Friday, October 31, 2003
Beatle Bits #38
Congratulations to Paul McCartney and wife Heather Mills on the recent birth of their baby girl, Beatrice Milly.
(Now all he needs is a boy to continue the noble Beatle lineage!OOPS! Forgot about young James.Sorry.)
The fact that Macca is not exactly strictly a young man at 61 does not seem to mean anything these days.
In fact, I bet that Sir Paul will be extra-energized by the new baby on board and this should ensure future tours and Lps well into decade two of the 21st century.
Just think about it; this coming February will mark 40 years ago that day since the band was taught to play on Ed Sullivan.
Those 40 years have seemed to flash by in an instant,-at least for me-so the golden anniversary of the first Fabs North American live TV audience should arrive like it was yesterday.
I can see it all now: Paul McCartney touring the US at the age of 72, looking like 42, and acting like 22, all the while hawking the latest prescription meds tailored specifically for us Baby Boomers.
Of course there will be new wonder drugs by then to hawk but for now how about Paul McCartney's Arthritic&Wrinkle World Tour 2013-4 brought to you by aspirin and aloe, or even Wigs Over America?
Can you imagine how important and ironic the words to Yesterday will be by 2014?
Sir Paul may even commandeer the CBS Dave Letterman Ed Sullivan Theatre to stage an anniversary gig, if Dave is still doing the Late show.
But there would have to be paramedics standing by for the fans, now also onto their 70s, in case they screamed themselves to a heart attack or stroke.
Ha! You may say.Terry has gone nutters, as they say in jolly olde England.
Verily I say unto you, remember the day that I predicted that Macca would still be at it, screaming/rasping/gasping out Hey Jude-to the best of his ability-7 years after being eligible for his old age pension.
Yesterday....all my troubles seemed so far away.
(Now all he needs is a boy to continue the noble Beatle lineage!OOPS! Forgot about young James.Sorry.)
The fact that Macca is not exactly strictly a young man at 61 does not seem to mean anything these days.
In fact, I bet that Sir Paul will be extra-energized by the new baby on board and this should ensure future tours and Lps well into decade two of the 21st century.
Just think about it; this coming February will mark 40 years ago that day since the band was taught to play on Ed Sullivan.
Those 40 years have seemed to flash by in an instant,-at least for me-so the golden anniversary of the first Fabs North American live TV audience should arrive like it was yesterday.
I can see it all now: Paul McCartney touring the US at the age of 72, looking like 42, and acting like 22, all the while hawking the latest prescription meds tailored specifically for us Baby Boomers.
Of course there will be new wonder drugs by then to hawk but for now how about Paul McCartney's Arthritic&Wrinkle World Tour 2013-4 brought to you by aspirin and aloe, or even Wigs Over America?
Can you imagine how important and ironic the words to Yesterday will be by 2014?
Sir Paul may even commandeer the CBS Dave Letterman Ed Sullivan Theatre to stage an anniversary gig, if Dave is still doing the Late show.
But there would have to be paramedics standing by for the fans, now also onto their 70s, in case they screamed themselves to a heart attack or stroke.
Ha! You may say.Terry has gone nutters, as they say in jolly olde England.
Verily I say unto you, remember the day that I predicted that Macca would still be at it, screaming/rasping/gasping out Hey Jude-to the best of his ability-7 years after being eligible for his old age pension.
Yesterday....all my troubles seemed so far away.
Thursday, October 30, 2003
Beatle Bits #37
Would you pay $40,000 or even $60,000 or more for a set of Beatle autographs?
Well, that's evidently what a recent episode of Antiques Road Show valued the Fabs sigs at for a lucky owner.
Frankly-and as Archie Bunker was fond of saying, with all due regrets-I think that even $20,000 is over the top at the present time.
Notice I said "present time," as autographs are very death sensitive, and since the passing of George Harrison two years ago, all four Beatle sigs on one item have increased in value, as have George's individually.
But the field is full of landmines, and unless you have a historically validated item-such as a signed contract or a limited edition book or art print--then it almost impossible to guarantee that a signature is authentic.
(In an earlier column I mentioned that I was once fortunate to own a copy of Songs By George Harrison, a limited edition book, that sold for approx. $500 on issue, but is now going for $2000-$3000.)
It is well known in Beatle circles that Mal Evans, the Beatles 1960 era roadie spent much of his tour time practicing and then forging the Lads autographs for frenzied fans and others.
Some of the obvious fakes and forgeries available over the Internet come with a "Certificate of Authenticity," which can be worth about as much as the paper they occupy.
I checked out one dealer who appears to be legit, and the most all 4 sigs were going for on the expert's Website was $8000. If the sigs are authentic, this price does not seem out of line.
But $60,000 for a set of Fabs autographs as claimed by the Antiques Road Show is just ridiculous, and no dealer-or collector-in their right mind would pay such a price at this time.
And remember, dealers usually mark up their product by at least 100%, so unless you go to auction-which has its own perils-expect a dealer to only give you half of what the "book" price is.
It seems that every so often, prices for Fabs stuff will go through the roof-recall the ads in Goldmine about 15 years ago offering a sealed stereo Butcher Cover for $20,000, and then soon after a discovery of 5-10 still sealed copies sent the value down to around $10,000.
Still, Beatle autographs are among the most desirable pop artifacts of both the 20th and 21st centuries, and will eventually be priced accordingly.
Just don't go paying, or thinking you can get 60 grand for all four Fabs autographs right now.
Well, that's evidently what a recent episode of Antiques Road Show valued the Fabs sigs at for a lucky owner.
Frankly-and as Archie Bunker was fond of saying, with all due regrets-I think that even $20,000 is over the top at the present time.
Notice I said "present time," as autographs are very death sensitive, and since the passing of George Harrison two years ago, all four Beatle sigs on one item have increased in value, as have George's individually.
But the field is full of landmines, and unless you have a historically validated item-such as a signed contract or a limited edition book or art print--then it almost impossible to guarantee that a signature is authentic.
(In an earlier column I mentioned that I was once fortunate to own a copy of Songs By George Harrison, a limited edition book, that sold for approx. $500 on issue, but is now going for $2000-$3000.)
It is well known in Beatle circles that Mal Evans, the Beatles 1960 era roadie spent much of his tour time practicing and then forging the Lads autographs for frenzied fans and others.
Some of the obvious fakes and forgeries available over the Internet come with a "Certificate of Authenticity," which can be worth about as much as the paper they occupy.
I checked out one dealer who appears to be legit, and the most all 4 sigs were going for on the expert's Website was $8000. If the sigs are authentic, this price does not seem out of line.
But $60,000 for a set of Fabs autographs as claimed by the Antiques Road Show is just ridiculous, and no dealer-or collector-in their right mind would pay such a price at this time.
And remember, dealers usually mark up their product by at least 100%, so unless you go to auction-which has its own perils-expect a dealer to only give you half of what the "book" price is.
It seems that every so often, prices for Fabs stuff will go through the roof-recall the ads in Goldmine about 15 years ago offering a sealed stereo Butcher Cover for $20,000, and then soon after a discovery of 5-10 still sealed copies sent the value down to around $10,000.
Still, Beatle autographs are among the most desirable pop artifacts of both the 20th and 21st centuries, and will eventually be priced accordingly.
Just don't go paying, or thinking you can get 60 grand for all four Fabs autographs right now.
Wednesday, October 29, 2003
Beatle Bits #36
I had to laugh when I saw the dispatches on AbbeyRD-I read the news today, oh boy-about the new Ringo Starr Casino Rama CD.
Not laughing at what should prove to eventually be a worthy product-the show from Ringo and his All Star Band from last summer, recorded live at a Canadian near north Native Peoples controlled gaming house was said to be outstanding.
But laughing at the fact that once again, Beatle product just keeps you hanging on.
Ads for the Rama show at $25 plus $5 for shipping and handling began appearing last August, and were promising to "ship within 21 days."
Suffice to say, like just about every other Beatle offer before it, a lot more than 21 days have gone by since the ads offered to ship within 3 weeks.
It reminds me of last year's Ed Sullivan Beatles DVD "exclusive" set boon-doggle.
Ads began appearing for that set back in December 2002, but the DVDs did not actually begin to ship until March, after much Internet chatter even led to the rumor that the entire project had been scotched by Apple.
However, the sets were generally well received when they did show up, although some Canadian customers who forked out $130 for something they can now buy in the stores for about $30, were not totally amused.
So, just what 'ell is it about Beatle stuff that always seems to bring out the delay gremlins?
Well some of it has to be chocked up to chance and happenstance, but a goodly portion comes from the Byzantine contractual obligations required when dealing with Apple, the Beatles parent company.
It seems that not only must every I be dotted and every T be crossed, but that also all of the stars aligned before a Beatle release comes off on time and without some sort of hitch.
A splendid time is guaranteed for all lawyers, when it comes to releasing Beatle product these days, contrary to the way it was done 40 years ago, and parodied so effectively in the Rutles.
(If you recall, the Rutles manager, Leggy Mountbatten, was presented with a pitch for Beatle product with the proviso that all he had to say was "we're in business.")
Meanwhile, I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has received the Ringo Rama CD, as well as first impressions of the show.
Not laughing at what should prove to eventually be a worthy product-the show from Ringo and his All Star Band from last summer, recorded live at a Canadian near north Native Peoples controlled gaming house was said to be outstanding.
But laughing at the fact that once again, Beatle product just keeps you hanging on.
Ads for the Rama show at $25 plus $5 for shipping and handling began appearing last August, and were promising to "ship within 21 days."
Suffice to say, like just about every other Beatle offer before it, a lot more than 21 days have gone by since the ads offered to ship within 3 weeks.
It reminds me of last year's Ed Sullivan Beatles DVD "exclusive" set boon-doggle.
Ads began appearing for that set back in December 2002, but the DVDs did not actually begin to ship until March, after much Internet chatter even led to the rumor that the entire project had been scotched by Apple.
However, the sets were generally well received when they did show up, although some Canadian customers who forked out $130 for something they can now buy in the stores for about $30, were not totally amused.
So, just what 'ell is it about Beatle stuff that always seems to bring out the delay gremlins?
Well some of it has to be chocked up to chance and happenstance, but a goodly portion comes from the Byzantine contractual obligations required when dealing with Apple, the Beatles parent company.
It seems that not only must every I be dotted and every T be crossed, but that also all of the stars aligned before a Beatle release comes off on time and without some sort of hitch.
A splendid time is guaranteed for all lawyers, when it comes to releasing Beatle product these days, contrary to the way it was done 40 years ago, and parodied so effectively in the Rutles.
(If you recall, the Rutles manager, Leggy Mountbatten, was presented with a pitch for Beatle product with the proviso that all he had to say was "we're in business.")
Meanwhile, I would appreciate hearing from anyone who has received the Ringo Rama CD, as well as first impressions of the show.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
Beatle Bits #35
I find that one of the most fun Beatle pastimes is digging for old movie star mags, circa 1964-5.
By chance, I discovered a 2nd hand and antique shop in my hometown last spring that had piles of the pulp fiction so popular back in the early 60s.
Although the publications had names such as Movie Stars and Modern Screen, several copies that I found from 1964 and 1965 had front cover stories on the Fabs.
The September 1965 issue of Movie Stars had the headline,"Cynthia's secret letter to THE NEW BEATLE WIFE," in which Mrs. Lennon was supposedly offering advice to Maureen Starr, Ringo's new bride.
But when you actually look carefully at the "story" what you see is that the text is basically quotes from a"friend" of the principals, and is most likely not true.
I recall seeing some interviews from the North American tours press conferences in which the Beatles collectively comment on the movie mag stories, saying that the fans should not pay attention to them because they are all made up.
However, some of the stuff in these magazines turn out to be historically significant.
Take the July 1965 edition of Modern Screen, with Jackie Kennedy on the cover.
Also on the cover is a header announcing:"EXCLUSIVE! Beatles Movie Preview."
Inside are some b&w pix from the set and locations of Help!, some of which I had not seen before.
But what's most interesting is the title of the movie, according to Modern Screen in the early summer of 1965: "Eight Arms To Hold You."
Most fans know that EATHY was the early title of the Beatles 2nd movie, before John Lennon came up with Help!
Also of interest in these magazines are the ads for Beatle product.
You could send away for 8mm movies of the Fabs in "Behind the scenes on A Hard Day's Night," and "The Beatles First Concert Tour In Color!," all for only $4.98, projector included.
Another offer boasts of "65 Free Beatle Pictures," if you join the American Beatle Fan Club, for the tidy sum of $1, for a "lifetime membership."
I wonder how many people still have their membership card? It had to be the Fabs bargin of the century.
Someone once told me that Apple supposedly bought up the rights to the Beatle images in all of these 40 year old North American magazines, but I don't know if it is true or not.
(I imagine the only way to find out would be to use some of the images commercially and see if Apple sues!)
In any event, its not only the "serious" publications like Life, Time and Rolling Stone that hold Beatle news and value, although one should be very wary of the "facts" contained in any of the movie mag stories on the Fabs.
I'd welcome any information from readers on the Beatles movie mag history.
By chance, I discovered a 2nd hand and antique shop in my hometown last spring that had piles of the pulp fiction so popular back in the early 60s.
Although the publications had names such as Movie Stars and Modern Screen, several copies that I found from 1964 and 1965 had front cover stories on the Fabs.
The September 1965 issue of Movie Stars had the headline,"Cynthia's secret letter to THE NEW BEATLE WIFE," in which Mrs. Lennon was supposedly offering advice to Maureen Starr, Ringo's new bride.
But when you actually look carefully at the "story" what you see is that the text is basically quotes from a"friend" of the principals, and is most likely not true.
I recall seeing some interviews from the North American tours press conferences in which the Beatles collectively comment on the movie mag stories, saying that the fans should not pay attention to them because they are all made up.
However, some of the stuff in these magazines turn out to be historically significant.
Take the July 1965 edition of Modern Screen, with Jackie Kennedy on the cover.
Also on the cover is a header announcing:"EXCLUSIVE! Beatles Movie Preview."
Inside are some b&w pix from the set and locations of Help!, some of which I had not seen before.
But what's most interesting is the title of the movie, according to Modern Screen in the early summer of 1965: "Eight Arms To Hold You."
Most fans know that EATHY was the early title of the Beatles 2nd movie, before John Lennon came up with Help!
Also of interest in these magazines are the ads for Beatle product.
You could send away for 8mm movies of the Fabs in "Behind the scenes on A Hard Day's Night," and "The Beatles First Concert Tour In Color!," all for only $4.98, projector included.
Another offer boasts of "65 Free Beatle Pictures," if you join the American Beatle Fan Club, for the tidy sum of $1, for a "lifetime membership."
I wonder how many people still have their membership card? It had to be the Fabs bargin of the century.
Someone once told me that Apple supposedly bought up the rights to the Beatle images in all of these 40 year old North American magazines, but I don't know if it is true or not.
(I imagine the only way to find out would be to use some of the images commercially and see if Apple sues!)
In any event, its not only the "serious" publications like Life, Time and Rolling Stone that hold Beatle news and value, although one should be very wary of the "facts" contained in any of the movie mag stories on the Fabs.
I'd welcome any information from readers on the Beatles movie mag history.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Beatle Bits #34
One of the occupational hazards of producing written and spoken material for public consumption is criticism, or even outright personal attacks.
I have had my share of both in my 10-year career as a journalist and broadcaster.
At the height of my investigative writing into organized crime in the mid-90s, I had been followed and harassed and threatened.
However, with the type of reporting I was doing, the flak was expected.
So writing on the Beatles is sort of a low-stress environment for me, and it is something I very much enjoy doing.
(You don't get too much love when you are writing about gangsters.)
And taking critiques and shots is still part of the job, but so is getting positive feedback, of which I get my fair share.
When I get a communication from a reader, I always reply -- with a copy to Steve Marinucci -- my reply is usually tit-for-tat with the readers e-mail.
I have had readers tell me they commensurate with my opinions, and I have had at least one reader tell me that I "don't know what (I'm) talking about."
Which is all fair comment, as I try to always stress in my replies.
AbbeyRd also has a fans forum, in which my BBs get kicked around from time to time.
One poster complains that I am not doing anything that any other poster on the forum couldn't do. Although I am not going to get into a piddling contest on the forum, I will say that the basic premise of the poster's argument is correct, and I hope he or anyone else hanging there starts writing a column soon. I promise to read it, and then offer my comments.
In my opinion -- remember that word, kiddies! -- writing about the Beatles is great because there are so many issues that are open to interpretation and personal likes and dislikes.
I reject the anal retentive completists who believe that there's is just one and only Beatle truth, and that basically, they or their kind alone are privy to it. I also reject a lack of humor and irony in those wishing to take the Beatles drop-dead serious.
Sometimes I wonder if some are not too wrapped up in Beatle fan life and consumed to the point of obsession. It seems some can tell you the exact date that Paul McCartney last had the yipps.
And Beatle history is a living and breathing thing, and no one -- no matter how informed they are on the subject -- have all the answers and "facts," especially since with the advent of the Internet, that Beatle history is being updated, sometimes daily.
So I welcome continued interaction with my readers. Even if they disagree -- or I have my "facts" wrong.
I have had my share of both in my 10-year career as a journalist and broadcaster.
At the height of my investigative writing into organized crime in the mid-90s, I had been followed and harassed and threatened.
However, with the type of reporting I was doing, the flak was expected.
So writing on the Beatles is sort of a low-stress environment for me, and it is something I very much enjoy doing.
(You don't get too much love when you are writing about gangsters.)
And taking critiques and shots is still part of the job, but so is getting positive feedback, of which I get my fair share.
When I get a communication from a reader, I always reply -- with a copy to Steve Marinucci -- my reply is usually tit-for-tat with the readers e-mail.
I have had readers tell me they commensurate with my opinions, and I have had at least one reader tell me that I "don't know what (I'm) talking about."
Which is all fair comment, as I try to always stress in my replies.
AbbeyRd also has a fans forum, in which my BBs get kicked around from time to time.
One poster complains that I am not doing anything that any other poster on the forum couldn't do. Although I am not going to get into a piddling contest on the forum, I will say that the basic premise of the poster's argument is correct, and I hope he or anyone else hanging there starts writing a column soon. I promise to read it, and then offer my comments.
In my opinion -- remember that word, kiddies! -- writing about the Beatles is great because there are so many issues that are open to interpretation and personal likes and dislikes.
I reject the anal retentive completists who believe that there's is just one and only Beatle truth, and that basically, they or their kind alone are privy to it. I also reject a lack of humor and irony in those wishing to take the Beatles drop-dead serious.
Sometimes I wonder if some are not too wrapped up in Beatle fan life and consumed to the point of obsession. It seems some can tell you the exact date that Paul McCartney last had the yipps.
And Beatle history is a living and breathing thing, and no one -- no matter how informed they are on the subject -- have all the answers and "facts," especially since with the advent of the Internet, that Beatle history is being updated, sometimes daily.
So I welcome continued interaction with my readers. Even if they disagree -- or I have my "facts" wrong.
Sunday, October 26, 2003
Beatle Bits #33
Of all the myriad of individuals and/or companies providing fans with less than authorized Beatle product, Mirror Spock surely is the most interesting.
Trouble is, along with being interesting, MS apparently wants to be mysterious, as requests for info for this column fell on deaf pointy ears.
Of course I can understand some trepidation on MS's part in talking to a journalist and generating extra publicity, given Apple's rather litigious nature lately, but the chances of Apple and I co-operating on anything is rather long indeed.
In any event, one of the areas that MS is delving, is the faux production of 5.1 mixes of Beatle albums.
One such effort is Surround Sound Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which has evidently been whipped up from a Mobile Fidelity UHQR stereo pressing,circa 1978.
Apparently, the MS 5.1 Pepper mix has also been sweetened with portions from the legit Anthology DVD Pepper fragment, and at least one online reviewer found the MS mix enjoyable. ( I have not heard the mix. Perhaps MS could send me one.)
I have absolutely no problem with most Beatle bootlegs, as I believe they keep a certain buzz engaged around the group, and actually force Apple to put other unreleased material out that normally would stay in the vaults.
However, a computer generated 5.1 mix of Pepper, made without the source tapes, comes pretty damn close to another current phenom in bootleg circles, known as out-fakes.
Outfakes are versions of Beatle songs that have been altered or added to by the bootlegger, to come up with some sort of "new" mix, that can be sold to the public. Most are bogus and not worth the bother.
Some Beatle booters have taken studio recordings and added crowd noise and passed them as live concerts, which is an obvious rip-off. Luckily, such titles become known very quickly what with Internet chatter, and hopefully are purchased by few fans.
From what I can gather Mirror Spock is a well respected peddler of boots, and takes care in delivering a quality product to Beatle fans that feel that the legit 5.1 versions and various mono and stereo mixes are well overdue. However, its always buyer beware in this field.
But who knows? Perhaps Apple has even referenced the MS Pepper while they are preparing-we hope-the authorized versions.
Of course, with a 5.1 mix of an album so ingrained in everyone's music mind, it will be impossible to please everyone.
In the case of MS, if they get it wrong, there might be a few thousand or so fans disappointed. If Apple gets it wrong, hundreds of thousands will raise hell.
As I have said previously, I believe we will see 5.1 Beatle audio product by Xmas 2004, and it may be interesting to compare the MS 5.1 Pepper with the Apple version to see who made who.
Trouble is, along with being interesting, MS apparently wants to be mysterious, as requests for info for this column fell on deaf pointy ears.
Of course I can understand some trepidation on MS's part in talking to a journalist and generating extra publicity, given Apple's rather litigious nature lately, but the chances of Apple and I co-operating on anything is rather long indeed.
In any event, one of the areas that MS is delving, is the faux production of 5.1 mixes of Beatle albums.
One such effort is Surround Sound Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, which has evidently been whipped up from a Mobile Fidelity UHQR stereo pressing,circa 1978.
Apparently, the MS 5.1 Pepper mix has also been sweetened with portions from the legit Anthology DVD Pepper fragment, and at least one online reviewer found the MS mix enjoyable. ( I have not heard the mix. Perhaps MS could send me one.)
I have absolutely no problem with most Beatle bootlegs, as I believe they keep a certain buzz engaged around the group, and actually force Apple to put other unreleased material out that normally would stay in the vaults.
However, a computer generated 5.1 mix of Pepper, made without the source tapes, comes pretty damn close to another current phenom in bootleg circles, known as out-fakes.
Outfakes are versions of Beatle songs that have been altered or added to by the bootlegger, to come up with some sort of "new" mix, that can be sold to the public. Most are bogus and not worth the bother.
Some Beatle booters have taken studio recordings and added crowd noise and passed them as live concerts, which is an obvious rip-off. Luckily, such titles become known very quickly what with Internet chatter, and hopefully are purchased by few fans.
From what I can gather Mirror Spock is a well respected peddler of boots, and takes care in delivering a quality product to Beatle fans that feel that the legit 5.1 versions and various mono and stereo mixes are well overdue. However, its always buyer beware in this field.
But who knows? Perhaps Apple has even referenced the MS Pepper while they are preparing-we hope-the authorized versions.
Of course, with a 5.1 mix of an album so ingrained in everyone's music mind, it will be impossible to please everyone.
In the case of MS, if they get it wrong, there might be a few thousand or so fans disappointed. If Apple gets it wrong, hundreds of thousands will raise hell.
As I have said previously, I believe we will see 5.1 Beatle audio product by Xmas 2004, and it may be interesting to compare the MS 5.1 Pepper with the Apple version to see who made who.
Saturday, October 25, 2003
Beatle Bits #32
I know one should never say never, and I'm not gonna say it; not going to say that I won't write about "Let it Be...Naked" anytime soon, but I think I'm gonna promise that after BB32, I'll try to stay off the subject until Nov. 18.
And the reason I'm going back at LIBN is that contrary to what West Coast Capitol Records reportedly told the journalists assembled at a LIBN listening party -- that being the story that the 2nd disc of LIBN was not complete -- the Japanese Toshiba Website has made a track listing of the 2nd disc available as of yesterday.
The buzz and chatter on various Beatle Internet forums is generally upbeat and positive after the claimed track listening was known.
Of course, the second guessing has already begun, with some saying that they hope the source material comes from the Apple Studios 8 tracks, rather than the Nagra mono reels that are to bootlegging what motherhood is to milk.
I am nowhere near an expert on the Get Back/Let it Be/Twickenham/Apple Studios recordings, but I have seen and heard many of the boots and some of the tracks listed on the Toshiba site were unfamiliar to me.
Some, like "Sun King" and "All Things Must Pass," are well known to most Beatle fans, who have availed themselves of even a meager amount of audio Beatle booty. But the inclusion of a 1969 vintage "Don't Pass Me By," has some Internet wags confounded.
Evidently, what we are getting is snippets or partials of about 20 tracks, for a total of 22 or 23 minutes.
As I have said previously, the 2nd disc is WAY TOO SHORT!
Apple/EMI has let it be known that the new LIBN was distilled from over 100 hours of raw audio tape.
And they can only come up with 23 minutes for a "bonus" disc that could hold up to 80 minutes as per its format?
What a wasted shot at beating the boots at their own game!
Perhaps, the shortness of the disc has a method to its madness.
Maybe it is but a teaser to hook mainstream fans into what many of us boot lovers have always known: this stuff is fascinating to listen to, and to paraphrase a popular TV commercial, "its all good," no matter how "bad" it is. (And some of that Nagra stuff is pretty bad, in a relative way.)
So, with LIBN out of the way, I can now start harping on the "Let it Be" film...
And the reason I'm going back at LIBN is that contrary to what West Coast Capitol Records reportedly told the journalists assembled at a LIBN listening party -- that being the story that the 2nd disc of LIBN was not complete -- the Japanese Toshiba Website has made a track listing of the 2nd disc available as of yesterday.
The buzz and chatter on various Beatle Internet forums is generally upbeat and positive after the claimed track listening was known.
Of course, the second guessing has already begun, with some saying that they hope the source material comes from the Apple Studios 8 tracks, rather than the Nagra mono reels that are to bootlegging what motherhood is to milk.
I am nowhere near an expert on the Get Back/Let it Be/Twickenham/Apple Studios recordings, but I have seen and heard many of the boots and some of the tracks listed on the Toshiba site were unfamiliar to me.
Some, like "Sun King" and "All Things Must Pass," are well known to most Beatle fans, who have availed themselves of even a meager amount of audio Beatle booty. But the inclusion of a 1969 vintage "Don't Pass Me By," has some Internet wags confounded.
Evidently, what we are getting is snippets or partials of about 20 tracks, for a total of 22 or 23 minutes.
As I have said previously, the 2nd disc is WAY TOO SHORT!
Apple/EMI has let it be known that the new LIBN was distilled from over 100 hours of raw audio tape.
And they can only come up with 23 minutes for a "bonus" disc that could hold up to 80 minutes as per its format?
What a wasted shot at beating the boots at their own game!
Perhaps, the shortness of the disc has a method to its madness.
Maybe it is but a teaser to hook mainstream fans into what many of us boot lovers have always known: this stuff is fascinating to listen to, and to paraphrase a popular TV commercial, "its all good," no matter how "bad" it is. (And some of that Nagra stuff is pretty bad, in a relative way.)
So, with LIBN out of the way, I can now start harping on the "Let it Be" film...
Friday, October 24, 2003
Beatle Bits #31
A recent story on AbbeyRd from an attendee at a West Coast "Let it Be...Naked" listening party got me to thinking.
Thinking about yet another example of how the Beatles occupy a special level in the outer stratosphere of pop culture.
Although only about 10 journalists and interested parties showed up for L.A. Capitol Record's LIBN preview, it still hits home that here is a 35-year-old project that no matter how you pump it up is basically a re-tread, and yet publications from all over the world are giving it valuable space. (AbbeyRd has story links from all over the globe.)
Even though the Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd can command live crowds of up to 400,000, I'd like to see what would happen if the Stones decided to re-release a different "Beggars Banquet," or Floyd offer up a radically remixed "Dark Side of the Moon," all with little or no real extras.
I think the answer would be that hardcore fans would buy the new ones, and for the most part everyone outside the rock press would go back to sleep.
Even though Beggars and Dark Side are arguably the two most important pop albums of the era, I just don't think remixed ones would fly commercially, and if they were presented as de facto "better versions" the way LIBN seems to be, then the critics would have a field day.
You know, messin' with important artifacts and all.
In the new book "According to the Rolling Stones," Mick Jagger talks about how he really hates the mix on another Stones classic, "Exile on Main Street," but look for the cows to come home before we get a radically different EOMS.
Should relatives of Andy Warhol be allowed to change or add to his works of art because they say he wasn't exactly happy with some of them?
Yet I don't think I have seen a single cross word about Apple/EMI re-writing history with the new LIBN.
How could it be that even the notoriously fickle rock press is buying big-time into the myth that the new Let it Be is somehow the "real" one?
(Too bad original LIB producer Phil Spector has got big time legal troubles, otherwise I'm sure we would be hearing from him.)
I have not heard the new one yet, and I'm sure that when I do I will like it. What's not to like? It's still the Fabs, but the whole thing is rather dodgy when you really think about it.
Now if Apple/EMI were to have packaged it like some of the CBS Legacy releases, where you get the original and a second disc of alternates and extras, then the integrity of the original release would have been retained, and probably even buffed up for better sound.
What's next from the Beatles? A "new" Sgt. Pepper or White Album wherein all of the surviving Beatles and their heirs get together to "approve" the mix and sound of each track? And what about when they finally get 'round to remastering the entire original catalogue? Will the first LIB be even worth bothering with for the engineers?
I just hope that Apple/EMI does not milk the golden goose to the point of laying a rotten egg.
Thinking about yet another example of how the Beatles occupy a special level in the outer stratosphere of pop culture.
Although only about 10 journalists and interested parties showed up for L.A. Capitol Record's LIBN preview, it still hits home that here is a 35-year-old project that no matter how you pump it up is basically a re-tread, and yet publications from all over the world are giving it valuable space. (AbbeyRd has story links from all over the globe.)
Even though the Rolling Stones or Pink Floyd can command live crowds of up to 400,000, I'd like to see what would happen if the Stones decided to re-release a different "Beggars Banquet," or Floyd offer up a radically remixed "Dark Side of the Moon," all with little or no real extras.
I think the answer would be that hardcore fans would buy the new ones, and for the most part everyone outside the rock press would go back to sleep.
Even though Beggars and Dark Side are arguably the two most important pop albums of the era, I just don't think remixed ones would fly commercially, and if they were presented as de facto "better versions" the way LIBN seems to be, then the critics would have a field day.
You know, messin' with important artifacts and all.
In the new book "According to the Rolling Stones," Mick Jagger talks about how he really hates the mix on another Stones classic, "Exile on Main Street," but look for the cows to come home before we get a radically different EOMS.
Should relatives of Andy Warhol be allowed to change or add to his works of art because they say he wasn't exactly happy with some of them?
Yet I don't think I have seen a single cross word about Apple/EMI re-writing history with the new LIBN.
How could it be that even the notoriously fickle rock press is buying big-time into the myth that the new Let it Be is somehow the "real" one?
(Too bad original LIB producer Phil Spector has got big time legal troubles, otherwise I'm sure we would be hearing from him.)
I have not heard the new one yet, and I'm sure that when I do I will like it. What's not to like? It's still the Fabs, but the whole thing is rather dodgy when you really think about it.
Now if Apple/EMI were to have packaged it like some of the CBS Legacy releases, where you get the original and a second disc of alternates and extras, then the integrity of the original release would have been retained, and probably even buffed up for better sound.
What's next from the Beatles? A "new" Sgt. Pepper or White Album wherein all of the surviving Beatles and their heirs get together to "approve" the mix and sound of each track? And what about when they finally get 'round to remastering the entire original catalogue? Will the first LIB be even worth bothering with for the engineers?
I just hope that Apple/EMI does not milk the golden goose to the point of laying a rotten egg.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Beatle Bits #30
John Lennon said long ago that so many more people had made money off the Beatles, than the Beatles collectively themselves had ever put in their collective pockets.
Although I suspect John was referring to the legion of managers, agents, publishers and record companies who ripped the Fabs off, there is now a veritable cottage industry profiting off the Beatles recordings, memorabilia, autographs and bric-a-brack.
The Internet has literally exploded with Beatle product since about 1994.
Every day you can see hundreds if not thousands of items on e-Bay, some for as little as $2, all the way up to $ 20,000 and beyond.
Some of the items offered appear to be genuine and possibly worth a hefty investment from a bona fide collector, but the stalls of e-Bay are also full of what critics call outright frauds, including dubious "signatures" of one or all of the Fabs.
It seems that since George Harrison's death, the value of a set of all 4 Fabs autographs have taken off towards the $1000 and up price.
However, there are many examples of phony autographs up for sale on the Net, so it is definitely a buyer beware scenario, safe, rather than sorry.
An example of a "safe" purchase, would be a copy of Songs by George Harrison, a 1988 limited edition book and CD set, which was signed by George and can now fetch upwards of $2500. (I bought one in 1989 for $750 Canadian.)
Just about on a regular basis now, there are some unusual, and unusually funny items offered for auction online.
This week, an individual put up a common vinyl copy of Abbey Road, with a starting bid ask at $20,000 due to the album's "symbols," whatever that means.
I sent the seller an e-mail asking if it was a gag, but have not heard back.
A car that belonged to Lennon was also up for auction this year, and just about every Beatle bootleg CD ever produced can be had for a price.
Now if we go back to John's truism, we can see that there are a ton of sellers makin' hay with Beatle product.
Some are just everyday Jills and Joes like you and me who are looking to make a few bucks, but there are also many pro dealers who acquire this stuff for a fraction of what they eventually sell it for. Profit margins of 200-500% are not unusual.
I used to be a Beatle collector-in a previous financial life-and I know that if you have the bucks, its very easy to wrack up $10,000 worth of Fabs stuff in no time at all, so I know personally what drives the buyers-and the sellers. (I sold all my collection by 1995.)
As the Beatles were and still are the number one pop culture artifact in the world, look for all things Beatle to continue to rule the market well into the next century.
So, check your attic or basement or garage next time you are looking for something to do. You never know what you might find.
Although I suspect John was referring to the legion of managers, agents, publishers and record companies who ripped the Fabs off, there is now a veritable cottage industry profiting off the Beatles recordings, memorabilia, autographs and bric-a-brack.
The Internet has literally exploded with Beatle product since about 1994.
Every day you can see hundreds if not thousands of items on e-Bay, some for as little as $2, all the way up to $ 20,000 and beyond.
Some of the items offered appear to be genuine and possibly worth a hefty investment from a bona fide collector, but the stalls of e-Bay are also full of what critics call outright frauds, including dubious "signatures" of one or all of the Fabs.
It seems that since George Harrison's death, the value of a set of all 4 Fabs autographs have taken off towards the $1000 and up price.
However, there are many examples of phony autographs up for sale on the Net, so it is definitely a buyer beware scenario, safe, rather than sorry.
An example of a "safe" purchase, would be a copy of Songs by George Harrison, a 1988 limited edition book and CD set, which was signed by George and can now fetch upwards of $2500. (I bought one in 1989 for $750 Canadian.)
Just about on a regular basis now, there are some unusual, and unusually funny items offered for auction online.
This week, an individual put up a common vinyl copy of Abbey Road, with a starting bid ask at $20,000 due to the album's "symbols," whatever that means.
I sent the seller an e-mail asking if it was a gag, but have not heard back.
A car that belonged to Lennon was also up for auction this year, and just about every Beatle bootleg CD ever produced can be had for a price.
Now if we go back to John's truism, we can see that there are a ton of sellers makin' hay with Beatle product.
Some are just everyday Jills and Joes like you and me who are looking to make a few bucks, but there are also many pro dealers who acquire this stuff for a fraction of what they eventually sell it for. Profit margins of 200-500% are not unusual.
I used to be a Beatle collector-in a previous financial life-and I know that if you have the bucks, its very easy to wrack up $10,000 worth of Fabs stuff in no time at all, so I know personally what drives the buyers-and the sellers. (I sold all my collection by 1995.)
As the Beatles were and still are the number one pop culture artifact in the world, look for all things Beatle to continue to rule the market well into the next century.
So, check your attic or basement or garage next time you are looking for something to do. You never know what you might find.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Beatle Bits #29
"Its unfortunate because we love the Beatles. I'd do anything for those guys."
Yes, that's what the CEO of the other Apple-and iTunes, Steven Jobs told Newsweek about the lawsuit launched by the first Apple, against Apple 2, for their new online music distribution system.
Man, talk about talk being cheap.
Presumably, Jobs is only engaging in a little pre-hardball nicey-nice, just out of real "love," for the boys and their legalists.
And what I'm thinking about Apple 1, is that they are setting the table for a legal brawl that will result in the music Apple just about writing their own ticket with the computer Apple.
Look, there is absolutely no way that Apple 1 is so daft that they don't realize the future of music delivery is clicks, rather than bricks.
Published reports say that almost all of the big artists like the Rolling Stones, have already cut some sort of deals with the Apple 2 service. Apple 1 wants a better one.
But trying to hold back the wall of millions of PC users hungry for tunes, is a waste of time.
And as far as I know, the Beatles legal eagles have not asked for an injunction, which would be the first (serious) step to shutting down Apple computers and iTunes.
So I'm thinking that despite some of the rather inane bleatings officially from Apple 1 about them not being interested in online music delivery, the idea that the Beatles would forgo such a goldmine is frankly rubbish.
Whomever-Bobby D?- said money doesn't talk, it screams, was damn well right.
There is so much dough to be made by the two Apples, that the very notion that a deal will not be reached is totally other-worldly.
Look for Mr. Jobs "to do anything" to set the table for the Fabs to come online, oh, I'd say 'round about or several months before X-Mas 2004.
That timeline gives Apple 1 a chance to peddle their current catalogue of Beatle records, while setting the table for a combined bricks/ possible clicks re-release of a remastered back catalogue, most likely in 5.1 surround sound. (Online services currently do not provide for 5.1 downloads.)
The Beatles sang about "all you need is love," but sometimes it seems that the Rutles were right 25 years ago :"All you need is cash."
Yes, that's what the CEO of the other Apple-and iTunes, Steven Jobs told Newsweek about the lawsuit launched by the first Apple, against Apple 2, for their new online music distribution system.
Man, talk about talk being cheap.
Presumably, Jobs is only engaging in a little pre-hardball nicey-nice, just out of real "love," for the boys and their legalists.
And what I'm thinking about Apple 1, is that they are setting the table for a legal brawl that will result in the music Apple just about writing their own ticket with the computer Apple.
Look, there is absolutely no way that Apple 1 is so daft that they don't realize the future of music delivery is clicks, rather than bricks.
Published reports say that almost all of the big artists like the Rolling Stones, have already cut some sort of deals with the Apple 2 service. Apple 1 wants a better one.
But trying to hold back the wall of millions of PC users hungry for tunes, is a waste of time.
And as far as I know, the Beatles legal eagles have not asked for an injunction, which would be the first (serious) step to shutting down Apple computers and iTunes.
So I'm thinking that despite some of the rather inane bleatings officially from Apple 1 about them not being interested in online music delivery, the idea that the Beatles would forgo such a goldmine is frankly rubbish.
Whomever-Bobby D?- said money doesn't talk, it screams, was damn well right.
There is so much dough to be made by the two Apples, that the very notion that a deal will not be reached is totally other-worldly.
Look for Mr. Jobs "to do anything" to set the table for the Fabs to come online, oh, I'd say 'round about or several months before X-Mas 2004.
That timeline gives Apple 1 a chance to peddle their current catalogue of Beatle records, while setting the table for a combined bricks/ possible clicks re-release of a remastered back catalogue, most likely in 5.1 surround sound. (Online services currently do not provide for 5.1 downloads.)
The Beatles sang about "all you need is love," but sometimes it seems that the Rutles were right 25 years ago :"All you need is cash."
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Beatle Bits #28
After what I have been reading out of England lately, they should add a few more letters to the upcoming "Let it Be...Naked" release.
How does "Let it Be...Naked, BS" sound?
BS as in if this new release that has been remixed and remastered is "as nature intended," then there ain't no steers in the state of Texas.
Oh, and the story being floated that Sir Paul McCartney, after all the angst and self-pity he has evidently shown over the original Phil Spector produced "Let it Be," did not even bother to drop in an approve the new disc, is BS to the max squared and then some.
Look, if the original concept of "Get Back"/"Let it Be" was for the band to get together and play basically live "roots" rock'n'roll type music without a lot of overdubbs and such, then the original Glyn Johns mixes prepared in 1969 were true to the project's stated spark.
However, as far as I can figure out, we are not getting anything close to the Johns' efforts.
And how can Apple/EMI talk about all this "as nature intended" BS when we find out that no less than three sound engineers worked on a project that auditioned over 100 hours of audio tape, and then made a grand total of 35 minutes or so of music. (Once again, a complete rip-off when a CD can hold up to 80 minutes.)
The new LIBN is no more "as nature intended" than was the Spector version, and most likely even more "produced" than the Phil thrill was way back when.
Just because they take out some strings and backing voices and use a take of "The Long and Winding Road" from the Let It Be film, does not a pure and wholesome release make. And the exclusion of "Dig It," albeit not one of John Lennon's better efforts, simply makes no sense.
But the thing that is the most hilarious -- or sad as your viewpoint may be -- is that the PR weasels are braying about the new release and how much better it is than the past, and yet they are still going to sell you the original LIB at full price, which apparently is not as good as the new one, but still deserving of your hard-earned shekels. That kiddies, is TOTAL BS!
When its all said and done, I think the whole exercise is about hype, as if the Fabs are in need of any of that.
What do they think this is? Led Zep selling songs to hawk Caddys?
Even 34 years after the fact, "Let it Be" remains an enigma -- thanks to the Beatles and their minders.
How does "Let it Be...Naked, BS" sound?
BS as in if this new release that has been remixed and remastered is "as nature intended," then there ain't no steers in the state of Texas.
Oh, and the story being floated that Sir Paul McCartney, after all the angst and self-pity he has evidently shown over the original Phil Spector produced "Let it Be," did not even bother to drop in an approve the new disc, is BS to the max squared and then some.
Look, if the original concept of "Get Back"/"Let it Be" was for the band to get together and play basically live "roots" rock'n'roll type music without a lot of overdubbs and such, then the original Glyn Johns mixes prepared in 1969 were true to the project's stated spark.
However, as far as I can figure out, we are not getting anything close to the Johns' efforts.
And how can Apple/EMI talk about all this "as nature intended" BS when we find out that no less than three sound engineers worked on a project that auditioned over 100 hours of audio tape, and then made a grand total of 35 minutes or so of music. (Once again, a complete rip-off when a CD can hold up to 80 minutes.)
The new LIBN is no more "as nature intended" than was the Spector version, and most likely even more "produced" than the Phil thrill was way back when.
Just because they take out some strings and backing voices and use a take of "The Long and Winding Road" from the Let It Be film, does not a pure and wholesome release make. And the exclusion of "Dig It," albeit not one of John Lennon's better efforts, simply makes no sense.
But the thing that is the most hilarious -- or sad as your viewpoint may be -- is that the PR weasels are braying about the new release and how much better it is than the past, and yet they are still going to sell you the original LIB at full price, which apparently is not as good as the new one, but still deserving of your hard-earned shekels. That kiddies, is TOTAL BS!
When its all said and done, I think the whole exercise is about hype, as if the Fabs are in need of any of that.
What do they think this is? Led Zep selling songs to hawk Caddys?
Even 34 years after the fact, "Let it Be" remains an enigma -- thanks to the Beatles and their minders.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Beatle Bits #27
I forget who the sage was that said -- and I'm paraphrasing here -- that the Internet was a vanity press for the get-a-lifers.
Now for those sensitive online Fabs fans out there, I hope I don't offend, but I couldn't help but reflect on how the above saying is valid when I inadvertently started a kerfunkcle on the Yahoo Beatlegs Beatle forum with the use of a single word.
There had been some rather generalized and tedious wanking going on about the new "Lennon Legend" DVD, chastising Yoko Ono for daring to make changes to videos that John Lennon had apparently supervised over 30 years ago. One thread accused Ms. Ono of "fiddling."
So being the mischievous devil that I am, I interjected a line from the "Magical Misery Tour" Lennon parody song,a line that John had actually spoken to Rolling Stone magazine, in which he theorized in 1970 that fans did not like Yoko's music because she was a woman and "Oriental."
Well, next thing I know I received an admonishment from a poster who took exception to the use of the word "Oriental," claiming that while my heart was in the right place, my head wasn't, because "Oriental" was a stereotyping kind of word -- or something along those lines.
Apparently, the irony and joke of it all I was trying to put forth escaped notice, and eventually the moderator had to step in and declare the "Oriental" thread deceased, as it had strayed way off topic.
And all I was trying to demonstrate is that some Beatle fans are hard to please.
I mean, you look at a very nicely assembled package like the new LL DVD with heretofore unheard mixes and footage, and instead of being enthused about that fact, there is chatter about how Yoko had the tarty temerity to "fiddle" with John's work.
(Can't some fans finally forgive this woman, for Pete's sake?)
God knows, I and many others have probably had cause to question some of Ms. Ono's handling of John's material post 1980, -- such as not releasing the superior second show of the 1972 One to One Benefit. But not this time. It looks like Yoko has given a great gift to the fans, and I understand she is working on another box set of Lennon rarities.
But am I the only one who has noticed that the new LL DVD will be released on the same day as "Let it Be...Naked"? Will Paul be perturbed?
Fiddle away, Yoko.
Now for those sensitive online Fabs fans out there, I hope I don't offend, but I couldn't help but reflect on how the above saying is valid when I inadvertently started a kerfunkcle on the Yahoo Beatlegs Beatle forum with the use of a single word.
There had been some rather generalized and tedious wanking going on about the new "Lennon Legend" DVD, chastising Yoko Ono for daring to make changes to videos that John Lennon had apparently supervised over 30 years ago. One thread accused Ms. Ono of "fiddling."
So being the mischievous devil that I am, I interjected a line from the "Magical Misery Tour" Lennon parody song,a line that John had actually spoken to Rolling Stone magazine, in which he theorized in 1970 that fans did not like Yoko's music because she was a woman and "Oriental."
Well, next thing I know I received an admonishment from a poster who took exception to the use of the word "Oriental," claiming that while my heart was in the right place, my head wasn't, because "Oriental" was a stereotyping kind of word -- or something along those lines.
Apparently, the irony and joke of it all I was trying to put forth escaped notice, and eventually the moderator had to step in and declare the "Oriental" thread deceased, as it had strayed way off topic.
And all I was trying to demonstrate is that some Beatle fans are hard to please.
I mean, you look at a very nicely assembled package like the new LL DVD with heretofore unheard mixes and footage, and instead of being enthused about that fact, there is chatter about how Yoko had the tarty temerity to "fiddle" with John's work.
(Can't some fans finally forgive this woman, for Pete's sake?)
God knows, I and many others have probably had cause to question some of Ms. Ono's handling of John's material post 1980, -- such as not releasing the superior second show of the 1972 One to One Benefit. But not this time. It looks like Yoko has given a great gift to the fans, and I understand she is working on another box set of Lennon rarities.
But am I the only one who has noticed that the new LL DVD will be released on the same day as "Let it Be...Naked"? Will Paul be perturbed?
Fiddle away, Yoko.
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Beatle Bits #26
If You've Got Troubles, and Leave My Kitten Alone.
Two "lost" Beatle songs that in the opinion of their authors, players and producer, were just not up to scratch, when they were recorded in 1965.
Notice I used the word OPINION.
The best opinions help to act as internal editors, helping to sculpture only the very best of their author's works of art. The Beatles were fabulous at this skill, for the most part.
Conversely, bad opinions can, and have, wrought havoc on everything from politics to pastimes, and certainly pop stars.
So I try to offer up my opinions as judiciously as possible.
But It never ceases to amaze me when I touch a nerve in a reader who does not share the particular opinion I have put forth for discussion and dissertation.
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the feedback, even if it is negative, because, it shows you are still breathing out there...and sometimes even hissing!
What's interesting to me, is that when I do get a good talking to from a reader, he or she, can't help but display some of their own opinions, which in turn I may find valid, or venomous, or even not worth mentioning at all.
But once again, opinions are like AHs; everybody's got one! And all entitled.
For instance,some Paul McCartney fans seem to be very emotionally tied into the Macca man, and appear to take personal any perceived slight or question of fact regarding their man. In my opinion, one could even get the impression that if Paul is called on any little thing, well, they could almost scratch your eyes out.
I know that in 1964, when I was 9, we all had a favorite Beatle and used to spend time arguing as to each Fabs' merit, and their ranking in the Beatle pecking order.
Way back then I think I liked Paul best, but later-and to this day-I think the most of John Lennon. However, I still like Paul, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr.
And that's my opinion...
Two "lost" Beatle songs that in the opinion of their authors, players and producer, were just not up to scratch, when they were recorded in 1965.
Notice I used the word OPINION.
The best opinions help to act as internal editors, helping to sculpture only the very best of their author's works of art. The Beatles were fabulous at this skill, for the most part.
Conversely, bad opinions can, and have, wrought havoc on everything from politics to pastimes, and certainly pop stars.
So I try to offer up my opinions as judiciously as possible.
But It never ceases to amaze me when I touch a nerve in a reader who does not share the particular opinion I have put forth for discussion and dissertation.
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the feedback, even if it is negative, because, it shows you are still breathing out there...and sometimes even hissing!
What's interesting to me, is that when I do get a good talking to from a reader, he or she, can't help but display some of their own opinions, which in turn I may find valid, or venomous, or even not worth mentioning at all.
But once again, opinions are like AHs; everybody's got one! And all entitled.
For instance,some Paul McCartney fans seem to be very emotionally tied into the Macca man, and appear to take personal any perceived slight or question of fact regarding their man. In my opinion, one could even get the impression that if Paul is called on any little thing, well, they could almost scratch your eyes out.
I know that in 1964, when I was 9, we all had a favorite Beatle and used to spend time arguing as to each Fabs' merit, and their ranking in the Beatle pecking order.
Way back then I think I liked Paul best, but later-and to this day-I think the most of John Lennon. However, I still like Paul, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr.
And that's my opinion...
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Beatle Bits #25
Do you remember the summer of 1973?
If you a first generation Fabs fan and were born in the early to mid 1950s, then for sure you remember the summer that George Harrison finally followed up his smash "All Things Must Pass" LP with the more somber "Living In The Material World."
I say somber, because I can still see the headline that ran in Rolling Stone mag;"Give him dope, give him hope," which was a play on the album's hit single Give Me Love (Give me Peace on Earth) which was a solid number 1, that hot summer of '73
RS was basically down on LITMW because over half of the tracks on the record were somewhat pious in nature, and even a bit of a downer.
That was the funny thing about LITMW; the tracks that were up-tempo, including the title tune, and "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" (an indictment of the Beatles break-up), and "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long," were real rambunctious and even rollicking songs.
Yet Rolling Stone and other publications chose to focus on the songs George wrote as tributes to Hare Krishna, which was certainly the religion of the moment in 1973.
The album came with a beautiful gloss cover, and booklet, with the lyrics and religious Krishna pictures and sayings.
And some of the HR oriented tunes, including "The Lord Loves The One That Loves The Lord," and "That Is All" are beautiful and melodic songs, and among Harrison's best.
But to this day, I still can''t figure the carve job some of the rock press did on Harrison, even intimating that he had to sweeten -- big deal! -- his lead vocal on "Try Some, Buy Some," because he was not a good enough singer to hit the mark.
Of course, the above is really just a bunch of BS, and the attacks against LITMW, to my mind, seemed like payback from critics who were lying in wait to nail an ex-Beatle, who was, maybe, they thought, getting too big for his bridgework.
And who knows, maybe it worked to some degree as George would go over 15 years before he came close to equaling LITMW, with his 1988 "comeback" LP, "Cloud Nine."
Personally. I am looking forward to the continued remastering of George's back catalogue, and the day we finally get a new LITMW, with outtakes and alternates AND the heretofore unavailable on CD, B side, "Miss O'Dell."
And regardless of what the critics say, LITMW will remain one of my fave solo Beatle albums.
Hare Krishna!
If you a first generation Fabs fan and were born in the early to mid 1950s, then for sure you remember the summer that George Harrison finally followed up his smash "All Things Must Pass" LP with the more somber "Living In The Material World."
I say somber, because I can still see the headline that ran in Rolling Stone mag;"Give him dope, give him hope," which was a play on the album's hit single Give Me Love (Give me Peace on Earth) which was a solid number 1, that hot summer of '73
RS was basically down on LITMW because over half of the tracks on the record were somewhat pious in nature, and even a bit of a downer.
That was the funny thing about LITMW; the tracks that were up-tempo, including the title tune, and "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" (an indictment of the Beatles break-up), and "Don't Let Me Wait Too Long," were real rambunctious and even rollicking songs.
Yet Rolling Stone and other publications chose to focus on the songs George wrote as tributes to Hare Krishna, which was certainly the religion of the moment in 1973.
The album came with a beautiful gloss cover, and booklet, with the lyrics and religious Krishna pictures and sayings.
And some of the HR oriented tunes, including "The Lord Loves The One That Loves The Lord," and "That Is All" are beautiful and melodic songs, and among Harrison's best.
But to this day, I still can''t figure the carve job some of the rock press did on Harrison, even intimating that he had to sweeten -- big deal! -- his lead vocal on "Try Some, Buy Some," because he was not a good enough singer to hit the mark.
Of course, the above is really just a bunch of BS, and the attacks against LITMW, to my mind, seemed like payback from critics who were lying in wait to nail an ex-Beatle, who was, maybe, they thought, getting too big for his bridgework.
And who knows, maybe it worked to some degree as George would go over 15 years before he came close to equaling LITMW, with his 1988 "comeback" LP, "Cloud Nine."
Personally. I am looking forward to the continued remastering of George's back catalogue, and the day we finally get a new LITMW, with outtakes and alternates AND the heretofore unavailable on CD, B side, "Miss O'Dell."
And regardless of what the critics say, LITMW will remain one of my fave solo Beatle albums.
Hare Krishna!
Friday, October 17, 2003
Beatle Bits #24
WARNING: This is my baseball playoff abbreviated version.
Sir Paul and wife Heather were on the WWW today, speaking out against landmines, which are very useful militarily, but extremely costly to innocents, and anyone or thing that steps on them.
The McCartneys are pressing for a worldwide ban on LMs, which given the nature of wars these days, is most likely highly unrealistic.
But their hearts are in the right places.
However, I couldn't help but note that it took Paul just about 30 years to come out as really against war, something John Lennon made famous in 1969 with his bed-ins for peace as well as the immortal,"Give Peace A Chance," mantra and song.
You have to know that Lennon was on to something when, 35 years later, the mere mention of "give peace a chance," is met with howls of derision by the usual neo-con suspects.
No argument here that slogans -- like "Give Peace a Chance" -- are simplistic and are not themselves a solution.
But being simple sometimes is also the best thing to engage in, even with highly complex issues like war, or the lack thereof.
And I'm not suggesting that Sir Paul is any less sincere than John was in 1969, but somehow I don't think Macca will come up with an anthem-like song like Lennon did with "Give Peace a Chance."
And for sure we won't see the McCartney's taking to their bed in public for the abolition of landmines.
Perhaps its the times we now live in, but it just does not seem the same when a pop star-even someone as huge as Macca-bangs the anti-war/peace drum.
The nowadays stars seem to come off as PR campaigns, with a goodly portion of the gig self-serving and front-paging.
A Web-chat just can't compete with a Beatle and his wife dressed in PJs and camped out in a bed in a hotel room in Montreal, Canada-a country by the way, which was probably the only one to really take Lennon seriously-all the while laughing at the "squares."
Ah, the good old days.
So like, give peace a chance, man.
And watch out for -- and don't step on them mines.
Sir Paul and wife Heather were on the WWW today, speaking out against landmines, which are very useful militarily, but extremely costly to innocents, and anyone or thing that steps on them.
The McCartneys are pressing for a worldwide ban on LMs, which given the nature of wars these days, is most likely highly unrealistic.
But their hearts are in the right places.
However, I couldn't help but note that it took Paul just about 30 years to come out as really against war, something John Lennon made famous in 1969 with his bed-ins for peace as well as the immortal,"Give Peace A Chance," mantra and song.
You have to know that Lennon was on to something when, 35 years later, the mere mention of "give peace a chance," is met with howls of derision by the usual neo-con suspects.
No argument here that slogans -- like "Give Peace a Chance" -- are simplistic and are not themselves a solution.
But being simple sometimes is also the best thing to engage in, even with highly complex issues like war, or the lack thereof.
And I'm not suggesting that Sir Paul is any less sincere than John was in 1969, but somehow I don't think Macca will come up with an anthem-like song like Lennon did with "Give Peace a Chance."
And for sure we won't see the McCartney's taking to their bed in public for the abolition of landmines.
Perhaps its the times we now live in, but it just does not seem the same when a pop star-even someone as huge as Macca-bangs the anti-war/peace drum.
The nowadays stars seem to come off as PR campaigns, with a goodly portion of the gig self-serving and front-paging.
A Web-chat just can't compete with a Beatle and his wife dressed in PJs and camped out in a bed in a hotel room in Montreal, Canada-a country by the way, which was probably the only one to really take Lennon seriously-all the while laughing at the "squares."
Ah, the good old days.
So like, give peace a chance, man.
And watch out for -- and don't step on them mines.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Beatle Bits #23
Remember that tune covered by Sinatra, "Its Not Easy Being Green?"
Well, in that spirit, I was thinking how it must not be easy being Ringo Starr.
Even as the undisputed anchor of the most successful pop music group in recorded history, Starr nonetheless had to be compared to his super talented bandmates.
And in that contest, Ringo must always come 4th, with the 3rd, 2nd and 1st spots going to George Harrison, Paul McCartney and John Lennon, respectively.
Early on, Ringo was maybe even the most popular Beatle, but as the yeah, yeah, yeah days faded into more serious stuff, Ringo was seen by some to be a fifth wheel in a four man group, even though he had his share of good singing and always played the best drums in rock.
Maybe being the odd man out put less pressure on Starr, but I'm sure it also gave Ringo a burning desire to show what he could do.
Granted only one track per Beatle LP until he scored two on the White Album, it is interesting that Starr produced one of the most successful Beatle sole albums, with his 1973 smash, Ringo.
Ironically-or maybe even to necessity-most of the tunes on the album were penned by his ex-bandmates, and all subsequent Ringo solo efforts that had little help from ex-Fabs, ended up in rather unspectacular sales and critical territory.
And after the bubble burst for Ringo in the late 70s, he took to drink and drugs and went into decline that finally ended in rehab, after an entire album had to be scrapped because Ringo was too loaded to complete it properly.
Perhaps Starr felt vulnerable outside the comfort of the Beatles, or maybe all the madness he had been through during Beatlmania really caught up with him.
The good news is that he kicked his addictions by the 80s, and then set forth on an amazing new band gathering plan that came to be known as the All Stars, including everyone in that group from Mark Farner to Sheila E.
And all without a single former Beatles having anything to do with it.
So while the 63 year old Ringo will forever be known first as a Beatle and the number 4 man in the batting order-not a bad legacy by the way-he is presently a superstar in his own right, getting by with a little help from his friends.
Well, in that spirit, I was thinking how it must not be easy being Ringo Starr.
Even as the undisputed anchor of the most successful pop music group in recorded history, Starr nonetheless had to be compared to his super talented bandmates.
And in that contest, Ringo must always come 4th, with the 3rd, 2nd and 1st spots going to George Harrison, Paul McCartney and John Lennon, respectively.
Early on, Ringo was maybe even the most popular Beatle, but as the yeah, yeah, yeah days faded into more serious stuff, Ringo was seen by some to be a fifth wheel in a four man group, even though he had his share of good singing and always played the best drums in rock.
Maybe being the odd man out put less pressure on Starr, but I'm sure it also gave Ringo a burning desire to show what he could do.
Granted only one track per Beatle LP until he scored two on the White Album, it is interesting that Starr produced one of the most successful Beatle sole albums, with his 1973 smash, Ringo.
Ironically-or maybe even to necessity-most of the tunes on the album were penned by his ex-bandmates, and all subsequent Ringo solo efforts that had little help from ex-Fabs, ended up in rather unspectacular sales and critical territory.
And after the bubble burst for Ringo in the late 70s, he took to drink and drugs and went into decline that finally ended in rehab, after an entire album had to be scrapped because Ringo was too loaded to complete it properly.
Perhaps Starr felt vulnerable outside the comfort of the Beatles, or maybe all the madness he had been through during Beatlmania really caught up with him.
The good news is that he kicked his addictions by the 80s, and then set forth on an amazing new band gathering plan that came to be known as the All Stars, including everyone in that group from Mark Farner to Sheila E.
And all without a single former Beatles having anything to do with it.
So while the 63 year old Ringo will forever be known first as a Beatle and the number 4 man in the batting order-not a bad legacy by the way-he is presently a superstar in his own right, getting by with a little help from his friends.
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Beatle Bits #22
I read the news the other day, oh boy.
First I read that Apple -- you know, the computer one -- was about to release a Windows version of its ground-breaking iTunes online music distribution program. And then I read about Apple -- the first record peddling one -- still continuing with an earlier daft plan to sue Apple 2 for selling or having anything to do with music.
(You can read all the gory details on AbbeyRd.)
Hundreds of millions of dollars in music sales is at stake in the Apple vs. Apple battle, as well as the fans' ability to purchase music.
Apple Records believe that a successful lawsuit they brought against Apple 2 in the 1980s, pertaining to Apple 2's use of music in relation to their product, still stands, and in legal terms, Apple 1 believes Apple 2 has pulled a dodgy one.
Not surprisingly Apple 2 thinks Apple 1 is rotten, yet A1 has taken the offensive.
So not only will Apple 1 not be providing Fabs' tunes for Apple 2, but they say the second Apple should shut down iTunes forthwith.
At first glance, the whole thing seems rather crazy.
After all, anyone who looks beyond next Tuesday knows that clicks -- online music delivery -- is gonna sooner rather than later beat bricks-CDs sold in stores -- and that the Beatles who were always first and revolutionary in everything they did, do not now seem to be "with it."
It is also interesting to note that the so-called "committee" -- basically the surviving Fabs and the deceased's representatives -- must all agree on every issue to do with the Beatles or nothing gets out the door, or core, as it may be.
Lack of committee agreement has caused many delays of Beatle stuff in the past, and I'm sure it will in the future, regardless of the current Apple vs. Apple row.
Yet they all can agree on lawsuits!
Now I don't think that Apple 1 and the committee are that dumb that they don't recognize the future, but rather they want -- and have wanted since the days of NEMS and Allen Klein and the "Let it Be"-era lawsuits -- to make up for well-deserved lost revenues.
(Recall the Rutles' tale of "Let it Rot" being released as a soundtrack, a film, and a lawsuit?)
So in my opinion, that's the reason there is a lot of poker playing going on between the two Apples. So much money is involved here for everyone concerned. And that includes lawyers.
And further to that opinion, I think that it will all be settled within a year -- or right after the long, long awaited CD remastering of the Beatle back catalogue finally arrives -- with Apple 1 taking a little nibble out of Apple 2's skin and then Apple and Apple and their legalists will live happily ever after.
Which will (finally) be good news for the fans, but not the lawyers.
First I read that Apple -- you know, the computer one -- was about to release a Windows version of its ground-breaking iTunes online music distribution program. And then I read about Apple -- the first record peddling one -- still continuing with an earlier daft plan to sue Apple 2 for selling or having anything to do with music.
(You can read all the gory details on AbbeyRd.)
Hundreds of millions of dollars in music sales is at stake in the Apple vs. Apple battle, as well as the fans' ability to purchase music.
Apple Records believe that a successful lawsuit they brought against Apple 2 in the 1980s, pertaining to Apple 2's use of music in relation to their product, still stands, and in legal terms, Apple 1 believes Apple 2 has pulled a dodgy one.
Not surprisingly Apple 2 thinks Apple 1 is rotten, yet A1 has taken the offensive.
So not only will Apple 1 not be providing Fabs' tunes for Apple 2, but they say the second Apple should shut down iTunes forthwith.
At first glance, the whole thing seems rather crazy.
After all, anyone who looks beyond next Tuesday knows that clicks -- online music delivery -- is gonna sooner rather than later beat bricks-CDs sold in stores -- and that the Beatles who were always first and revolutionary in everything they did, do not now seem to be "with it."
It is also interesting to note that the so-called "committee" -- basically the surviving Fabs and the deceased's representatives -- must all agree on every issue to do with the Beatles or nothing gets out the door, or core, as it may be.
Lack of committee agreement has caused many delays of Beatle stuff in the past, and I'm sure it will in the future, regardless of the current Apple vs. Apple row.
Yet they all can agree on lawsuits!
Now I don't think that Apple 1 and the committee are that dumb that they don't recognize the future, but rather they want -- and have wanted since the days of NEMS and Allen Klein and the "Let it Be"-era lawsuits -- to make up for well-deserved lost revenues.
(Recall the Rutles' tale of "Let it Rot" being released as a soundtrack, a film, and a lawsuit?)
So in my opinion, that's the reason there is a lot of poker playing going on between the two Apples. So much money is involved here for everyone concerned. And that includes lawyers.
And further to that opinion, I think that it will all be settled within a year -- or right after the long, long awaited CD remastering of the Beatle back catalogue finally arrives -- with Apple 1 taking a little nibble out of Apple 2's skin and then Apple and Apple and their legalists will live happily ever after.
Which will (finally) be good news for the fans, but not the lawyers.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Beatle Bits #21
The late writer Albert Goldman is perhaps the most pilloried figure in Fabs history.
And thats because he had the temerity to produce a book in the early 1980s entitled "The Lives of John Lennon" several years after John's death, that burst a lot of Beatle belief bubbles.
The book was a predominately unflattering look at John and Yoko Ono's lives together, and even some critics took issue with the way Goldman collected his "facts."
The only first-hand experience I have with the "facts" issue is an interview I did in 1999 with Ronnie Hawkins, who acted as host to John and Yoko in Dec. 1969, when the couple came to Canada to meet with then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
There was a reference in Goldman's book to an alleged incident involving the media outside the gate of Hawkin's Toronto area farm.
I specifically asked Ronnie about the incident, and he said that it could not have happened as Goldman had described in his book, because of the nature of Hawkin's fence and property.
A small point perhaps, but it hammers home the "fact" that one mans "truth," is another's horseshit.
Yet I don't really believe for a minute that Goldman made up from whole cloth many of the more negative or even bizarre episodes in his book, but rather, people he interviewed have all had their spin on the events in question.
Some were truthful, some were less than truthful due to a faulty recollection, and some were probably lying their asses off.
But when a serious author sets out to do the type of mammoth endeavor that Goldman produced, it goes without saying that some of the "facts" in the book will be wrong, or wrong-headed.
Its ironic that when Goldman wrote a book about another 60s cultural icon, Lenny Bruce, and used the same "get the dirt" juicy narrative as in the Lennon tome, the Bruce book was generally hailed as a masterpiece.
I am a big fan of John Lennon. I believe that he was the heart and soul of the Beatles, but that does not make him a god, or untouchable like some sort of religious leader.
John was a Beatle but he also was human, and the flesh is weak.
Personally, I found the the Goldman book to be very interesting, although I'm not vouching for any of its factual content at all.
Yoko won't talk about the more disturbing side of John's life. I know. I tried when I interviewed her in 2000 -- and that opens it wide to enquiring journalistic minds. What I am most surprised of, is that there have not been more inside looks at John's life. Once again, I'm not saying I would believe everything that was published, but I sure would read it, and then decide for myself.
What I am saying overall is that a great figure like John Lennon can stand the rain, and fans and others should not have such a thin skin.
John would have not had it any other way.
And thats because he had the temerity to produce a book in the early 1980s entitled "The Lives of John Lennon" several years after John's death, that burst a lot of Beatle belief bubbles.
The book was a predominately unflattering look at John and Yoko Ono's lives together, and even some critics took issue with the way Goldman collected his "facts."
The only first-hand experience I have with the "facts" issue is an interview I did in 1999 with Ronnie Hawkins, who acted as host to John and Yoko in Dec. 1969, when the couple came to Canada to meet with then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
There was a reference in Goldman's book to an alleged incident involving the media outside the gate of Hawkin's Toronto area farm.
I specifically asked Ronnie about the incident, and he said that it could not have happened as Goldman had described in his book, because of the nature of Hawkin's fence and property.
A small point perhaps, but it hammers home the "fact" that one mans "truth," is another's horseshit.
Yet I don't really believe for a minute that Goldman made up from whole cloth many of the more negative or even bizarre episodes in his book, but rather, people he interviewed have all had their spin on the events in question.
Some were truthful, some were less than truthful due to a faulty recollection, and some were probably lying their asses off.
But when a serious author sets out to do the type of mammoth endeavor that Goldman produced, it goes without saying that some of the "facts" in the book will be wrong, or wrong-headed.
Its ironic that when Goldman wrote a book about another 60s cultural icon, Lenny Bruce, and used the same "get the dirt" juicy narrative as in the Lennon tome, the Bruce book was generally hailed as a masterpiece.
I am a big fan of John Lennon. I believe that he was the heart and soul of the Beatles, but that does not make him a god, or untouchable like some sort of religious leader.
John was a Beatle but he also was human, and the flesh is weak.
Personally, I found the the Goldman book to be very interesting, although I'm not vouching for any of its factual content at all.
Yoko won't talk about the more disturbing side of John's life. I know. I tried when I interviewed her in 2000 -- and that opens it wide to enquiring journalistic minds. What I am most surprised of, is that there have not been more inside looks at John's life. Once again, I'm not saying I would believe everything that was published, but I sure would read it, and then decide for myself.
What I am saying overall is that a great figure like John Lennon can stand the rain, and fans and others should not have such a thin skin.
John would have not had it any other way.
Monday, October 13, 2003
Beatle Bits #20
Concert movies-even those featuring ex-Fabs-are a hard sell, but the box office figures chocked up by the new Concert For George Harrison are discouraging indeed.
Despite a stellar line up of stars, including Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Eric Clapton, the GH flix only collected $70,000 in box office receipts, since its release last week.
Although it was being shown in just 104 theatres, only about 50 people showed up each day, on average, since the film's premiere.
Which is really too bad, because I believe that a goodly audience exists for this fim, but the way to go would have been pay-per-view.
Statistics show that Baby Boomers are among the largest demographics when it comes to PPV buys, and the Conerrt For George would have been a perfect match for the legions of fans of Harrison and his music.
Even a modest buy price of say, $10-15, would have most likely yielded about 50,000 to 100,000 buys nation wide, and would not have hurt subsequent DVD release, because the DVD is bound to contain extras to get the fans enthused-and in a buying mood.
But throwing this flick out for general or even a limited release in the midst of a frantic fall lineup of blockbuster movies, was a prescription for sales disaster.
Talk about turning silk purse into a sow's ear.
Once again, the powers that be that control Beatle product seem to be running on empty, and sniffing the fumes.
And ironically, it looks like we will be getting the 2002 Concert For George on DVD BEFORE we get the 1971 Concert For Bangladesh DVD.
Figure that one out, please.
Fans of George and his music deserve better.
Despite a stellar line up of stars, including Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Eric Clapton, the GH flix only collected $70,000 in box office receipts, since its release last week.
Although it was being shown in just 104 theatres, only about 50 people showed up each day, on average, since the film's premiere.
Which is really too bad, because I believe that a goodly audience exists for this fim, but the way to go would have been pay-per-view.
Statistics show that Baby Boomers are among the largest demographics when it comes to PPV buys, and the Conerrt For George would have been a perfect match for the legions of fans of Harrison and his music.
Even a modest buy price of say, $10-15, would have most likely yielded about 50,000 to 100,000 buys nation wide, and would not have hurt subsequent DVD release, because the DVD is bound to contain extras to get the fans enthused-and in a buying mood.
But throwing this flick out for general or even a limited release in the midst of a frantic fall lineup of blockbuster movies, was a prescription for sales disaster.
Talk about turning silk purse into a sow's ear.
Once again, the powers that be that control Beatle product seem to be running on empty, and sniffing the fumes.
And ironically, it looks like we will be getting the 2002 Concert For George on DVD BEFORE we get the 1971 Concert For Bangladesh DVD.
Figure that one out, please.
Fans of George and his music deserve better.
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Beatle Bits #19
Most everyone has heard of the "Magical Mystery Tour."
However, it is doubtful that very many even die-hard Beatle fans have heard of the "Magical Misery Tour."
Way, way back in 1972,just 2 years after the demise of the Beatles, the National Lampoon Radio Dinner troupe, released their first LP, titled, "National Lampoon Radio Dinner."
And one of the many gems on that totally hilarious, if not totally politically incorrect, album was a little ditty called "Magical Misery Tour."
Inspired by the infamous interview that John Lennon gave to Rolling Stone magazine during his Primal Scream period in 1970, the song in fact is comprised of statements that Lennon made during the long interview, many of them self-serving and inflammatory towards his old band-mates.
The reason I am bringing it up is that I just recently heard it again, and it is still very funny 30 odd years on.
The four-minute tune features a Lennon sound-alike pounding out a downbeat piano, and I recall that when we used to put this one on after an evening of partying, many guests would actually ask if it was "the new Lennon song."
In any event, the song is parody as an art-form as the faux Lennon sings about how he should have "beat the shit right out of" the other Beatles for being less than enthralled with Yoko Ono, and "why should Yoko have to take that kind of shit? Shit from those sons of bitches."
And remember, just about every line in the song is from the RS interview, straight outa John's mouth.
My fave is when the parody Lennon sings "the sky is bluuuuuuuue..."
The song plays out with fake John screaming out,"I'm sensitive as shit! I throw up before I go on stage. I WAS the walrus. I know I said Paul was the walrus, but I was just saying that to be nice. I could have been a fisherman, but I can't because I'm a f**cking genius!"
The chorus goes "genius is PAIN! Genious iiis paaaiiiiiinnnnnnnn."
The song ends with the singer howling and screaming, and finally breaking down into a sobbing cry, followed by a female announcer stating "the dream, is over."
One of the things I remember is that when the song first appeared on vinyl, the coarser swear words were beeped out, although you could obviously tell what they were. That was part of the gag, it seemed.
I think this made it even funnier, and the uncensored version produced without the beeps later in the 70s is just not as funny, in my opinion.
But if you get a chance, make sure to hear the funniest parody ever done of a Beatle, and that's saying something when you have the Rutles. The album is on CD. It's worth checking out.
However, it is doubtful that very many even die-hard Beatle fans have heard of the "Magical Misery Tour."
Way, way back in 1972,just 2 years after the demise of the Beatles, the National Lampoon Radio Dinner troupe, released their first LP, titled, "National Lampoon Radio Dinner."
And one of the many gems on that totally hilarious, if not totally politically incorrect, album was a little ditty called "Magical Misery Tour."
Inspired by the infamous interview that John Lennon gave to Rolling Stone magazine during his Primal Scream period in 1970, the song in fact is comprised of statements that Lennon made during the long interview, many of them self-serving and inflammatory towards his old band-mates.
The reason I am bringing it up is that I just recently heard it again, and it is still very funny 30 odd years on.
The four-minute tune features a Lennon sound-alike pounding out a downbeat piano, and I recall that when we used to put this one on after an evening of partying, many guests would actually ask if it was "the new Lennon song."
In any event, the song is parody as an art-form as the faux Lennon sings about how he should have "beat the shit right out of" the other Beatles for being less than enthralled with Yoko Ono, and "why should Yoko have to take that kind of shit? Shit from those sons of bitches."
And remember, just about every line in the song is from the RS interview, straight outa John's mouth.
My fave is when the parody Lennon sings "the sky is bluuuuuuuue..."
The song plays out with fake John screaming out,"I'm sensitive as shit! I throw up before I go on stage. I WAS the walrus. I know I said Paul was the walrus, but I was just saying that to be nice. I could have been a fisherman, but I can't because I'm a f**cking genius!"
The chorus goes "genius is PAIN! Genious iiis paaaiiiiiinnnnnnnn."
The song ends with the singer howling and screaming, and finally breaking down into a sobbing cry, followed by a female announcer stating "the dream, is over."
One of the things I remember is that when the song first appeared on vinyl, the coarser swear words were beeped out, although you could obviously tell what they were. That was part of the gag, it seemed.
I think this made it even funnier, and the uncensored version produced without the beeps later in the 70s is just not as funny, in my opinion.
But if you get a chance, make sure to hear the funniest parody ever done of a Beatle, and that's saying something when you have the Rutles. The album is on CD. It's worth checking out.
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Beatle Bits #18
Helter Skelter.
Two words that were to have immense impact on the culture 35 years ago, and even to this day.
First, "Helter Skelter," was an extremely loud and raucous Beatles song on the White Album, a song composer Paul McCartney said was written in response to a claim by the Who that they had just written the heaviest ever rock tune.
Mixed down from an incredible -- and to this day unheard even in bootleg land -- 27 minute jam undertaken when the Lads were feeling no pain, into a tight 3 minute mono mix, and a bit more refined 4 1/2 minutes stereo mix which ends after a fade down/up with Ringo Starr shouting, "I've got blisters on me fingers!" it is a rock masterpiece.
But secondly,and perhaps even more importantly, "Helter Skelter" came to be known in the summer of 1969 as the motive for probably the most bizarre mass murder in American history.
Cult leader Charles Manson was a big fan of the White Album, and adopted the song as the signature tune for his twisted ideology of race war, and Armageddon.
Manson would be party to at least seven murders towards that end.
Of course in reality, Helter Skelter was just another clever word play by McCartney, and according to Paul, was a reference to a type of slide in a playground, in his native England.
But Manson believed the Beatles were speaking to him through their music, including the "Magical Mystery Tour" album.
Although Helter Skelter gets most of the notoriety, another song on the White Album was used, incorrectly as it turned out, in the trial of Manson.
The Los Angeles district attorney prosecuting the case said that the word "rise," which was written in blood at one of the Manson family rampages murder scenes, and was the code to "rise up" in war, was borrowed by Manson from the White Album track, "Revolution #9."
Those of you who are familiar with the track will know that while the song has a very retrospectively creepy feel to it, John Lennon actually says "right...right!"
Notwithstanding that Manson probably misheard the words himself, it always irked me that Beatle songs could be pegged as being anything but progressive and positive.
And in an bizarre irony, just after the 1976 airing of a TV movie entitled "Helter Skelter," and based on the Manson murders, Apple/EMI released the retro single, "Got To Get You Into My Life," and with all the dozens of other Fabs tunes available, they chose Helter Skelter for the B side.
Needless to say, it did not get much airplay with the TV movie fresh in many peoples minds.
(I recall speaking to one DJ in Buffalo who told me he would have been fired immediately if he had flipped the disc over, even during the all-night shift.)
Unfortunately, with the 35th anniversary of the Manson tragedy coming up next year, look for more tie-ins to the Beatles in 2004.
Two words that were to have immense impact on the culture 35 years ago, and even to this day.
First, "Helter Skelter," was an extremely loud and raucous Beatles song on the White Album, a song composer Paul McCartney said was written in response to a claim by the Who that they had just written the heaviest ever rock tune.
Mixed down from an incredible -- and to this day unheard even in bootleg land -- 27 minute jam undertaken when the Lads were feeling no pain, into a tight 3 minute mono mix, and a bit more refined 4 1/2 minutes stereo mix which ends after a fade down/up with Ringo Starr shouting, "I've got blisters on me fingers!" it is a rock masterpiece.
But secondly,and perhaps even more importantly, "Helter Skelter" came to be known in the summer of 1969 as the motive for probably the most bizarre mass murder in American history.
Cult leader Charles Manson was a big fan of the White Album, and adopted the song as the signature tune for his twisted ideology of race war, and Armageddon.
Manson would be party to at least seven murders towards that end.
Of course in reality, Helter Skelter was just another clever word play by McCartney, and according to Paul, was a reference to a type of slide in a playground, in his native England.
But Manson believed the Beatles were speaking to him through their music, including the "Magical Mystery Tour" album.
Although Helter Skelter gets most of the notoriety, another song on the White Album was used, incorrectly as it turned out, in the trial of Manson.
The Los Angeles district attorney prosecuting the case said that the word "rise," which was written in blood at one of the Manson family rampages murder scenes, and was the code to "rise up" in war, was borrowed by Manson from the White Album track, "Revolution #9."
Those of you who are familiar with the track will know that while the song has a very retrospectively creepy feel to it, John Lennon actually says "right...right!"
Notwithstanding that Manson probably misheard the words himself, it always irked me that Beatle songs could be pegged as being anything but progressive and positive.
And in an bizarre irony, just after the 1976 airing of a TV movie entitled "Helter Skelter," and based on the Manson murders, Apple/EMI released the retro single, "Got To Get You Into My Life," and with all the dozens of other Fabs tunes available, they chose Helter Skelter for the B side.
Needless to say, it did not get much airplay with the TV movie fresh in many peoples minds.
(I recall speaking to one DJ in Buffalo who told me he would have been fired immediately if he had flipped the disc over, even during the all-night shift.)
Unfortunately, with the 35th anniversary of the Manson tragedy coming up next year, look for more tie-ins to the Beatles in 2004.
Friday, October 10, 2003
Beatle Bits #17
Of course this is only an opinion -- and like orifices, everyone's got 'em -- but I think the cover shot for the upcoming "Let it Be...Naked" Fabs CD is the worst major artist cover since the bizarre front for the Rolling Stones No Security release in 1998.
No, the new Beatles cover does not suck big, like the Stones NS, but LIBN ain't good.
Advance pix of the LIBN front cover, feature 2 strips of negative film stock shot during the Get Back/Let it Be sessions, circa early 1969.
Yeah, yeah,yeah, we get the idea: LIBN is the negative or opposite of the original Phil Spector "Let it Be." (When is the Spector bashing going to end?)
Hopefully, APPLE/EMI will rethink the cover before the planned Nov.18 release date -- remember this is Apple we are dealing with here, and there are no guarantees that the album will come out on time-and come up with something other than as one critic accused, cast the Fabs in a "negative light."
Like, what was so bad with the original cover -- four gorgeous color shots of the Lads, or even the withdrawn idea of the boys reprising their first Lp cover shot, posing on the balcony of a London building ,a shot which appeared on numerous bootlegs.
And also while they could/should be at it, Apple/EMI could go back and decide that to issue 2 CDs -- one with about 40 minutes of music and the other with about 20 -- is really a colossal rip-off-even if it is priced at under $20 -- when the CD format holds 80 minutes per disc.
I mean no other Beatles era, holds more audio tape than the infamous Get Back/Let it Be sessions, that stretched over several months, producing literally thousands if not hundreds of feet of recordings.
Of course some naysayers would maintain that it is doubtful if 160 minutes of Fabs-worthy material is actually available-as die-hard fans who have persisted through the hundreds of hours of bootlegs of the era can surely attest to -- but I'm rather confident that much more than what we are getting, is available for legit release.
I guess we will eventually get more of the Get Back era recordings, somewhere down the line, when all parties are in agreement at Apple, hopefully sometime this first decade of the 21st century.
Its great to get any Beatle product, but chock this latest one up as another lost opportunity for greatness from Apple/EMI, and the Beatles.
And that, is my opinion.
No, the new Beatles cover does not suck big, like the Stones NS, but LIBN ain't good.
Advance pix of the LIBN front cover, feature 2 strips of negative film stock shot during the Get Back/Let it Be sessions, circa early 1969.
Yeah, yeah,yeah, we get the idea: LIBN is the negative or opposite of the original Phil Spector "Let it Be." (When is the Spector bashing going to end?)
Hopefully, APPLE/EMI will rethink the cover before the planned Nov.18 release date -- remember this is Apple we are dealing with here, and there are no guarantees that the album will come out on time-and come up with something other than as one critic accused, cast the Fabs in a "negative light."
Like, what was so bad with the original cover -- four gorgeous color shots of the Lads, or even the withdrawn idea of the boys reprising their first Lp cover shot, posing on the balcony of a London building ,a shot which appeared on numerous bootlegs.
And also while they could/should be at it, Apple/EMI could go back and decide that to issue 2 CDs -- one with about 40 minutes of music and the other with about 20 -- is really a colossal rip-off-even if it is priced at under $20 -- when the CD format holds 80 minutes per disc.
I mean no other Beatles era, holds more audio tape than the infamous Get Back/Let it Be sessions, that stretched over several months, producing literally thousands if not hundreds of feet of recordings.
Of course some naysayers would maintain that it is doubtful if 160 minutes of Fabs-worthy material is actually available-as die-hard fans who have persisted through the hundreds of hours of bootlegs of the era can surely attest to -- but I'm rather confident that much more than what we are getting, is available for legit release.
I guess we will eventually get more of the Get Back era recordings, somewhere down the line, when all parties are in agreement at Apple, hopefully sometime this first decade of the 21st century.
Its great to get any Beatle product, but chock this latest one up as another lost opportunity for greatness from Apple/EMI, and the Beatles.
And that, is my opinion.
Thursday, October 09, 2003
Beatle Bits #16
Sir Paul McCartney was recently well pranked by a Montreal, Quebec radio station, in a hilarious parody of the Canadian prime minister.
You can hear the prank through this link.
Claiming to be the PM, the DJ spoke to Macca in a faux French-Canadian accent during the 5 minute call, placed to McCartney just prior to one of his concerts.
How the DJ ever got through to Macca may remain a mystery, because as one who has tried to connect with someone/anyone at Apple, I can tell you that it is a Herculian task , and indeed, the DJ makes mention at the end of the prank that this was the only way he ever would have been able to talk to the ex-Beatle.
The DJ playing the PM told Paul that he would be receiving the Order of Canada, the highest prize anyone can receive from the Canadian government.
It is surprising, however, that Macca never clued into the hoax, as the DJ started reciting lyrics and titles of Beatles songs, and incorporated them into his conversation, there was a loud bell ringing every time a Beatle reference was uttered.
The DJ/PM even sings part of "Hello Goodbye," causing Paul to guffaw.
Macca sounded genuinely humbled by the fake award, and launches into some rather smarmy French, just to show that he is all-worldly.
I aired parts of the Macca prank tape today on Oldies 1150 CKOC AM in Hamilton, Ontario, but there were some parts I had to leave off.
Like when Paul is told he has been pranked and exclaims," f**ing 'ell," and then later "Jesus Christ!" (He did not swear in anger, however.)
Macca also turns the tables on the prankster by saying he was going to "sue" and "fry" the "ass" off, the DJ, which elicits a question from the prankster of "Are you serious?," to which Paul says, "No, Canadians are not the only ones who are funny."
All in all, Macca comes off as a pretty cool and good sport, if not a tad naive.
However, given the earlier reports of Paul getting tough with a photographer in downtown London, I'd say the DJ was rather lucky he was a good 3,000 miles from the mad Macca man, lest he be throttled or at least given a damn good pranging.
In any event, what say we start a petition to have the real Canadian PM give the real Sir Paul a real Order of Canada?
You can hear the prank through this link.
Claiming to be the PM, the DJ spoke to Macca in a faux French-Canadian accent during the 5 minute call, placed to McCartney just prior to one of his concerts.
How the DJ ever got through to Macca may remain a mystery, because as one who has tried to connect with someone/anyone at Apple, I can tell you that it is a Herculian task , and indeed, the DJ makes mention at the end of the prank that this was the only way he ever would have been able to talk to the ex-Beatle.
The DJ playing the PM told Paul that he would be receiving the Order of Canada, the highest prize anyone can receive from the Canadian government.
It is surprising, however, that Macca never clued into the hoax, as the DJ started reciting lyrics and titles of Beatles songs, and incorporated them into his conversation, there was a loud bell ringing every time a Beatle reference was uttered.
The DJ/PM even sings part of "Hello Goodbye," causing Paul to guffaw.
Macca sounded genuinely humbled by the fake award, and launches into some rather smarmy French, just to show that he is all-worldly.
I aired parts of the Macca prank tape today on Oldies 1150 CKOC AM in Hamilton, Ontario, but there were some parts I had to leave off.
Like when Paul is told he has been pranked and exclaims," f**ing 'ell," and then later "Jesus Christ!" (He did not swear in anger, however.)
Macca also turns the tables on the prankster by saying he was going to "sue" and "fry" the "ass" off, the DJ, which elicits a question from the prankster of "Are you serious?," to which Paul says, "No, Canadians are not the only ones who are funny."
All in all, Macca comes off as a pretty cool and good sport, if not a tad naive.
However, given the earlier reports of Paul getting tough with a photographer in downtown London, I'd say the DJ was rather lucky he was a good 3,000 miles from the mad Macca man, lest he be throttled or at least given a damn good pranging.
In any event, what say we start a petition to have the real Canadian PM give the real Sir Paul a real Order of Canada?
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
Beatle Bits #15
Perhaps the most wanted Beatle recording yet to make the CD format is "Live at the Hollywood Bowl."
When the original vinyl release appeared in the hot summer of 1977, it helped to rekindle the flame of Beatlmania, and with its reproduction of tickets to the show embossed on the front cover, it was certainly very retro-cool.
The liner notes explained that producer George Martin had gone back and reviewed all the tapes made of the Beatles at the HB in 1964 and 1965, shows that were originally taped with a live album in mind for either Christmas 1964 or 1965.
The tapes were recorded in 3 track stereo, but mic placement and the shrieking of the fans made Capitol records scuttle plans for a live album, until 1977 at the request of Captol's CEO, Martin remixed and re-jigged the raw tapes, eventually coming up with a very listenable album which captured as best as could be expected the hysteria and vibe around a live Beatles show.
(In fact, in some ways it captured it better, because at least you could hear the music, something that I didn't really get to do when I saw the Fabs in Toronto in 1964, because the screaming all but drowned out snatches of the music.)
What Martin did was morph what he considered the best of the two years' shows, to form one 45 minute LP.
However, due to the time limitation of the single LP format, about a half-dozen Fabs performances were left off the LATHB album.
One of the leftover tracks turned up on an Anthology era EP, and both the complete 1964 and 1965 shows have been available on bootleg for ages, but we are still waiting for the Hollywood Bowl shows to make it to the digital format.
Ringo Starr was quoted in 1999 as saying that the Bowl shows were going to be released sooner rather than later, but evidently, it is not soon enough for Apple.
But it is soon enough for the fans, and in fact overdue.
Note to Apple/EMI: Make 2004 -- the 40th anniversary of the first Hollywood Bowl show -- the year we finally get the concert on CD.
When the original vinyl release appeared in the hot summer of 1977, it helped to rekindle the flame of Beatlmania, and with its reproduction of tickets to the show embossed on the front cover, it was certainly very retro-cool.
The liner notes explained that producer George Martin had gone back and reviewed all the tapes made of the Beatles at the HB in 1964 and 1965, shows that were originally taped with a live album in mind for either Christmas 1964 or 1965.
The tapes were recorded in 3 track stereo, but mic placement and the shrieking of the fans made Capitol records scuttle plans for a live album, until 1977 at the request of Captol's CEO, Martin remixed and re-jigged the raw tapes, eventually coming up with a very listenable album which captured as best as could be expected the hysteria and vibe around a live Beatles show.
(In fact, in some ways it captured it better, because at least you could hear the music, something that I didn't really get to do when I saw the Fabs in Toronto in 1964, because the screaming all but drowned out snatches of the music.)
What Martin did was morph what he considered the best of the two years' shows, to form one 45 minute LP.
However, due to the time limitation of the single LP format, about a half-dozen Fabs performances were left off the LATHB album.
One of the leftover tracks turned up on an Anthology era EP, and both the complete 1964 and 1965 shows have been available on bootleg for ages, but we are still waiting for the Hollywood Bowl shows to make it to the digital format.
Ringo Starr was quoted in 1999 as saying that the Bowl shows were going to be released sooner rather than later, but evidently, it is not soon enough for Apple.
But it is soon enough for the fans, and in fact overdue.
Note to Apple/EMI: Make 2004 -- the 40th anniversary of the first Hollywood Bowl show -- the year we finally get the concert on CD.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Beatle Bits #14
When the now fading heavyweight boxer Evander Holyfield was in his prime, he used to be known as "The Real Deal."
Since 1962, fans of the Beatles have known that the group was, and still is "the real deal."
So how come the dim-wits at Apple/EMI Canada have just issued a daft press release -- one you can read on the Abbeyrd website -- that attempts to sell the reader on the fact that the Beatles are now popular with what they call the "1 Generation," or those 20-30 years younger than the Baby Boomers.
The PR weasels have really outdone themselves with this latest drivel.
I mean, what difference does it make who is buying the Beatles records?
The ridiculous PR missive calls up sales stats from Germany (!) to "prove" that almost as many youngsters are buying Fabs CDs, as their parents, and no, the kids weren't just buying them as Christmas gifts for their elderly parents.
I guess the flawed thinking of the rocket scientists at Apple/EMI is that if you hook 'em early enough, then they'll stay with ya 'till the cows come home.
But just because a younger person buys a Beatles CD, it does not assure that they will a) like it, b) continue to follow the group, and c) buy the next release.
Baby Boomers are mostly life-long fans because they grew up with the group first hand and lived the music with the times.
Even kids of the BBs experienced the Lads second hand, so it is doubtful that they will be as loyal throughout their record buying days.
All in all a dreadful attempt by the wonks at Apple/EMI to appear "with it," after the bad PR from Apple's unwise lawsuit against Apple computers.
We don't need rubbish stats to tell us why or how we love the Beatles.
As Eric Idle said as the narrator in The Rutles: "palpable nonsense."
We already know the ''real deal" when we see it.
In other words Apple/EMI, let it be.
Since 1962, fans of the Beatles have known that the group was, and still is "the real deal."
So how come the dim-wits at Apple/EMI Canada have just issued a daft press release -- one you can read on the Abbeyrd website -- that attempts to sell the reader on the fact that the Beatles are now popular with what they call the "1 Generation," or those 20-30 years younger than the Baby Boomers.
The PR weasels have really outdone themselves with this latest drivel.
I mean, what difference does it make who is buying the Beatles records?
The ridiculous PR missive calls up sales stats from Germany (!) to "prove" that almost as many youngsters are buying Fabs CDs, as their parents, and no, the kids weren't just buying them as Christmas gifts for their elderly parents.
I guess the flawed thinking of the rocket scientists at Apple/EMI is that if you hook 'em early enough, then they'll stay with ya 'till the cows come home.
But just because a younger person buys a Beatles CD, it does not assure that they will a) like it, b) continue to follow the group, and c) buy the next release.
Baby Boomers are mostly life-long fans because they grew up with the group first hand and lived the music with the times.
Even kids of the BBs experienced the Lads second hand, so it is doubtful that they will be as loyal throughout their record buying days.
All in all a dreadful attempt by the wonks at Apple/EMI to appear "with it," after the bad PR from Apple's unwise lawsuit against Apple computers.
We don't need rubbish stats to tell us why or how we love the Beatles.
As Eric Idle said as the narrator in The Rutles: "palpable nonsense."
We already know the ''real deal" when we see it.
In other words Apple/EMI, let it be.
Monday, October 06, 2003
Beatle Bits #13
Lots of news and Internet chatter lately about the new "Concert For George" (Harrison) movie which is being shown in theatres on a limited basis -- I heard from one fan who was sadly the only soul in attendance -- before it is released on DVD in November.
Great to see that the "Quiet One" is getting some well-deserved recognition almost two years on from his untimely passing from cancer.
Lets hope the next stop is the Rock'n'roll Hall of Fame, because Harrison definitely deserves the honor, and is, in fact, overdue.
There is also word that George's '70s and early '80s Warner solo output will be re-released in remastered form with some extras.
It would be nice to see "Living in the Material World" get the same treatment as well as maybe a live LP from Harrison's 1974 tour, and a remastered "Concert for Bangladesh" CD and DVD, which has been rumored for some time now.
And although its only been several years since "All Things Must Pass" got the improved treatment, we know from various ATMP bootlegs that there was much more excellent material that could have been added to the package.
What with many record companies offering up the goodies galore "deluxe edition" of seminal albums by groups like The Who and artists like Marvin Gaye, it would seem to me that Harrison's masterpiece should deserve at least the same or more.
Because on balance, I think that ATMP, is the best solo Beatle recording since 1970, and not likely to ever be topped by Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr, no matter how long they record.
And hopefully, widow Oliva Harrison and son Dhani will tend to George's musical vault as well as Yoko Ono has John Lennon's, and we will continue to enjoy George's brilliance for many years to come.
Great to see that the "Quiet One" is getting some well-deserved recognition almost two years on from his untimely passing from cancer.
Lets hope the next stop is the Rock'n'roll Hall of Fame, because Harrison definitely deserves the honor, and is, in fact, overdue.
There is also word that George's '70s and early '80s Warner solo output will be re-released in remastered form with some extras.
It would be nice to see "Living in the Material World" get the same treatment as well as maybe a live LP from Harrison's 1974 tour, and a remastered "Concert for Bangladesh" CD and DVD, which has been rumored for some time now.
And although its only been several years since "All Things Must Pass" got the improved treatment, we know from various ATMP bootlegs that there was much more excellent material that could have been added to the package.
What with many record companies offering up the goodies galore "deluxe edition" of seminal albums by groups like The Who and artists like Marvin Gaye, it would seem to me that Harrison's masterpiece should deserve at least the same or more.
Because on balance, I think that ATMP, is the best solo Beatle recording since 1970, and not likely to ever be topped by Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr, no matter how long they record.
And hopefully, widow Oliva Harrison and son Dhani will tend to George's musical vault as well as Yoko Ono has John Lennon's, and we will continue to enjoy George's brilliance for many years to come.
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Beatle Bits #12
Just like the 70s late night host and John Lennon interviewer Tom Synder, frankly I'm steamed.
I'm steamed because not only does Bob Dylan have a goodly portion of his back catalogue newly available on SACD and 5.1, but Zimmerman and Sony Music are now offering digital downloads.
And what's more, you can assemble custom track mixes of your own faves, including over 10 tracks that are not currently available anywhere else.
Plus you can have cover art, and all sorts of information on the songs you have selected.
Nothing against Bobby D you see, but the above is really a triple whammy to Fabs fans.
Not only are we still stuck with digital muck from the
mid-'80s, we have no downloads and more importantly, no way of getting new rare and unreleased tracks, unless we want to buy bootlegs.
And frankly, this state of affairs is totally unacceptable.
I have harped on this before and I'll do it again.
Just what the bloody 'ell is Apple/EMI thinking?
Its time for them to get the next generation of Beatle masters out to the public by ASAP, whether they do it by bricks, or by clicks.
The Beatles were always leaders in just about everything they did, but now they are sadly and prehistoric-like behind the pack of other major pop acts, including the Rolling Stones, whose entire pre 1971 catalogue has been available on SACD for over a year.
Last I heard ,instead of getting together with the new Apple iPod iTunes, the Beatle Apples were suing them!
Meanwhile, the fans lose, and the Beatles legacy suffers.
Come on Apple, get with it!
I'm steamed because not only does Bob Dylan have a goodly portion of his back catalogue newly available on SACD and 5.1, but Zimmerman and Sony Music are now offering digital downloads.
And what's more, you can assemble custom track mixes of your own faves, including over 10 tracks that are not currently available anywhere else.
Plus you can have cover art, and all sorts of information on the songs you have selected.
Nothing against Bobby D you see, but the above is really a triple whammy to Fabs fans.
Not only are we still stuck with digital muck from the
mid-'80s, we have no downloads and more importantly, no way of getting new rare and unreleased tracks, unless we want to buy bootlegs.
And frankly, this state of affairs is totally unacceptable.
I have harped on this before and I'll do it again.
Just what the bloody 'ell is Apple/EMI thinking?
Its time for them to get the next generation of Beatle masters out to the public by ASAP, whether they do it by bricks, or by clicks.
The Beatles were always leaders in just about everything they did, but now they are sadly and prehistoric-like behind the pack of other major pop acts, including the Rolling Stones, whose entire pre 1971 catalogue has been available on SACD for over a year.
Last I heard ,instead of getting together with the new Apple iPod iTunes, the Beatle Apples were suing them!
Meanwhile, the fans lose, and the Beatles legacy suffers.
Come on Apple, get with it!
Saturday, October 04, 2003
Beatle Bits #11
In the spirit of the upcoming fall re-release of Let it Be/Get Back in "as nature intended" form, I will be getting "bare naked" on Oldies 1150 CKOC Hamilton ,Ontario, every Sunday at 9AM for the next 6 weeks.
In fact what I will be featuring on my fab Four Find of the Week will be the original Get Back album circulated and played on WKBW, Buffalo in the fall of 1969.
This version as prepared by engineer Glynn Johns was mastered and transferred to acetate, but was eventually rejected by the Beatles.
Johns would give it another try, but his second go 'round was also deep sixed, and the whole project was eventually temporarily scrapped and sat unused until Phil Spector went to work on what John Lennon always described as "shitty" tapes.
When you look at, the whole thing was pretty wacky, because the group was set to release Abbey Road in September of 1969 and the very unpolished Get Back would seem to be a 180 degree turn.
In any event, 3 songs on the WKBW version-Teddy Boy, The Walk and Save The Last Dance For Me-never made it on to Let it Be, and won't show up on Let it Be...Naked.
And neither will Maggie Mae and Dig it which were on the Glynn Johns prepared Get Back/Let it Be LP. However, I Me Mine, which was not on the first Get Back mix, will be on LIBN.
Too bad really about STLDFM not making the cut;it was really neat how it slid nicely into Don't Let Me Down, which will appear on LIBN as it did GB, but not the original LIB.
Hope that doesn't confuse ya 'all to much, and in following with the release of a second disc for LIBN, which contains studio talk, I will be playing a jam and chat from Twickenham, with the Lads working on DLMD in week 6.
Plus in the spirit of Let it Be ...Bare Naked,my selected tracks will play in sequence, as sequenced, on the first "as nature intended" Get Back effort, and not remixed, as the new LIBN supposedly will be.
Another irony is if memory does not fail me, the whole "as nature intended" phrase comes from a bootleg of the Get Back sessions, so I'm only producing what has come natural to the boys and girls from Apple, even if it is 34 years later.
A splendid time is guaranteed for all.
In fact what I will be featuring on my fab Four Find of the Week will be the original Get Back album circulated and played on WKBW, Buffalo in the fall of 1969.
This version as prepared by engineer Glynn Johns was mastered and transferred to acetate, but was eventually rejected by the Beatles.
Johns would give it another try, but his second go 'round was also deep sixed, and the whole project was eventually temporarily scrapped and sat unused until Phil Spector went to work on what John Lennon always described as "shitty" tapes.
When you look at, the whole thing was pretty wacky, because the group was set to release Abbey Road in September of 1969 and the very unpolished Get Back would seem to be a 180 degree turn.
In any event, 3 songs on the WKBW version-Teddy Boy, The Walk and Save The Last Dance For Me-never made it on to Let it Be, and won't show up on Let it Be...Naked.
And neither will Maggie Mae and Dig it which were on the Glynn Johns prepared Get Back/Let it Be LP. However, I Me Mine, which was not on the first Get Back mix, will be on LIBN.
Too bad really about STLDFM not making the cut;it was really neat how it slid nicely into Don't Let Me Down, which will appear on LIBN as it did GB, but not the original LIB.
Hope that doesn't confuse ya 'all to much, and in following with the release of a second disc for LIBN, which contains studio talk, I will be playing a jam and chat from Twickenham, with the Lads working on DLMD in week 6.
Plus in the spirit of Let it Be ...Bare Naked,my selected tracks will play in sequence, as sequenced, on the first "as nature intended" Get Back effort, and not remixed, as the new LIBN supposedly will be.
Another irony is if memory does not fail me, the whole "as nature intended" phrase comes from a bootleg of the Get Back sessions, so I'm only producing what has come natural to the boys and girls from Apple, even if it is 34 years later.
A splendid time is guaranteed for all.
Beatles Bits #10
I want to talk about the Beatles and time.
Time, as in Father Time, or Mother Time, or Ms. Time, whichever is more correct.
On Sept 7, 1964, I was one lucky 9-year-old who got to see the Fabs play at Maple Leaf Garden in Toronto, just about 40 miles up the road from hometown, Hamilton.
As chance would have it, I did not go to another concert for nearly 10 years, and I remember saying to my date at the Alice Cooper concert also at MLG, "Man, it seemed like so long ago when I was here to see the Beatles."
And it was true. At the time, 10 years did seem like such a long time.
But I was just thinking the other day that not only will it be about 40 years since I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and then in concert, but that about 30 years have passed since I first mused about how long it had been in 1974.
I guess what I'm trying to say -- as John Lennon did -- "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans."
I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed since that glorious year of Beatlmania, circa 1964. A lot of changes have gone down, and there are places I remember, all my life.
Many of us have grown up with the group and reference a lot of our personal experiences and emotions with that of the Fabs and their music.
And in my life, I have always taken inspiration from John's cocky, strong, yet somehow vulnerable persona, and thats why I really miss him.
But in John's passing, as well as that of George Harrison, we learned that death is also part of the magical mystery tour, and at least in my mind, it is not so scary.
And I know that I'll never lose affection. In my life, I've loved them all.
Time, as in Father Time, or Mother Time, or Ms. Time, whichever is more correct.
On Sept 7, 1964, I was one lucky 9-year-old who got to see the Fabs play at Maple Leaf Garden in Toronto, just about 40 miles up the road from hometown, Hamilton.
As chance would have it, I did not go to another concert for nearly 10 years, and I remember saying to my date at the Alice Cooper concert also at MLG, "Man, it seemed like so long ago when I was here to see the Beatles."
And it was true. At the time, 10 years did seem like such a long time.
But I was just thinking the other day that not only will it be about 40 years since I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan and then in concert, but that about 30 years have passed since I first mused about how long it had been in 1974.
I guess what I'm trying to say -- as John Lennon did -- "life is what happens when you're busy making other plans."
I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed since that glorious year of Beatlmania, circa 1964. A lot of changes have gone down, and there are places I remember, all my life.
Many of us have grown up with the group and reference a lot of our personal experiences and emotions with that of the Fabs and their music.
And in my life, I have always taken inspiration from John's cocky, strong, yet somehow vulnerable persona, and thats why I really miss him.
But in John's passing, as well as that of George Harrison, we learned that death is also part of the magical mystery tour, and at least in my mind, it is not so scary.
And I know that I'll never lose affection. In my life, I've loved them all.
Thursday, October 02, 2003
Beatle Bits #9
There has been some discussion lately about just who is the king when it comes to record sales in North America.
I have heard that The King of kings, is Elvis, and other, including the Beatles were merely pretenders to his throne.
However, the latest RIAA figures show a different story.
The figures I saw online say that the Fabs have sold just under 165 million records in the past 40 years, with several other artists-including E-at least 60 million records behind.
And remember, the world-wide sales figures are probably double the NA sales total.
So there's absolutely no doubt that John Lennon's boast that the Fabs would be bigger than Elvis, came to pass.
Unfortunately for the Beatles, their royalty rate during the first three years of Beatlamania was such a pittance, that they made but a fraction of the revenue generated by their records, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-10% of the list price.
Compare that to the big groups of today, who routinely keep 50% or more from each sale, and you can conclude that not only were the Beatles the biggest buy, but also the biggest ripped-off group in history.
And maybe that's why these days they seem to squeeze every last dime out of every Beatle product released to the masses
With Paul McCartney likely to keep on recording and touring into his 70s -- and in so doing keeping the group on the front burner for new generations of fans -- there is no reason not to believe that sales of Beatle records could reach 500 million in NA alone in our lifetime.
And even that lofty figure could be affected by the coming online music delivery revolution that will make music much more easy to obtain.
Roll over, Beethoven -- and pay the Beatles their dues.
I have heard that The King of kings, is Elvis, and other, including the Beatles were merely pretenders to his throne.
However, the latest RIAA figures show a different story.
The figures I saw online say that the Fabs have sold just under 165 million records in the past 40 years, with several other artists-including E-at least 60 million records behind.
And remember, the world-wide sales figures are probably double the NA sales total.
So there's absolutely no doubt that John Lennon's boast that the Fabs would be bigger than Elvis, came to pass.
Unfortunately for the Beatles, their royalty rate during the first three years of Beatlamania was such a pittance, that they made but a fraction of the revenue generated by their records, somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-10% of the list price.
Compare that to the big groups of today, who routinely keep 50% or more from each sale, and you can conclude that not only were the Beatles the biggest buy, but also the biggest ripped-off group in history.
And maybe that's why these days they seem to squeeze every last dime out of every Beatle product released to the masses
With Paul McCartney likely to keep on recording and touring into his 70s -- and in so doing keeping the group on the front burner for new generations of fans -- there is no reason not to believe that sales of Beatle records could reach 500 million in NA alone in our lifetime.
And even that lofty figure could be affected by the coming online music delivery revolution that will make music much more easy to obtain.
Roll over, Beethoven -- and pay the Beatles their dues.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Beatle Bits #8
Recent magazine and online interviews with arguably the two most significant women in John Lennon's life post 1966, Yoko Ono and May Pang, are proving some valuable insights into perhaps the most complex Beatle.
Yoko told UNCUT magazine that when John first met her at the London art gallery where she was exhibiting her latest event in late 1966, she was quite ticked off at John for taking a bite out of her apple, which was part of her show.
(A modern day Adam and Eve scene in a paralell universe, with no one getting kicked out of the garden!)
And Ono is still stickin' to her story that she knew not that the biter was a Beatle, but rather she indulged John because he was a friend of the gallery owner.
(I'm not calling Ms. L a liar, but I didn't believe it when I first heard it, and I still don't now. She would have had to have been a dunce not to know who John was, and Yoko is far from being dumb.)
The May Pang online interview also opens up a few possibilities regarding John's post comeback future that have not been touched on before.
May says that John was always at his best when working, and that she thought he was at his happiest point when he was out of his house husband routine that stretched form 1975-80.
Pang also added that John hung out with Paul and Linda McCartney during the infamous lost weekend in LA in 1973-4, opening up once again the possibility of a reunion.
Last year, published reports said that Lennon had continued his affair with Pang during the time he was supposed to have been home bound.
As John gained more confidence from his comeback, would it have been possible that he would have left the Dakota altogether, knowing he had May to fall back on?
Afterall, if even a tiny fraction of the tales told about John's life with Yoko circa 1975-80 are true, Lennon must have been thinking the grass was greener.
Lots of revisionist history and speculation make this one of the biggest what-ifs in Beatle history.
I'm sure we will hear more in the next few years, of what may have been.
Yoko told UNCUT magazine that when John first met her at the London art gallery where she was exhibiting her latest event in late 1966, she was quite ticked off at John for taking a bite out of her apple, which was part of her show.
(A modern day Adam and Eve scene in a paralell universe, with no one getting kicked out of the garden!)
And Ono is still stickin' to her story that she knew not that the biter was a Beatle, but rather she indulged John because he was a friend of the gallery owner.
(I'm not calling Ms. L a liar, but I didn't believe it when I first heard it, and I still don't now. She would have had to have been a dunce not to know who John was, and Yoko is far from being dumb.)
The May Pang online interview also opens up a few possibilities regarding John's post comeback future that have not been touched on before.
May says that John was always at his best when working, and that she thought he was at his happiest point when he was out of his house husband routine that stretched form 1975-80.
Pang also added that John hung out with Paul and Linda McCartney during the infamous lost weekend in LA in 1973-4, opening up once again the possibility of a reunion.
Last year, published reports said that Lennon had continued his affair with Pang during the time he was supposed to have been home bound.
As John gained more confidence from his comeback, would it have been possible that he would have left the Dakota altogether, knowing he had May to fall back on?
Afterall, if even a tiny fraction of the tales told about John's life with Yoko circa 1975-80 are true, Lennon must have been thinking the grass was greener.
Lots of revisionist history and speculation make this one of the biggest what-ifs in Beatle history.
I'm sure we will hear more in the next few years, of what may have been.
