The Beatles *sigh*

[Jay]

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

[alf wiedersehen]

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. 

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... 

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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

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.

[alf wiedersehen]

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.

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.
 

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.

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

[alf wiedersehen]

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

[Jay]

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

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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.

[guitarfool2002]

As always, thanks for the thoughtful post, Guitarfool

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. 

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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.

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

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?

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?

[alf wiedersehen]

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?

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.

[guitarfool2002]

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.

[alf wiedersehen]

So, Billy

How's the listening going?

[JohnMill]

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?

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.

[JohnMill]

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.

[SIP Mike]

So, Billy

How's the listening going?

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

[Juice Bronston]

So, Billy

How's the listening going?

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.

[Jay]

It's troll hunting season. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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.

[MBE]

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.

[alf wiedersehen]

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.