By Terry Ott

Most Beatle fans are somewhat familiar with history of the group's success outside of England.

That it was about 16 months after the release of the group's first single in the UK, "Love Me Do," before the Fabs became fabulous in North America with "I Want To Hold Your Hand."

What is not so well known is that in Canada, the Beatles had already released three singles and two albums on the Capitol Records label, before the Feb., 1964 "Ed Sullivan Show" turned 70 million fans on to the group.

However, the three singles -- including "Love Me Do" --went nowhere on Canadian radio during 1963, and in fact did not even chart on any of the major stations in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

Interestingly, it was the smaller market AM station in Canada that bothered to give the group a spin, but even there it was nothing very special.

Although I have never seen any sales numbers for these releases, it is believed all three singles sold less than 1,000 units in 1963.

The two albums unique to Capitol of Canada, "Twist and Shout" and "Beatlemania," were basically knock-offs of "Please Please Me" and "With The Beatles," and hardly sold at all right up to early January 1964.

But when the group exploded later in January, "Capitol of Canada" was in the enviable position of having the 3 earlier singles and two albums, in addition to the first US release, "Meet The Beatles," as well as "Introducing the Beatles" on Vee Jay to peddle to a gone Beatle crazy record buying fan base.

Capitol of Canada also released a variation of the US "The Beatles Second Album" in the spring of 1964, "Long Tall Sally," which had an almost identical cover to American counterpart.

Around the same time, Canadian Capitol also released "Roll Over Beethoven" as a single, which was later imported into the U.S. and charted.

I recall quite vividly that the singles without picture sleeves sold for 69 cents and the albums went for $4.19 in mono, and $4.98 in stereo.

I don't think I ever knew another fan that had a stereo copy, but they are not that uncommon.

And "Twist and Shout" and "Beatlemania" have been available in Canada on vinyl right up until about the
mid-'90s when LPs were fazed out, and on cassette until recently.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if the Fabs had not made the grand splash on Ed, but rather sort of gathered steam by word of mouth and increased radio play.

Would they have become big in Canada, transferring the UK experience to the colony, and then march into the U.S., or would it have been strictly regional, and therefore hugely smaller in stature?

In my time of writing about the Beatles, I have never interviewed or spoken to anyone who claims to have bought, or even been a fan of the group in 1963, in Canada.

However, if anyone out there did buy the records 40 years ago, I'd love to hear from you.

First came the Rolling Stones last fall.

Then Bob Dylan this fall.

So where the heck are the Beatles?

On high-end audio, I mean.

The Stones and Dylan are now represented on the Super Audio Compact Disc format, and their back catalogue sounds delicious.

But except for some remastering for the Yellow Sub Songtrack and "Number 1" collections, the Fabs long list of albums are stuck in digital dreg, circa 1986.

Yes, there has been some fine 5.1 work done on the YS and Anthology videos, but still nothing on the common catalogue.

And that fact has somehow escaped all the musings on the new "Let it Be...Naked" release, set for Nov. 18.

Why in the world did Apple not carve up this LIBN offering in at least hybrid SACD?

(Hybrid SACD allows for playing on regular CD players, yet delivers better fidelity than a regular CD. The format can also utilize the 5.1 surround sound mix.)

I mean this would at least provide an extra incentive for fans, many of whom have already heard the coming LIBN release "as nature intended."

There were rumours earlier this year that "Abbey Road" was being prepared for a SACD 5.1 release, but I'll believe that when I see it, especially since the pattern for "new" Beatle product seems to be running on a once every year sked.

But realistically, if Apple/EMI does not get it together soon with the back catalogue, they risk having all that fantastic Beatle music relegated to the dust bins of technology.

And that, is not how nature intended.

By now most Fab fans have heard about the dust-up last weekend between Paul McCartney and a photographer during a late night visit by Paul to the hanging Blaine freakshow in downtown swinging London.

Macca, who was described by the police as being intoxicated, also reportedly told a fan to get lost in no uncertain terms.

At first, it was reported that Paul fired his press agent because the agent had the temerity to tip a photog that Paul would be on the loose, but Macca later said that he was joking when he allegedly gave his man the sack.

In any event, the incident has produced a nice bitchy rant by Phil Norman, the author of the "true" story of the Beatles, "Shout."

Norman digs in deep to the body with multiple shots at Macca's character, as well as exploding the "myth" that surrounds McCartney.

Norman says that Paul is really a ruthless business man at heart-in addition to Macca's superb musical talents-and the latest incident, is only more of the same lately, possibly brought on by McCartney's marriage to the much younger Heather Mills, now pregnant with child.


(You know, old guy marries girl half his age and feels oats, and gets too big for his bridgework.)

Norman also disses Paul's painting and poetry and his film career.

As far as Norman is concerned, Macca works too much touring and recording and tries too hard to be the superstar that he's supposed to be-and in fact obviously is.

Notwithstanding the rather fuzzy logic of that particular charge, Norman makes a valid point about the Macca man.

John Lennon was always considered the "bad boy" of the Beatles, and Paul the nice "cute one."

Norman thinks that Paul is busily trying to live down the conventional wisdom, and at 61, is looking foolish.

And besides, Paul can never compete with John's memory, which is frozen, like John Kennedy's, in time.

However, I don't think that McCartney acting (more) the boor recently is really news, but rather that he did so little of it-in public-before this.

After all, this guy is perhaps the most famous musician and pop culture icon in modern history, and is endowed with a $1 billion + fortune, plus a Sir to go along with it.

I guess, in my opinion, I would cut Macca some slack, unless he takes to punching out journalists and fans every weekend, and putting Heather on keyboards.

Yesterday, all his troubles seemed so far away...

"Let it Be (ridiculously)...Naked" is in the news these days, what with its "official" release set for Nov. 18.

Despite perhaps the worst ever title for a Beatle product, fans are eagerly awaiting the un-Spectorized version of the "Get Back/LIB" sessions.

Online Beatle disucussions groups have also been buzzing about the time that WKBW in Buffalo, NY, broadcast an acetate of the very first mix of "Get Back"-as nature intended-in the late summer of 1969.

Lots of conjecture about exactly when it was broadcast, and one camp believes it was in August or early September.

However another Beatle detective holds that it was broadcast in October, opening up the chance that the acetate came form John Lennon, who had appeared the month before at the Toronto Rock and Roll Revival.

Regardless of where WKBW got the recording, the fact remains that it was broadcast on North American radio just around the time that "Abbey Road" was released, and a full nine months before "Let it Be" would get its official release, in a much different form.

(Talk about confusing the public!)

Although security at Abbey Road -- or Apple -- was not so tight back in 1969, it is hard to believe that anyone other than a Beatle or a top Apple official would have access to an acetate of the complete album.

Is it possible that Paul McCartney -- who was the driving force behind the concept of "Get Back," helped the acetate make it to North America?

Or was it John, who called the sessions "shitty." and wanted the wolrd to hear the Beatles as he once quipped "with their pants down."

Believe or not, there are audio tapes circulating of the WKBW broadcast, so fans can compare versions of "Get Back" and speculate just what is where and when.

But when it comes to the "Get Beck/LIB" albatross, I like to remember the Rutles' version, "Let it Rot."

As the tale goes, "Let it Rot" was released as an album, a film, and a lawsuit.

Sounds like the way Apple runs things today.

I belong to several online Beatles discussion groups, and although I seldom post, I do see a steady flow of Beatle information get discussed and dissected daily.

The latest craze seems to be the amateur-and not so amateur (read bootleg) remaking of Beatle songs in stereo, mono, and 5.1.

For instance, a major topic for debate over the past week has been a new "mix" of "Abbey Road" in "real" mono, not a" fold-down" of the stereo image.

As most Beatle fans are aware, "Abbey Road" was the Fabs' first LP recorded at their then state of the art 8 track Abbey Road Studios, and was never offered in commercial monophonic form.

And although some reviewers have made note of AB's rather "noisy" stereo mix, the LP has also been considered one of the "best" sounding of all Fabs albums.

So the idea of a mono mix struck me as odd, especially since it is a bit difficult no matter the computer trickery to create a real mono mix from a CD copy and not from the original multi-track master tapes.

What also struck me as odd is that the individuals who prepared the mono mix of AB is openly peddling the title over the Internet, something that the folks at Apple are no doubt thrilled to pieces about.

Afterall, Sir George Martin was even testy about the Mobile Fidelity Half Speed Master's collection, commenting in at least one interview that he thought even they were not quite right.

(MFSL had used the original Abbey Road Studio master tapes to produce the 1/2 speed master series.)

I have not heard this mono mix, but I have read comments about it, and so far, most of them have been positive.

Perhaps the amateur and pro re-mixers are filling a void that Apple has yet to enter, although I think Apple will issue a mono Abbey Road the next time Mars makes a close pass at Earth.

But the little guy mixes of 5.1 sort of catch my fancy, and it will be interesting to compare current amateur mixes with the real thing when Apple finally gets around to the back catalogue remaster, hopefully this decade.

In the meantime, I'm anxious to see the next innovation by the re-mixers.

Anybody for a 5.1 "What's The New, Mary Jane" and "Two Virgins"?

With a lot of the big '60s group reuniting and getting out and the road earning mega-bucks, just think of the possibilities that would have occured if the Fabs had been able to work it out.

Lets entertain the following scenario: All four members are alive and willing to reunite for a one-off super-duper show at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.

Such a venue would allow for approx. 120,000 attendees.

Although ticket prcies are always a hot button issue, even for monster groups like the Rolling Stones and the Eagles, the reunited Beatles would have belonged to a special stratosphere of marketing.

I don't think that an average ticket price of even $300 US would be out of line.

Then do the math, which adds up to $36 million for the live gate alone.

Next up, pay-per-view.

The record PPV buy was 2 million homes for the second Tyson/Holyfield fight in 1996, at a price of $50 per view.

A live concert by the Beatles would presumably draw more, and lets say conservatively, there are 4 million buys at $100 each.

Um, thats $400 million bucks.

Then, there would be merchandising, including t-shirts, poster, etc., both at the venue and through retail and mail order.

Chock up at least another $75 million for the above, and then think about sales of the live album and accompanying DVD.

Oh, say, how about sales of 20 million units of the CD and 5 million of the DVD at an average retail of $20, and thats another $500 million dollars.

So lets add up the numbers: for one single Beatles reunion concert, the total gross would exceed $1 BILLION US dollars, give or take a few million.

Anybody still think they never would have gotten together again?

I'd like to start by singing like a Blackbird in the
dead of night for the medium upon which we are
enjoying the historical and ongoing exploits of the
Beatles.

In the last 10 years, but especially the last 5, the
Internet has become the ultimate gold laden mine for
Beatle fans.

Every day some Website around the world posts
information that many of us have never heard about or
read before.

There are Websites that are invaluable like AbbeyRd,
and there are also sites that are almost obsessive in
their minute detail and comprehensiveness.

For instance, there is a guy from New Jersey who has
cataloged every single variation of every single
Beatle song recorded in mono, stereo, fake stereo and
live.

And there are countless sites that chronicle just
about every single known bootleg of the Fabs and solo
member efforts.

The amount of detailed information available boggles
the mind, and would have been unthinkable around the
time that Mark Lewishon's Recording Sessions bible was
published in 1988.

Mark's book was exhaustive, and it is still the
benchmark, but the Web is constantly expanding the
knowledge base almost to the point of ongoing online
tutorial.

The immediacy may sometimes lead to errors, but on
balance the information available to even the casual
fan is so attractive, it can't do anything but add to
the Beatles already huge legend.

And that, is a very good thing indeed.