned, is there much more unique material left from the BBC broadcasts short of hearing another 3 versions of From Me To You?  :)

The Jan '67 date of "Carnival Of Light" is very interesting...remember there is a short tape of McCartney working on Penny Lane overdubs from that time in the studio, where the tapes are treated to various sound effects, various tape delay and reverb effects, and in general might be called just a bit psychedelic in nature.

I'd go so far as to say I hear elements of what Brian was doing on certain Smile session tapes and goof-off sessions on that McCartney/Penny Lane tape.

And because of that, as soon as I heard it, it became one of my favorite Beatles related outtakes which I don't see a lot of people discussing as much as some others. Yet some find it unlistenable or boring.

I don't think I've ever heard that Penny Lane tape. I've never even heard of it, actually. I've heard an overdub session with George Martin. Is that it?

It may be a version of it, there are several versions with the Penny Lane horn/wind musicians, George Martin, and Paul. The first time I heard it was a shorter version on the "Pepperland" disc. Then there are different length cuts of it, one lasting 14 minutes.

What's so interesting is that there are sounds and parts of it very similar to what Brian Wilson had done a few months earlier. The tape captures the horn players telling a joke, which reminded me of what Brian was trying to do by letting the tape roll on his "George Fell..." session.

But that's a minor part - the real similarity is in the tape effects that were added to bits of Paul's piano playing, and other parts of this rambling tape. The effects they applied, whoever did it and for whatever reason, are strikingly similar to some of those Smile session reels. Someone starts messing with the tape speed oscillator, and the tape starts pitching and wowing creating odd effects. There are tape delay "mini explosions", certain ways the delay is added to Paul's piano noodling, just the overall textures and sounds could have come from a Smile tape if it weren't the chords of Penny Lane. That's what is so interesting to hear!

Take the time it was done - early January 1967 - and it could have been Paul messing with the effects as he did similar things with manipulating tape and effects for "Carnival Of Light" that same week.

The question is what was this for, why did he/they do it, and had Paul heard some of Brian's similar studio goofing around from those November 1966 sessions as an inspiration for this experimentation? And was any of this in any way connected to what he was doing with Carnival Of Light, maybe more in concept than actual purpose?

I agree.  As I've heard stated many times over the years it seems whenever The Beatles release something for the public's consumption it needs to be "an event".  It either needs to be something of historical musical importance or something that will result in a #1 worldwide chart topper.  I'll get back to sales and chart positions in a moment however one of the problems given what remains in The Beatles' archives is that very little of it on it's own can be looked at as of historical musical significance.  There aren't anymore "Yesterdays" or "Hey Judes" or anything of that nature in the archives that we haven't heard and in fact there are almost no entirely unreleased tracks left in the vault period.  What does remain are endless alternate takes, jams and improvisations and how exactly do you market those as anything spectacular to the public?  One way that has been suggested is that The Beatles' devote a box set to each album with the mono and stereo versions of the album each dominating a disc and two-three discs worth of outtakes as well.  However, The Beatles for whatever reason seem incredibly reluctant to do anything of the sort.  Maybe it's the old "scraping the bottom of the barrel" mentality that they bandied about towards the end of the "Anthology" project?  Perhaps they feel that since they already went down the road of archival releases with "Anthology" that anything resembling that package would now seem old hat?  I honestly don't know.  But the fact that there is nothing in the archives that is extremely noteworthy is perhaps the reason why we haven't seen many archival releases since the mid nineties.  

Another possibility is that The Beatles don't want to open themselves up for criticism the world over by allowing everyone to hear their bum notes and bum takes?  We all know that the "Anthology" series was subject to a fair amount of post production to sanitize a lot of the outtakes for release.  They crossfaded, combined outtakes to make brand new takes, flown in this, took out that and all in the name of bringing the outtakes in line with their official catalog.  Some fans were upset with this while others didn't mind.  Now as you mentioned while it's likely that the release of "Carnival Of Light" (or quite frankly any Beatles archival collection) would sell in acceptable or more than acceptable quantities, again I'm not entirely sure The Beatles are too keen at the moment at releasing packages of archival tracks that would not be on the level of what garnered them the status of "best band in the world/history", a status they no doubt deserve and should enjoy.  

I personally don't think "Tip Of My Tongue" ever existed on tape.  It was one of those tracks that was reported in most Beatles books up until the late eighties and has since been debunked as probably having been performed for George Martin while the multi-track tape wasn't running.  This was quite a common practice by The Beatles where whenever they brought a new song into the studio, usually John or Paul (sometimes both) would debut (and in the early days audition) the song for Martin usually on acoustic guitars who would then give his opinion.  These "auditions" were rarely taped as they weren't proper takes of the song.  Perhaps the most notable instance of these types of auditions took place during the 2-11-63 PPM session where The Beatles recorded most of their debut album in one day.  Allegedly The Beatles ran through a number of songs for Martin that weren't attempted properly that day including "Keep Your Hands Off My Baby", "Your Feet's Too Big" and several other tracks they had been performing as part of their stage repertoire.  Though these were no doubt performed within the confines of EMI Studios, none of them were preserved on tape but alas were remembered by individuals present at the studio that day who years later shared their recollections with various Beatles authors in the mid-seventies who subsequently published these recollections as evidence of unreleased Beatles tracks that remained vaulted.  This is how essentially Beatles fans were led to believe for more than a decade that there was an immense surplus of entirely unreleased Beatles songs collecting dust in EMI's vaults.  Most of these rumors were debunked by Mark Lewisohn's groundbreaking research in the late eighties, but unfortunately many of these same rumors persists to this day.

In regards to Paul McCartney's experimental recordings:  I'm not sure who exactly inspired them but they likely sprung out of the ferment of the home recordings Macca was making with Barry Miles among others at Ringo Starr's abandoned Montague Square flat in 1966.  Macca and Miles were planing on recording an experimental record of their own around this time full of tape loops, sound clips and readings.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of these recordings are actually featured within the body of "Carnival Of Light" with The Beatles adding overdubs of their own on 1-5-67.  John Lennon plied a similar tactic with "Revolution 9" bringing tape loops he recorded at home to EMI Studios and then embellishing the track with all types of overdubs and adornments, not to mention making copious use of EMI's rather large collection of sound effects.  

Same! except I was always into Pink Floyd since I watched the Wall movie when I was around 4. Albeit I was only interested in Dark Side and the Wall.
Only this year, I got back into Pink Floyd strongly again. Only this time, it's the Syd Barrett era! It's almost like discovering a completely different band.
Also of mention is myself starting to get into Rick Wright's early work on albums such as Saucerful!

Supposedly McCartney had been listening to some Stockhausen (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XfeWp2y1Lk) around that time.

The Beatles and Stockhausen (http://www.stockhausen.org/beatles_khs.html)

Holy hell! That was awesome, weird, and scary all in one. I need to hear more stuff from this guy!  ;D

You just reminded me of something. I remember when a documentary about the 25th anniversary of Sgt. Pepper was aired on The Disney Channel back in the early 1990's(when The Disney Channel was awesome, but that's another post and thread entirely  ;D), and there was a scene with George Martin talking about the best version of Strawberry Fields Forever that he ever heard, which was never actually recorded. It was the very first time John ever played the song for him in the studio. It was just John's voice backed with his acoustic guitar. George has always said that he regrets not getting it captured on tape. On a related note, I've always hoped that a recording exists of the "original" slow version of Please Please Me.

Paul McCartney: There was only one Stockhausen song I liked actually! We used to get it in all the interviews “Love Stockhausen!”

This is an important point to take note of. It could fill an entire book chapter going through the background and the how's and why's but I'll condense it a bit, and this is my own take on it not claiming to be the full factual history.

I believe the Stockhausen influence is valid, but due to a few elements, the actual influence has been overblown. Look at Paul's quote above.

And there are some interesting Brian Wilson parallels at work here, too.

First, consider who these guys were, namely Brian and Paul. They were not formally educated through what we would consider the standard college experience where we leave school at 18 and head off to higher education, then come out in our early 20's full of new knowledge, friends, and new experiences with all kinds of art and culture we had perhaps never been exposed to in a personal way, short of school trips to the local museum.

Paul in the mid 60's was going with Jane Asher, whose family was not only very wealthy and upper class, but were also very knowledgeable and active in the cultural and artistic circles of the upper class. Paul had not been exposed at this kind of direct level previously, if anything his background from his father was one of work, earn money, don't go in debt, and save where you can. In that mindset you simply didn't splurge on cultural pursuits anything near the degree a family like the Ashers would have done.

Then, you have Paul in this circle of society which was deep in the arts, and the finer things in life, including music, art, literature, etc. So Paul moves in to the Asher house, eventually, and gets his education that way. He took music lessons, actually (a little known footnote) and got more hands-on knowledge of the great composers and classical music. He attended museums to view the classic works of art, and attended galleries and openings for cutting edge and modern artists. It just happened to be an explosive time for that, in the mid 60's. He was exposed to new composers, new forms of music and ways of composing music through these futuristic musicians who were going far beyond the pop of even the standard traditional forms. They were using tape machines, they were using electronic instruments, they were composing atonally rather than focusing on melody and Bach harmony standards.

So Paul soaked it all in, and got his cultural and artistic higher education through these pursuits.

Can you pinpoint one composer like Stockhausen as the catalyst? Can you say that a composition like "For No One" came out of thin air, or was it a byproduct of those classical music lessons and composers Paul had experienced at the Asher house?

Brian Wilson was the same way - when he finally got the hell out of Hawthorne and began meeting new people, he was exposed to different literature, philosophies, experiences, essentially seeing a totally different worldview than what he had lived in Hawthorne or with his circle of friends from those days. It was just like Paul with the Ashers - you have a man in his early 20's basically seeing more of the forest where previously he had known only a few trees.

Now...crucial point...focus in on the celebrity aspect of this. Everything these guys would say would get blown up to greater heights than was ever intended. Paul could name drop Stockhausen in an interview, and that turned into Stockhausen being a major influence on his musical life. Brian could get a one-off photo taken with a guy like Eden Ahbez visiting a Smile session, and that turns into Ahbez being a major influence on Smile. Not quite true...in some cases ridiculously untrue...yet through the celebrity magnifying glass, these little things get blown up.

All musicians and songwriters get influences from everything they hear, they soak it up like a sponge. And naturally some of it comes out in their own works, both consciously and subconsciously. For these two guys, in the mid 60's of all the times you could pick to have your mind that open to experiencing new things, in London and Los Angeles of all the progressive artistic places you could possibly be at the time (!!!), surrounded by people who knew how to navigate these scenes, and perhaps filter out or edit out the bullshit from the art, it was the education of a lifetime.

When Paul name-dropped Stockhausen, remember too it was part of that high-society scene to name drop artists or authors in conversations. Look at Brian's 1966 interviews, he does the same thing with authors, etc. Then the pop press at that time took that one line, whether it be Stockhausen or whatever, and ran it like it was bigger than it actually was.

When, in reality, it was a part of a much bigger tapestry of influences that these young guys like Paul and Brian were being exposed to and being consumed by in their respective new social and cultural circles.

If Paul says there was only one Stockhausen song he liked, I think that's much closer to reality than assuming Paul would be listening to Stockhausen regularly.

That's not saying there was not an influence - because there was obviously - but not quite what the "Beatle Legend" machine would have cranked out.

And leading to another topic...it makes Paul's negative reaction to Revolution #9 all the more mysterious from an artistic perspective considering the legend suggests it was Paul who brought in all of the electronic, musique concrete, and tape manipulation based influences into the group in 1965-66. The guy who brought in all this stuff in the first place is the strong voice against releasing it when a bandmate who he shared this stuff with wants to put it out. Sounds more personal than artistic. Food for thought.

^ Good points fool, never would have thought of the Jane Asher influence that way myself!

Well there was a solo acoustic version of "Strawberry Fields Forever" included within the "Love" project as I recall.  It wasn't a complete take of the song but merely John Lennon running through a verse of the song on acoustic guitar.  From memory it was featured in much higher fidelity than any of the known Lennon acoustic demos of "Strawberry Fields Forever" that have been making the rounds for years now.  Also I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that EMI had access to any of John Lennon's private archives for the "Love" project which would lead me to believe this solo acoustic "take" was recorded at EMI at some stage.  From memory there is also some rudimentary percussion on this version (possibly either Macca or Ringo on bongos?) which again would not have been instrumentation available to Lennon anywhere other than EMI Studios.

What is important to remember at this stage is that The Beatles actually did record a fair amount of their rehearsals at EMI Studios before laying down proper takes of the song(s) in question.  While some Beatles fans assume that the group's rehearsals were never taped, the unfortunate reality of the situation is that back in the sixties EMI much like many of their contemporaries placed a high value on preserving tape, so once The Beatles were ready to lay down proper takes of a song, the tape that contained all the rehearsals that were recorded was subsequently wound back and reused to capture the proper takes, thereby erasing most of the rehearsals.  I say most because on quite a number of occasions the number of proper takes of a given song attempted by The Beatles did not fill up an entire multi-track tape and therefore there were still several minutes of rehearsals left undisturbed at the end of the multi-track tape.  Such was the case for some of the sessions for "Strawberry Fields Forever" so it's possible that the acoustic rendition heard as part of the "Love" project comes from the end of one of these multi-tracks.  

The Love version of SSF must include portions from Lennon's home archive.

As I mentioned I wasn't sure whether or not EMI had access to Lennon's private archive for the "Love" project.  I do know that they obviously did gain access to his "Strawberry Fields Forever" demos for the "Anthology" project and may have retained them for use in "Love".  From memory though, the acoustic rendering of SFF heard in "Love" did not resemble from an instrumentation standpoint any of the home recordings of SFF that have been floating around.  It's possible, perhaps even probable that EMI used portions of Lennon's SFF demo tapes that nobody else has heard in the "Love" project but without some further information as to just exactly was was excerpted for "Love", it would be impossible for me to speculate any further on this matter.

I hate to attempt to post with any feeling of  absolution so I edited my post.  :lol

But in his demos he does experiment with several different kinds of strumming patterns. One of which is that chunk-a-chunk strumming pattern that's in the love recording.

Speaking of different strumming patterns, it's interesting to note that on the earliest SFF demos, John plays in a style similar to take 1, but on later demos he plays in a picking style similar to later takes. One of these later takes can be heard partially on the released version of the song.

Interesting for music nerds.

A flood of flat-sevenths (http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/VOLUME09/A_flood_of_flat-sevenths.shtml)

I just thought I'd revive this thread to ask guitarfool2002 a question(or anybody else that might be able to help). I'm wondering what kind of guitar George Harrison is playing in the picture that goes along with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T6tUzGGfeo&hd=1

Diaphanous, it looks like that guitar could be a Hofner Club 40 model 244.

(http://www.thecanteen.com/starclubhof05.jpg)

Thanks to those who recommended the Emerick book. I'm almost finished and have enjoyed it for the most part. A couple of mild complaints.... 1) GE seems to have a major slant towards McCartney, and 2) he REALLY comes across as dismissive of Harrison.

 Kind of funny to read the slagging off of Chris Thomas in this nook when I just read a Pink Floyd book that praises him.

Phew, glad you liked it - I wasn't sure if it would have the level of tech detail you required; as I mentioned, a studio diary may have driven a technical approach.

Yeah, the man-love for Macca tended towards over-the-top and I wonder how much this and the George political aspects were "drawn out" by the co-writer (although it's Geoff's gig@ the end o' the day)

It looks like you may be right. Thanks!  ;D

I haven't been able to post in the past 5 days...wanted to catch up on that mystery Beatles/Harrison guitar.

I'd say that is *not* a Hofner. Harrison did have a single-pickup "Club 40" model, and that exact guitar became subject of a bit of a controversial research debate later on. That could fill a book chapter too...more later.

The "Club 40" was single-pickup, and had a distinctive round control panel where the knobs were placed. John Lennon had a similar Hofner solidbody which can be seen prominently in several famous pre-stardom Liverpool and Hamburg photos, including the one of John, Paul, and Cynthia at the Casbah club. Compare the visual features and you'll notice the differences.

***One major difference to note in the Beatles stage photo and the Hofner photo shown above...the features don't match at all. The pickguard on the Hofner is like a brown tortoiseshell material, and in the style of a Gibson Les Paul pickguard. The guitar George is playing on stage has a black pickguard which goes under the strings, like most Fender and Fender-style cheaper knockoffs from that time. Note the knobs are different, and the tuners appear to be white plastic.

Bottom line - The question I have is what is the history of that photo in question? When/where was that show? And is it even an authentic Beatles concert photo? I have my doubts at this point, but it's too damned blurry to confirm or deny those doubts.

Remember the Beatles did package tours at that time, if the photo is in fact even *authentic*. They'd be on a concert bill with perhaps 3-5 other bands...maybe the guitar was not even George's own guitar, but rather something he borrowed from another band's guitarist?

Keep in mind the guitars of George Harrison have all been pretty well documented and their histories have been verified for almost every instrument including where it is today or who owns it. We know which ones George played since the 50's, make and model. And though it's a blurred photo, whatever he is playing doesn't match what we know he owned and toured with in those years.

Back to the Hofner Club 40 - again, I don't think that's what is in the photo. But to sum up the fascinating controversy behind that exact guitar in the photo with the autographs:

George originally gave that Liverpool-era guitar to a member of the Swingin Blue Jeans. Many are sure that is George's original guitar from his teen years. Later, it came up as a prize in a contest where the winner would win an autographed Beatle guitar. Hence, the autographs. The winner had that guitar in a bank vault or something in Germany.

But the autographs were not by the actual Beatles, but rather ghost signatures done by Neil Aspinall, who was apparently practiced at signing the Beatles' names and having them look authentic, as the actual band didn't have the time to accommodate all the requests and contests after 1963-64. It was standard practice to have a ghost signer, so many "authentic" signatures are fake or with letters, done with an "auto-pen".

Sum up: The guitar is most likely George's original Hofner solidbody, the autographs are Neil Aspinall's ghost signatures of the band, in the opinions of the experts.

And since he gave his original away to the dude from Swingin Blue Jeans, George for years did not own a Hofner solidbody. Later he must have felt nostalgic and bought one on the vintage collectors' market for his collection, and as he described it the case was a relic that had a setlist full of the old standards which a working band (like his own) would have played in the 50's or 60's.

So George did get a replacement Hofner, eventually, but his original with the supposedly fake signatures sits in a vault.

And I'd be 99% sure it's not that model Hofner he's shown playing in that stage photo, again if that photo itself is real. And if it is, the guitar could have been owned by someone else on that same concert bill.

To be honest, I thought that the autographs on that guitar were photoshoped. Something about it just didn't look right to me.

Some new info, a tracklist, and a link for the forthcoming BBC release:

Ten of On Air’s songs were never recorded by the group for EMI in the 1960s, including two making their debuts with the new release: The Beatles’ direct-to-air performance of Chuck Berry’s “I’m Talking About You” and a rocking cover of the standard “Beautiful Dreamer.” On Air also includes different versions of six rarities heard on the 1994 BBC collection: Little Richard’s “Lucille,” Chuck Berry’s “Memphis, Tennessee,” Chan Romero’s “The Hippy Hippy Shake,” Ray Charles’ “I Got A Woman,” and two songs they learned from records by Carl Perkins, “Glad All Over” and “Sure To Fall.”
The Beatles’ tribute to the BBC’s most important pop show of the early ’60s – “Happy Birthday, Dear Saturday Club” – is another surprise. As John Lennon recalled in 1980, “We did a lot of tracks that were never on record for Saturday Club – they were well recorded, too.” Paul remembers, “We’d been raised on the BBC radio programs. One of the big things in our week was Saturday Club – this great show was playing the kind of music we loved, so that was something we really aspired to.”

The Beatles: On Air – Live at the BBC Volume 2
CD ONE
1. And Here We Are Again (Speech)
2. WORDS OF LOVE
3. How About It, Gorgeous? (Speech)
4. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW A SECRET
5. LUCILLE
6. Hey, Paul… (Speech)
7. ANNA (GO TO HIM)
8. Hello! (Speech)
9. PLEASE PLEASE ME
10. MISERY
11. I’M TALKING ABOUT YOU
12. A Real Treat (Speech)
13. BOYS
14. Absolutely Fab (Speech)
15. CHAINS
16. ASK ME WHY
17. TILL THERE WAS YOU
18. LEND ME YOUR COMB
19. Lower 5E (Speech)
20. THE HIPPY HIPPY SHAKE
21. ROLL OVER BEETHOVEN
22. THERE’S A PLACE
23. Bumper Bundle (Speech)
24. P.S. I LOVE YOU
25. PLEASE MISTER POSTMAN
26. BEAUTIFUL DREAMER
27. DEVIL IN HER HEART
28. The 49 Weeks (Speech)
29. SURE TO FALL (IN LOVE WITH YOU)
30. Never Mind, Eh? (Speech)
31. TWIST AND SHOUT
32. Bye, Bye (speech)
33. John - Pop Profile (Speech)
34. George - Pop Profile (Speech)
CD TWO
1. I SAW HER STANDING THERE
2. GLAD ALL OVER
3. Lift Lid Again (Speech)
4. I’LL GET YOU
5. SHE LOVES YOU
6. MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
7. HAPPY BIRTHDAY DEAR SATURDAY CLUB
8. Now Hush, Hush (Speech)
9. FROM ME TO YOU
10. MONEY (THAT’S WHAT I WANT)
11. I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND
12. Brian Bathtubes (Speech)
13. THIS BOY
14. If I Wasn’t In America (Speech)
15. I GOT A WOMAN
16. LONG TALL SALLY
17. IF I FELL
18. A Hard Job Writing Them (Speech)
19. AND I LOVE HER
20. Oh, Can’t We? Yes We Can (Speech)
21. YOU CAN’T DO THAT
22. HONEY DON’T
23. I’LL FOLLOW THE SUN
24. Green With Black Shutters (Speech)
25. KANSAS CITY/HEY-HEY-HEY-HEY!
26. That’s What We’re Here For (Speech)
27. I FEEL FINE (STUDIO OUTTAKE)
28. Paul - Pop Profile (Speech)
29. Ringo - Pop Profile (Speech)



http://thebeatles.com/news/air-live-bbc-vol2-be-released (http://thebeatles.com/news/air-live-bbc-vol2-be-released)

Cool. I really enjoyed the first BBC sessions release.

Just for the record, I called Beautiful Dreamer.  ;D I've never understood why it's always referred to as a standard though. Other than the words "Beautiful Dreamer, wake unto me" it's a totally rewritten rock and roll love song, typical of the era. I'm disappointed that it looks like no Pete Best recordings are included. I'm curios about the studio outtake of I Feel Fine. I wonder if it'll be an early version done in the original key?

Cool!  I'm glad to see that some new archival product will be getting out there to the fans.  I wonder if the version of "Roll Over Beethoven" is the fast and powerful version which differs greatly from the version on "With The Beatles"? 

(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/agriview.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/26/42672654-1af5-11e3-9fc8-0019bb2963f4/52308a2124dde.preview-620.jpg)

OMG .....

I just thought I'd bring this topic back for a minute to discuss something I've always wondered about, regarding Free As A Bird and Real Love. I've always been curios about how the songs were actually recorded. Did Paul, George and Ringo record a "basic track" as a three piece group, and then dub in John's voice and piano? Or did they all add overdubs to the existing demo? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, could there be such a thing as an "alternate take" of the "Beatles" versions? Did they even attend recording sessions together, or did they just add their separate parts piece by piece?

Beatnickle...that is the coolest thing I've ever seen.

Probably took 50 years to make it.  :lol

From memory this was more or less what they did.  They created a backing track and then dropped in John's vocals where they needed it.  I don't know if they overdubbed certain bits and bobs on later on in the process but whatever information that is out there on these extremely interesting sessions can be found here:

http://reunionsessions.tripod.com/al/faabsessions/contents.html

I wonder what today's tech could do with those original Lennon cassettes?

Paul McCartney talks "Carnival Of Light" with Jimmy Kimmel, last night, at 3:20:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH1GaZB5wpk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH1GaZB5wpk)


Interesting to note that so many fans showed up for last night's TV appearance and concert that they shut down a portion of Hollywood Boulevard! Check it out:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-paul-mccartney-shuts-down-hollywood-blvd-for-kimmel-concert-20130924,0,5984365.story (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-paul-mccartney-shuts-down-hollywood-blvd-for-kimmel-concert-20130924,0,5984365.story)

Other video(s) of the performance and Kimmel interview can be found in links at those URL's for those interested.

They were already able to take advantage of advances in technology in the late nineties for the "Lennon Anthology" as Rob Stevens and his team were able to do what Jeff Lynne was unable to do in 1994 and that is eliminate the buzz from "Now And Then".  Now add another decade onto that ledger and you might be able to start to fathom what might be possible now should McCartney and Starr ever choose to resurrect "Now And Then" and finish it off for release as a proper Beatles single.

The prospect seems unlikely.  :'(

That was left by aliens, right?

They took out the buzz as far back as 1998?  :brow

Thanks very much for that link! Reading all of that kind of makes me bummed out. I mean, it kind of makes you wonder just how close we were to some "new" Beatles music, with All For Love and Now And Then. I'd give anything to hear All For Love, even if it's just a very rough demo or idea for a song. I've really been into Free As A Bird lately. There are some really nice harmony vocals, and I think they did a good job of "disguising" John's voice a little. It seems like a typical "John moment", as he always wanted his voice to sound "different" on Beatles records. There is one particular moment during George's guitar solo that makes the song what it is, at least for me. Pay attention to the harmony vocals at 3:09 to 3:12 into the song. I love that little high note. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYfiRvL-zUU

Here's a little "fun fact" that I don't think many people noticed or caught. I don't even really know if it's an intentional little musical nod, or just a weird fluke/coincidence. Listen closely to the end, after the drums come back in. Notice that little bass riff, right as the song is fading? That's the intro to Come Together.  8)  ;D

Talk about a hardcore fan...

And they still made George look more like Stig O'Hara than George Harrison.  :lol

Long live Stig!

Listening to the early albums again... I completely take back what I said about Mr Moonlight! Not my favorite, but why was I so harsh on it before? Its not bad at all.

 Working my way through outtakes now...

Check this out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt_hWWtVmlo

And this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1levHlDyGo0

This, too! It runs to slow though. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQDDfW2pMhk

One more for now, until I think of more.  ;D It's pretty to figure out why this take didn't work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgnFFYFekvE

It has a great John Lennon vocal on it which virtually saves it from obscurity.  Still as many a Beatles author has noted in their various publications, if Beatles fans were to ask what was their least favorite Beatles recording, most of them would select "Mr. Moonlight".  The problem for me isn't so much the song itself but almost the entire "Beatles For Sale" album has such a depressing feeling to it which makes the much talked about forlorn expressions worn on the faces of the fabs on the cover so appropriate.  At the time of "Beatles For Sale", they were still in their "beat music" phase and when you start listening to "Beatles For Sale", you immediately get the impression that this is not a "beat record".  That isn't to say that the record wasn't indicative of their musical progression at the time or doesn't have some great songs on it but the opening trio of "No Reply", "I'm A Loser" and "Baby's In Black" isn't exactly in line thematically with how The Beatles albums at the time sounded.  As the record progresses there are more songs in that vein where you are waiting for the upbeat beat music to come and it is rarely to be found on this record.  

Man I used to love belting Mr. Moonlight when it was on the stereo. Fun song to sing.

Am I the only one here who thinks Let It Be is the best Beatles album? I don't like pre-Sergeant Pepper stuff that much... Revolver for example is really overrated. Abbey Road's A-side is amazing. And the White album seems interesting, I haven't listened it entirely yet. Let It Be is awesome, it doesn't sound like The Beatles at all... Maybe because it has balls  :lol  Two of Us, Dig a Pony, Across the Universe, I Me Mine, Let It Be, The Long and Winding Road are all amazing songs. The rest are good too, but those are my favorites.

Not anymore, but I went through a period where I was just completely enthralled by "Let It Be" and to this day feel that McCartney's songs on that record are superior to any of his efforts on "Abbey Road".  The issue is with John Lennon and George Harrison.  John was going through his heroin period at the time which greatly impacted his ability to contribute to the project while George's best efforts were derided and I've heard more than one Beatles author lay claim to the fact that the reason why "For You Blue" was offered up to the group to record was because by that point Harrison had had so many of his compositions rejected, that he figured he'd take the path of least resistance and try to get the group to record one of his simplest numbers.  I still feel to this day that if you swap out "I Me Mine" and "For You Blue" for finished Beatles versions of  "All Things Must Pass" and "Let It Down", we are talking about "Let It Be" in a much different light today.

The sessions for that record may rank as some of the most fascinating ever committed to tape by any band having more to do with the tone of the sessions themselves than the music recorded.

I think that Paul's songs on the Let It Be album just might be the best of his entire career. People gush on and on about Yesterday, which is a very good song, don't get me wrong, but the Let It Be album had Let It Be, Get Back, The Long and Winding Road, and Two Of Us. All on the same album!  :o