By Terry Ott

The great Jack Paar left us this week, dead at age 85, and 40 years plus removed from his glory years on the late night talk fest The Tonight Show on NBC.

Although the Beatles would not make a proper appearance on American television until Feb 9, 1964, with their triumphant Ed Sullivan show gig, the Jack Paar show did run film of the Beatles singing and being mobbed in England in late 1963.

In several articles I've read this past week on Paar, it was stated that Paar had the Fabs first, with one story in the New York Times going so far as to quote Paar saying, "Everyone thinks Ed Sullivan discovered the Beatles."

"That's not true. I had them on before he did. I did it because I thought they were funny, not becasue I liked the music," recalled Paar.

However, there may be a small problem with exact timing of the Fabs and a Paar appearance.

Yes, Parr had film of the Fabs performing She Loves You on his show Jan. 4, 1964, but it was not on the Tonight Show, which Paar had walked away from 18 months earlier, but rather on his own evening show that while in primetime, did not carry the weight of the Tonight Show.

According to the website www. thebeatles arecoming.com, Parr first ran footage of girls freaking out while From Me To You was played, but drowned out by the shrieks.

Then, according to the Website, Paar said of the Beatles and their fans,"these guys have these crazy hairdos (and) the girls go out of their minds. Does it bother you to realize that in a few years these girls will vote, raise children, and drive cars."

Ouch!

However, Paar told the NY Times that he seemed to remember the Beatles appearance on his show as being "funny," and of course funny is as funny does,so go figure.

In any event, Paar never managed to get the Fabs back on his show, although he may have tried.

Now that would have been one hell of an interview!

The famously quirky Paar duelling with some of the best wits in the history of pop culture.

It sure would have topped anything Mr. Sullivan came up with, which was basically nothing but here they are, and let's hear it for 'em. Oh, and the Col. and Elvis say hello.

I don't know about you, but I am getting damn tired of losing all these great icons from the 60s. We will never see their kind again.

And I kid you not.

Can it be possible?

Can it be possible that 35 years have past this Jan. 30 that the Fabs undertook their last sort of public performance, perched on the roof of their Apple headquarters in downtown London?

Well, believe it, 'cuz it is true.

And to commemorate that historic day in Jan. 1969, the band Badge will take to the stage in New York City to celebrate the original rooftop gig.

The Badge's original idea was to play on a rooftop on Wall Steet, but the cold and the snow have forced them indoors for two shows with a matinee at Union Square, and a niight performance at Arelene's Grocery (as Jack Paar would say, I kid you not).

So I asked bandleader Jeff Slate in an interview 3 simple questions:

1/ Why in the heck are you doing this?

"I remember seeing a terrible, grainy screening of Let it Be back when I was a kid and the rooftop concert left an indeible impression on me."

2/What does it mean to you?

"The songs (performed by the Fabs on the roof on Jan. 30, 1969) are still a set-list that nay band would kill for."

3/Are you feeling any older?

"(Actually) I'm not much older than the Beatles were when they performed these songs. so that is nice."

Jeff also want to point out that his band will not be dressed up as the Fabs, and will not try to copy the original rooftop gig right down to the cops coming and breaking it up.

Well hopefully, the Badge's NYC shows on Jan. 30 will help to light fire under Apple/EMi's arse to finally (finally) get the Let it Be DVD out.

The fans have waited long enough!

Or as Mr..Slate says, "35 years does seem like a long time."

Amen brother, and I hope you pass the audition.

As you have been reading on AbbeyRd, it appears that there may be a good chance that the first four US issue Beatles albums may be released on CD sometime this year.

We always have to qualify such matters with a "may," because frankly, given the track record of previous reports about possible Fabs releases credited to "sources," and even to Apple itself, the pay-offs have not been good.

But in the spirit of hope and optimism, I am at least warming to the idea, even though as I noted in a previous BB, the "sources" are saying the albums will only be remastered, not remixed.

Still, who knows? It's doubtful that even Apple/EMI would put out the first four in the lousy sonic state that we got'em way back in 1964, so we could get a nice surprise.

The last time I wrote about this issue, I received an e-mail saying that the whole project was wrong headed, and that if fans wanted to relive the albums, all they had to do was whip up a collection with the same track running order as the originals.

Fair enough, but it would somehow not be the same.

Fans want to go out and purchase these things, as that is half the fun.

And the idea of a box-set always gets those fan excited more so that for a single release, or even a bunch of single releases.

As I said before, I think the idea of such a box set at such a nostalgic and hsitori period in Beatle lore, is a really shot in the arm to us older Baby Boomer fans who if we were honest, would admit that we were let down when the original rack of Beatle CDs way back in 1987 were the UK editions.

Even though your head said the UK's were better, your heart may have longed for the familar titles, titles that sold millions and millions of unit and made 1964 an orgy of fun for Fabs fans.

And hopefully, there willl be all sorts of new and or rare pix of the Lads in the set, and whatever else the Apple/Capitol brainiacs deem worthy.

But still, I'll believe that this set really exsists, when I actually see it in the shops, or at least on AbbeyRd.

When I read all about the festivities in New York City to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Beatles first trip to the United States and their triumphant, record breaking performance on the Ed Sullivan Show on Feb 9, 1964, I think of photographer, Harry Benson.

I interviewed Benson for the National Post in 1999, and he provided an interesting point of view of what it was like to travel with Fabs in the heady year of 1964.

Benson had been ordered onto the Beatle beat by his newspaper as the Fabs were off to Paris for a week of shows before coming to America.

At first Benson told me that he was pissed off that he was forced to cover mere pop stars, as he considered himself a serious journalist. Soon, however, he said he found himself being won over by the Lads talent and wit, and the rest as they say, is history.

Benson told me that although the famous New York City hotel room photo he took of the Beatles engaging in a bed pillow fight was staged, the ensuing real pillow fight between the four Beatles was anything but.

And according to Harry, the Beatles could be "rude" if they were irked or bored, and more than one reporter and radio guy bore the brunt of their sometimes searing wit.

Benson also said that the famous Carnegie Hall concert was "nothing special," because the audience was mostly big shots, and Harry felt that they did not connect well with the Beatles and their music. Benson also knew nothing of the show being taped by Capitol, a rumor that refused to die 40 years on.

Harry wrote a book in 1999 about his Beatle years, and I heartily recommend it.

I will have more tidbits form my Benson interview in the next week or so, including Harry;s story of what really happened when the Lads met Cassius Clay AKA Muhammad Ali.

Great stories and memories, but man, am I a feeling old(er)!

Well I have seen the future of buyable Beatle music, and it is the download.

Claiming that only "old people" will have CDs by the year 2008, Josh Bernoff, an online music analyst, told Reuters News in an interview that in 4 years, 30% of retail music will be bought via the Internet.

Now I'm not sure of Josh's math-where I went to school 30% would still leave a lot of "old people with common CDs-but I do agree with his premise.

And it's great news for Beatles fans.

Look for Apple to remaster the back catalogue for "old people" on CD within the year, but also watch for them to soon thereafter plan and begin a downloadable campaign similar to that of Bob Dylan, in which many rare and heretofore unavailable tracks are offered on an exclusive basis.

Believe it or not, there are only a relatively small number of extreme Beatle freaks out there-I'd say maybe 25% at the most-who want every single dog gone thing the Fabs ever put to tape, but the majority only want or will buy the regular albums, or greatest hits packages.

So the download option plays into a great business model for Apple. Instead of taking a chance with a regular CD run of outtakes and rarities that may not have wide appeal, they can commit that sort of stuff to the Internet, and even offer more of it.

The bootleggers better make hay while they can, because by the time all of the Beatles tape library is made available-and I'm assuming it will be-the booters will be getting the boot from the consumers.

While I was in the midst of writing this dispatch, I heard from a reader named John, who figured that one day, we would be able to buy our own personal copy of Beatle recordings-each one with an ID number to stop counterfeiting-and with the right software, be able to manipulate the material any way we want for our personal amusement.

The above scenario may be a way's off, but I'd be will to place a bet on side with expert Josh, who predicts a 2008 download bonanza, which we all hope contains a million megabytes of Beatles stuff.

You say you want a revolution?

Then give us clicks, not bricks!

We've all heard about the now legendary mono versions of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and the White Album (the Beatles).

But does all the hype live up to reality, or should I say, audio-ality?

My good friend Richard from the US of A has so kindly presented me with top notch copies of Sgt. P and the WA in mono, as well as the Magical mystery Tour in uni-sound.

One has to have a real good set of ears to pick out the differences between the mono and stereo MMT, but the mono Sgt. P and the WA are loaded with differences, compared with their stereo sisters.

But do those differences make the mono editions better?

The short answer to that question is the very subjective definition of "better," but no one could argue that they are indeed substantially different in mono vs. stereo form.

So once you get past the obvious- Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Reprise, She's Leaving Home, and possibly Being For The Benefit of Mr. Kite on Sgt. P, and Back in the USSR, Helter Skelter, Piggies, Don't Pass me By and a few other on the WA-are the mono LP's really worth all the hootin' and hollerin'?

Well, in my humble opinion, I think that overall, the mono versions of Sgt. P and the WA are perhaps a bit more sloppy in their edits, although the overall "sound" is a bit bolder and punchier.

Now as I understand the lore, the Fabs themselves gave not a toss for the stereo mixing right up until Abbey Road, and the task was handed off mainly to engineers and producer George Martin.

And I think if you listen back to back to the mono Sgt. P and WA and the stereo Sgt. P and WA, you may detect a more polished product from the stereo versions. More expansive by it's very sound nature, as well as deeper and richer across the musical stage.

Now remember, I ain't sayin' that the stereo versions are better than the mono, but rather after repeated listenings, I have noticed a more fussed over and dressed up stereo product.

(After all, once the mono mixes were done as a reference, and the Fabs bugged out, Martin and crew were pretty much free to try to come up with a "better," if not "different" mix and sound. And some may argue that they did just that.)

But I still really like listening to the mono editions because even though the recordings are going on 40 years old, the mono versions sound different because so many of us grew up with the stereo versions. And unless you are lucky enough to have scarce vinyl, or go the bootleg route, mono versions have not been avialable for almost 25 years.

I'd love to hear what you think about mono vs. stereo.

Ah shucks, I gone done it again.

Upset the Macca Madhatters, even though I tried so, not too.

My fave MM, Debra, e'd to say that obviously I was dissing Sir Paul because I referred to him as "Macca," and even the "Macca Man."

Deb sez that I am against PM because I don't refer to the other Fabs with nicknames.

I get the feeling that if the next time I write about John, I refer to him as "Looney" Lennon,even though my name is currently an obscenity on many Macca Internet forums, I will be somehow squared with the "watching" MMs.

But you know, there's a weird thing about the bizarre vigilance of the MMs.

They appear to only be looking out for transgressions against Pauly, as juxtaposed John, and not for "Gorgeous" George Harrison, or "Rickety" Ringo Starr, as opposed PM.

And why is that, Deb?

Could it be that the legion of MMs are over sensitized to any perceived wrong towards their man in a very pathological way?

These are questions that boggle the mind, and Macca-ites, and their therapists.

Look, despite what some whakos believe, Paul is not dead; so deal with it MMs.

John especially-but even George-will forever be deified, and a living Beatle cannot compete against a dead living legend no matter how many tours and albums he puts out.

I'm sure that when PM departs this mortal coil, He too, will be as big as John Lennon, or at least as big as George Harrison, or Rod Stewart.

Now I suppose I'll get in trouble for saying that.

One of the neat things about having a three letter last name-except for trying to order Chinese food over the phone-is that at least in North America, you are pretty unique.

I rarely encounter anyone with the same last name, and so when I received an e-mail today from a David Ott, who also happened to be posting on a Yahoo Beatles forum, I was taken aback.

And then when I had an e-mail exchange with David, it was even more weird.

The parallel universe Mr. Ott ,44, although 4 years younger than me, had some of the same Beatle experiences and likes as I did and do, even though we have never met and are not to my knowledge related.

David said he first got into the Beatles in 1973, with the Red and Blue greatest hits albums, and comments that "I was (and still am) amazed at the variety of quality music that all came from the same group!"

Then David began collecting the UK versions of Beatle albums.

And just like I did, David went through a feverish collecting period, when he just had to get his hands on everything he coveted,including a Butcher cover, which at first he thought was a fake, but that turned out to be very much the real deal.

(I searched forever for a Butcher in the 80s, but never even saw one in the flesh, or cardboard.)

Right now, he is into 45 pic sleeves and is trying to limit his collecting of memorabilia and such to the 1963-66 Fabs period, if for no other reason than to stop from running out of money.

So there you have it; as far as I know, the exclusive Ott Beatle Club now has 2 charter members. But if there are any other potential members, I'd love to hear from you, especially a female Otter. (Is there a "Terry" Ott girl Beatle fan out there?)

When it comes to the Beatles, the second to last word today goes to David: "I'm looking forward to this delicious insanity lasting for a good long time."

Hey, tomorrow never knows.

"Genius is pain."

A statement John Lennon made during his (in)famous 1970 Rolling Stone interview, and a line which I'm sure Lennon would have wanted back.

The National Lampoon in 1972 would roast John in a hilarious send up entitled Magical Misery Tour, in which the sound alike Lennon screams and sobs like a child. Mind games, indeed.

And of course John had been through Primal Scream Therapy, another one of those trendy pop-psych treatments that went in and out of vogue every year or so in the 60s and 70s.

Primal Scream was supposed to sort of delete your files, and give you a fresh hard drive, but John later denounced the treatments as a gimmick; a craze.

But it does beg the question, which Beatle was the most mentally healthy?

Except for a brief detox mansion stay for Ringo Starr when he gave up booze in the mid 80s, the subject has been yellow submarined when it comes to the Beatle drummer.

And I don't recall ever reading anything about Paul McCartney's Id and Super Ego, although it would be near well impossible to really be as sunny and thumbs up as he usually appears.

So that leaves George Harrison.

I think George was really with it, or to coin a lyric; within and without you.

He was the first Beatle to experiment with mind expanding drugs-saying he "saw God in avery blade of grass"-and the only Beatle to stick with religion as a way to get to a higher plain.

And although George would renounce drugs as a way to true happiness, at least one book would say that George did not always practice what he preached, and that he was still smoking mother nature and ingesting other chemical cocktails well into the 90s.

Nevertheless, I think that George was the most grounded, thoughtful, empathetic, spiritual and mentally well of all the Fabs, despite his sometimes famous quirkiness-Don't Bother Me was his first song written for the Beatles- and lust for privacy.

Even though George would say in an Anthology interview that the Beatles "gave their nervous systems," during their initial pop music reign, Harrison was a guy who needed no head shrinking, and managed to get back his nerves despite all the strange madness.

Something in the way he moved, I'd say.

AbbeyRd has just reported that Let it Be will make it this year into the Grammy Awards song hall of fame, but when it comes to the Fabs and the Grammies, maybe the "Shammies" might be more appropriate.

If you check the list complied by AbbeyRd on the Beatle Grammy awards, and considering what the group has meant to pop music, the lack of noms and awards is laughable.

Of course not even the Grammy folks could mess up best new artist of 1964-The Beatles, but did you know that the group did not receive an award for best song of the year until 1966, and that song was Michelle(!)?

So despite all the incredible number 1's the Fabs had, oh, like little minor hits such as Help!, Ticket To Ride, Day Tripper, We Can Work It Out, etc, etc, the Grammy voters can only come up with Michelle(!)?

As Bart would say, Aye carumba!

Granted there was a lot of fabulous things happening in the mid 60s in pop music, with the British Invasion, as well as the Beach Boys, Byrds and others, but for the Fabs to be passed over so many times almost invalidated the authenticity of the awards.

But even the Grammy pickers could not overlook Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band, that took the award for album of the year in 1967, as well as for album artwork.

Believe it or not, The Beatles White Album released a year later received no awards, despite being generally considered as one of the all time best rock albums, and usually appears in most classic rock critic's top 10 lists.

So the inclusion of LIB this year would seem to be cold comfort for a 40 year legacy of neglect for the greatest pop/rock band in the history of rock/pop music.

And that reminds me of a line from a Frank Zappa record-Joe's garge Part II- where FZ rails that "rock'n'roll writers are the worst kind of sleaze." And since the Grammies rely on much input from rock writers, maybe the Fabs appeal to a better class of journalist.

Paperback writers?

I read the news today again, oh boy.

In what appears to be sort of like a scene straight out of the Godfather-when Sonny smashed an FBI man's camera just outside the gate of Don Corleone's mansion during his daughter's wedding-a Macca minder, and the Macca Man himself, may have to answer to the cops for an incident last year.

Sir Paul was involved in some sort of cock-up with a photographer near the Blaine stunt in downtown London last fall, and even reportedly fired his long time press guy, Geoff Baker, if only for a few hours as "a joke,"

At the risk of confusing the Macca Madhatters out there, don't the cops have something better to do?

And the photog that had his camera busted and allegedly called a c**t and told to f**k off by Sir Paul, doesn't he have a ready made small change nuisance lawsuit in his back pocket?

I think even in England it's still OK to swear after dark at whomever you like, or don't. Or at least if the lawyers don't hear you.

It's seeming to me that this is one of the biggest wankfests to surround the Macca Man for some time.

I mean, the press guy is ticked off, the public offended, and Macca's PR weasel has been sacked, then sacked as a "joke," then reinstated as the punchline, I guess.

Previoulsy published reports said that McCartney had had a snoot-full, and was therefore more playful than his usual wonderful self. Not such a bad boy, indeed.

I say, so what?

If you can't get loaded and go out and name call, what good is it being an ex-Beatle?

As Roberta Flack once sang,"where is the love?"

And so as you have read recently on AbbeyRD, poor Pauly may have to answer for what seems like nothing more than a night out with his minders, and what surely should inspire a new song entitled, "F**k Off, You Dirty C**ts," a bouncy little ditty sure to get yer toes-a-tappin'.

So as Dirk McQuickly once observed: "That's showbiz, folks!"

I got a kick out of the national press picking up on what is a holy day for Beatle fans-Feb. 7, 1964-what with Dr. Joyce Brothers no less, and renown Beatle author Bruce Spitzer appearing in a photo op talking (about their trousers) and calling up the ghosts of Beatles past to commemorate what was going on 40 years ago today.

Spitzer writes great books on the Fabs, but I still don't quite understand what Dr. Brothers' Beatle bona fides are, but if she or anyone else wants to publicly celebrate the Beatles hey-day, more power to 'em!

You know I still can't believe that 40 years has gone by; in fact I think is was probably 40 years to the day that I first heard I Want To Hold Your Hand on the local AM rocker 1150 CKOC. Man, I loved that song, and played it over and over and over.

Even though up here in Canada, Capitol had during 1963 released 3 Beatle singles prior to IWTHYH, no one that I knew had ever heard them, let alone bought them.

But that was all to change during the amazing month of January, 1964.

Talk about catching lightening in a bottle, if January and February 1964 could be somehow really be revisited in the flesh, it would be the stuff of dreams.

In fact, if Einstein's theories of space and time are correct, some day people may be able to go back in time. And if it occurs in my lifetime, I know what year I'll be dialing into the time machine.

As I was only 8 years old when the hurricane hit, I would be most interested in going back to see if it really was as great as I remember it. Maybe if I live to 108, it might be a possibility, even if only in a Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds manner.

(Just think of the great opps for collectors; going back and snatching up all the Butcher Cover LPs you can lay your hands on, as well as buying tickets to as many cocnerts as you can!)

I will be writing much more leading up to the big day of Feb. 7, 2004, the 40th anniversay of the Beatles first live appearnce on North Amercian TV, but that's the whimsy for today.

In the spirit of yesterday's Bits-that of giving the "lesser" Fabs their due-a few items about George Harrison.

In the Jan. 17 edition of the New York Times, it was reported that the Harrison family has settled their lawsuit with George's former doctor.

According to the Times, the parties were able to settle their differences with the aid of the judge, and the autographed guitar that was central to the case will apparently be dealt with appropriately, although the exact nature of the dealing was not specified, and all parties are bound by a confidential agreement.

No matter, it is a good thing that the sue me, sue you blues 2004 edition is over and done with and there will be no circus trial.

Moving right along, I received an e-mail from a reader who was complaining about the high list price for the forthcoming George Harrison Dark Horse remaster box set.

However, as the list price sometimes does not have much to do with the retail price, I think we can reserve judement on that matter until the set is widely availabe in stores.

But I do have somewhat of a bone to pick with the way the reissues are being presented.

Although I don't have a spy camera into the Harrison tape archives, I'd be willing to be that there are more goodies than just one extra track per reissue available.

Even Yoko Ono made sure that the John Lennon solo album remasters had at least 2 bonus tracks per CD.

Ditto for most of the Paul McCartney solo reissues, now some 10 years ago, and the 1973 Ringo (album) remaster also had 2 or 3 bonus tracks.

And even though many of George's shows in Japan were taped, the Live in Japan reissue is presented with no bonus material at all, albeit in an SACD form.

Plues, still no stuff from the 1974 Dark Horse Tour.

Do I smell a different sort of box set cooking for the future? Say, a 3 or 4 CD set spanning George's solo career, with such goodies as Concert for Bangledesh rehearsals.

Oh well, as they say on TV, it's all good.

John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Notice something?

It is always, John, Paul, George (and oh ya) Ringo.

Going on 40 years, this has been the routine. Still is, and always will (be).

Ringo may not be last in the collective hearts of Beatle fans, but still he is always last when the Fabs are named, and usually when they are written about.

And so in the spirit of practicing what ye and we preach, today we give over to Mr. Starr(key).

I've always thought a lot of Ringo Starr and his contribution to the Beatles music and image.

His backbeat was-and is-unmistakable and was perhaps the key to the Fabs when they rocked out.

The thing with Ringo is that he was surrounded by two monster talents in John Lennon and Paul McCartney, and a great talent in George Harrison.

Compared to the other 3 Lads, of course Ringo was found lacking. A gifted song writer he is not. But that is not the point. The point is how Starr carried himself in such a charged dynamic.

Except for getting pissed off during the White Album sessions and walking out on the group for a while, Ringo handled the pressures very well.

When the Anthology appeared on DVD last year, I was particularly interested in some of the Ringo interviews. It seemed to me that Starr was a man who suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, when he was discussing certain parts of the Beatles history.

I always got the feeling that Ringo knew he had been lucky as it were, to be in the eye of a hurricane, and sometimes he looked lost even trying to explain it, or even justify it.

Yet, I digress...

Seeing that all of the other ex-Beatles have had some or all of their back catalogue remastered and rejigged, I want to put in my request for the same for Ringo.

I-and I imagine many, many others-wouldn't mind hearing alts and outs of well know Ringo tunes like Photograph, It Don't Come Easy, and many others, say from 1971-74.

It still bugs me that Ringo is primarily known for Yellow Submarine, certainly not his, or the Beatles finest hour.

Let's hope for the best of solo Starr to be out soon.

Ello kiddies!

A couple of couplets today.

Two words: Mirror Spock

Another two words: Phil Spector

Beam me up Scotty so's I can transpond Let it Be, as nature really intended.

This is no cosmic hype Beatle peeps, the MS MFSL LIB is the real deal.

It looks the way it should-with the original cover art- and it sounds the way it should.

The last original group album, going on 34 years old this spring, is presented by MS in a half speed mastered, nice, juicy, fat analogue transfer that jumps and bounces out of your speakers.

Listening to this disc, is like being in a time warp, albeit I'd bet that this LIB sounds way better than anything we care to remember.

At least one Beatle might not have thought much of Phil Spector, but whether you love or hate Phil, he sure knew how to produce a rock record.

The balance and bass and treble and mid range and just about everything else is in it's place with this release, and in truth, this disc might be the real naked Let it Be, or at least as nude as it should be.

Yes, the Spockster LIB is given the usual mirror image treatment, including Maggie Mae and of course you just have to Dig It.

Interestingly, the inside cover art reproduces the original tape log from which this edition of LIB is presumably taken, and it very clearly states "STEREO MODEL MASTER," which to me, might indicate that the record was mastered from a copy of the master. "Model" equals copy?

No matter, the thing sounds great, and go's boldly where no man, or at least engineer, has gone before.

So just like some episode of Star Trek, M. Spock exists in a parallel Beatle universe in which some laws of physics and nature remain static, and famous Fabs' records are not remixed on a whim.

Once again, bless MS' pointy little ears AND "Thanks MO" AND....

"I'd like to say thank you on behalf of myself and the group, and I hope we passed the audition."

Ha, ha, ha, and ha.

As you probably read first on AbbeyRd, Beatlefan mag is reporting that a Capitol Records "source" has told them that a box set of the first 4 US Beatle albums is being prepared for release.

The story said, however, that the set would probably not make it out in February, the 40th anniversary of the first of original LPs releases.

I hate to rain on the parade, but I think the Beatlefan story is somewhat problematic.

As most Beatle fans know, there are usually weeks if not months of hype surrounding any "new" Fabs release, and yet this is the first we have heard of it, and it comes in a fan magazine to boot. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

The story also said that according to the "source," Meet the Beatles, Beatles Second, Something New, and a Hard Day's Night, would be remastered. But most likely not re-mixed. I did not read anything about whether the new CDs would be in mono or stereo.

OK, if I have this right, those first 4 would come from the original masters Capitol used-and to which they committed sonic hari kari, a fact that has been well known for years-and the masters would merely be remastered, not re-mixed. Hmmm.

But what about the problem of AHDN?

Published reports say that the United Artists issue was never even provided to the company in a stereo form for North American release, no matter what the record cover proclaimed.

So do actual stereo masters of the instrumental tracks on the UA AHDN even exist?

And if I remember correctly, few of the tracks on the first 3 Fabs US albums were ever in true stereo, with the majority being in electronic reprocessed muck form.

But personally, I hope the story in Beatlefan is true, because it sure would be delicious to see those first 4 in jewel cases, with their oh so familiar packaging and colors and track list.

I mean, most of us know exactly the running order of every song on all 4 albums combined!

No mention of any extras, but still,I can't wait to have the set in my hot little hand, if in fact it comes to pass.

Yeah, yeah, and yeah.

" We know you're out there, because we can feel you bleeding," was about the line in a National Lampoon album from 1972, called Radio Dinner.

The above quote came from a take-off on a George Harrison-"ah yes, the vedy, vedy kind, Mr. George Harrison"-benefit for the starving Asian masses.

(If you ever get a chance, be sure to listen to the Harrison bit, it is a panic in a sick humor sort of way.)

The reason I am reminded of that line is that although I can't feel you bleeding out there, I sure can hear you, or read you when you e-mail me after I slip up on some point of Beatles trivia.

The latest example was when I stated in #106 that the only "authorized" books on the Beatles collectively or individually, had been written by George Harrison.

Many readers e'd to say that Barry Miles book on Paul McCartney was "authorized," and besides, the Anthology book was "written" by the Fabs.

I admit freely that I was technically remiss, but the issue I was trying to address was regarding the total insider status of a Yoko Ono book, as compared to filtering it through a writer or an editor, although I'm sure Yoko will have both.

But the larger issue is that my readers-and that means you-are an intelligent and watchful lot, and many more write to expose a mistake or glitch, rather than to agree or to praise.

Such is the nature of the biz, and I'm not cryin', believe me.

Still, it is great when readers take the time to share opinions and theories, some of which are truly insightful, along with the more instructory and didactic.

I remember one EMI rep telling me several years ago that if one was to write on the Beatles one better have his or her "facts" right, because so many people are Beatle fans and read every last scrap they can concerning the group.

For once, EMI was right.

Recently, you read on AbbeyRd about Yoko Ono looking to get a book deal, a deal that presumably would be mulit-million dollar in value.

If and when a deal is reached, a book by Ono would be the first authorized account of John Lennon and her life, from 1966 on.

Although there have been many detailed books written on the Beatles collectively, as well as the individual members, all except those penned by George Harrison have been written by "un-authorized" writers.

Of course, the book that still rankles some Beatle fans to this day, is the 1981, Lives of John Lennon, by the late Albert Goldman.

Goldman certainly took a warts and all approach to his book on Lennon, but I think some of the vitriol directed at Goldman was excessive given that "history" is written by those that feel they own the "truth," not necessarily what it the "truth."

In any event, I would be very interested in reading anything Ms. Ono has to say about John and her, given that once again, every thing we have read has been from the outside-even from insiders-looking in.

Anything that Ono has written previously about John by way of CD liner notes and tributes have been ususally reverent, so it would be very interesting to have her let her hair down-if in fact she does-and tell us what life was really like for her and her ex-Beatle husband.

(When I interviewed Yoko in 2000 for the National Post, she did not even want to talk about the time John's erotic drawings actually almost went up in flames when a fire broke out in Ronnie Hawkins' barn whilst the Lennon's were visitng Canada in December 1969. Hawkins told a great story about John running out to thew barn armed with a child's sand pail to help put out the fire, but Yoko declined to comment, saying she only wanted to discuss "positive" things.)

And if I understand the book publishing rackets rightly, Yoko will have to come up with some new revelations if she hopes to command a large purse for her tale.

I would really like to hear her side of the infamous Dragon Lady persona loaded on her during John's famous "house husband" routine, when he was supposedly grounded at the Dakota for about 5 years, while Yoko ran the show.

We have heard the standard tales of cookie baking and telling ex-Beatles to get lost for so long, it would be great to hear something new.

Also,speaking of ex-Beatles, could Yoko resist taking pot-shots at Paul McCartney?

It would seem to me that dirt on Macca would get the publishing houses in New York moist with interest, and would generate the most buzz for a promotion of the book, which would become a road show for Ms. Ono.

Personally, I'll be looking forward to it.

It was (around) 35 years ago today, that the Beatles gave up on trying to film and record at Twickenham film studios in London, and repaired to their new studios at Apple world headquarters.

But before they left the dark, cold and gloomy soundstage, they unwittingly gave birth to the modern era of bootlegging sound recordings.

The very first Beatle bootleg records that appeared in the early 70s came from the so called Nagra reels-the twin mono tape recorders used for the 35mm film stock used to film the Fabs-and three and one half decades later, we are still getting a steady diet of these infamous Nagra reels.

It was also (around) one year ago today, that the cops busted some European bootleggers, supposedly getting back (pun intended) the master Nagra reels.

And yet hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of hours of what even John Lennon described as "shitty" tapes are still available on the black market. In fact, since the bust, I think there have been even more Nagra reel CDs for sale than ever before.

The quantity is large and the quality seems to be improving as well, if it is in fact possible for the Get Back tapes to get better.

The irony here is that Apple/EMI finally-and I mean finally-answered back to the bootleggers, possibly even with material from those nabbed Nagra reels, and yet with literally miles of tape to work with, they give us a piddly 22 minute "fly on the wall" CD that is so woefully inadequate given what Apple had to work with as to defy description.

Perhaps if Apple comes to their senses, some of the thousands of feet of Nagra tape will find their way onto the remastered Let it Be film, which may actually be released in our lifetime. (Please don't hold your collective breaths.)

But then again yeah, I'd say there is a damn good chance that I could be writing in 5 years time, how that it was (around 40 years ago today...and we still have not got the goods.

A while back, I wrote about the possibility of Wal-Mart teaming up with Apple/EMI/The Beatles to provide the first online delivery of the Fabs' back catalogue.

I received quite a few e-mails, both pro and con, with at least one reader complained that Wal-Mart was using Microsoft music download software, which some consider to be inferior to the Apple iTunes service.

Well, now there is a new wrinkle, with Hewlett Packard-the second largest PC manufacturer-signing on with Apple, for a PC based iTunes music delivery store.

So with the Beatles still suing Apple computers over whether Apple comp's should even be able to market music under the name "Apple," is there now an opportunity for the Beatles to sign up with Billy Gates and the Microsoft mega- monster?

After all, the Beatles are just about the last major act that does not have a clicks market, relying strictly on bricks, and with a catalogue that is almost near audio obsolete.

If Apple/Beatles can't settle their tiff with Apple/computers, then what better way for Apple/Beatles to show up Apple/computers than to go with Microsoft, which has to be hurting because of HP's defection to Apple comp's.

As I've said before about such matters, the mind boggles.

But what does not boggle is the moo-la (bling-bling?) that Apple/Beatles is currently passing up because their product is not available legitimately over the Internet.

Look, this may just be another of my hunches, but doesn't pairing the most successful band in the history of pop music, with the most successful and richest company in history sound like a plan?

Gates has got the big, big, big bucks that could synch some other-worldly deal with the Fabs, and in so doing blow the doors off the still emerging Internet music delivery system.

This could be the ultimate music marriage made in Heaven.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

There has been some buzz lately on the Internet Beatles forums about a recent episode of the PBS show Antiques Roadshow, in which an original first state stereo Butcher cover received a very high estimate of value.

The talk is about the estimate; too high, too low?

I did not see the episode, but recently, sealed stereo Butcher covers have been going for anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000.

When I was heavy into Beatle record and memorabillia collecting in the late 80s, I coveted a Butcher like a neighbor looking at a cute and sexy wife.

But during my approx. 5 years of my spending spree, I never even saw a Butcher, yet alone got a chance to purchase one.

However, at the time I recall a sealed stereo copy being hawked in Goldmine for $25,000, but this was before the find of 5-10 copies belonging to a former Capitol records executive.

The price went down considerably at that time, but now, the value is increasing, because there will probably be no further "finds" of sealed, in the box Butcher cover LPs.

Published reports state that although it is virtually impossible to know exactly how many Butcher covers got out before they were recalled and pasted over in 1966, the usual estimate is in the low 1000's.

There are of course many, many more paste-overs, that lately have been rising in value, especially if they are pasted over an original stereo Butcher issue.

In any event, a sealed, mint condition, stereo Butcher should be perhaps the most valuable of mass produced Beatle items in history.

(There are other items that are much more rare, but few that command the attention or cheque book of a Butcher.)

As parents of Baby Boomers die off and their homes are sold and cleaned out, there may be a few more Butchers turned up, but sealed stereo copies could be near impossible to come by.

Therefore, I'd say that by 2010, a sealed Butcher could go for upwards of $100,000.

Who would have thought yesterday and today, that a mere record jacket could be worth such a fortune?

I'd say that if anyone has the chance to buy a sealed or even mint Butcher for $25,000 or less, grab it, and hold on tight.

In the Jan 7 edition of the New York Times, there was a story about the lawsuit filed by the George Harrison estate, against the doctor that treated George just prior to Harrison's death due to cancer in November 2001.

According to the Times, the New York doctor who gave Harrison some last ditch treatments to try and save his life, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the state governing body, and fined $5000 for leaking confidential medical information to the media. The Times story said the doctor did not contest the finding.

One of the central issues of the current lawsuit, according to the Times story, is the Harrison family allegation that the doctor requested that George autograph a guitar for his son, at a time when Harrison was barely conscious.

Although I have no knowledge of the case other that what I have read in the newspapers and and the Internet, I can tell,you that I have had a few go-rounds with doctors, and in my case-as in most cases-the plaintiff rarely is satisfied or receives anything close to what they perceive "justice" to be.

Doctors have all sorts of systemic protections and loopholes within which to avoid responsibiltiy, and barring that, the MD's insurance company will fight like super gladiators in any arena to salvage their doctor client's ass, as well as the insurance company's funds.

Surely the Harrison complaint is not about money, but rather most likely intended to teach the doctor and his profession a lesson about handling celebrity patients.

The cost of that lesson may be high.

And once the suit reaches court it becomes not a lawsuit but rather a circus, as does any legal action involving any Beatle.

It will make it even harder for the Harrison family to achieve closure on their grief over George's untimely passing when the whole debacle is plastered all over the media, and the lawyers take their pounds ( and pounds) of flesh, as they always do.

Bring your lawyer, and I'll bring mine. Get together, we could have a bad time.

Isn't it a pity?

Yesterday, I ended with a prediction as to when the Beatles catalogue will finally be offered up in decently digital remastered form by their record company.

My hunch is that we will get the prize by next X-Mas, but something I saw today makes me wonder if Apple/EMI may finally get their act together sooner.

On at least one Yahoo Beatles discussion groups, the word is out that all of the 5.1 tracks on the recent Lennon Legend DVD have been isolated, and will therefore be able to be burned onto audio CD in Surround Sound form.

One regular poster to the group boasted that ALL of the Beatles releases would be availble in gerry-mandered 5.1 form by the end of the year.

In addition, recent techical leaps and bounds in consumer computer music edting software have made it possible for those in the know to take vinyl copies of Beatles records-both mono and stereo- and make CD copies that are in some cases superior to what is legitimately available.

Will the Beatles and Apple/EMI be forced into action?

According to previously published reports, the first North American Beatles greatest hits albums, the 1973 Red and Blue collections, came about due to an un-authorized Beatles hits TV offer, that supposedly sold tens of thousands before being shut down by the legal eagles of Capitol records in the United States.

Despite the legal action, it has been written that Capitol thought it best to rush out their own Beatles greatest hits compilations, just in case. Hence the Red and Blue sets.

Also according to reports, the legit Hollywood Bowl LP released in 1977, came about partly due to the fear on Capitol's part that a bootleg copy of an acetate of an originally planned Hollywood Bowl LP from 1964, would get out.

So if necessity is the mother of invention, then in this case I'd say that the mother's of (bootleg and pirate) invention have created a real necessity for legit Beatles product before the bloom is off the rose.

At the risk of stating the obvious, there are million and millions of dollars at stake here for the Beatles and their record and publishing companies.

The question is when will they consider a critical mass to have been reached by the free enterprizers that are growing increasingly bold about marketing their product.

Another hunch is that we are going to find out sooner, rather than later.

Wow!

Here we are already at the one after ninety nine.

When I approached your friendly Abbeyrd webmaster Steve Marinucci last fall about doing a daily column, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

I really enjoy working with Steve, who for a big-time media guy, is well grounded and high humility kind of fella.

And it was good for me to write everyday, because my regular gig in Hamilton, Ont. at VIEW weekly magazine had dwindled down to maybe twice a month if I was lucky.

So I was happy to get the juices flowing on skills that can quickly erode if you are idle.

But then there was a change of editorship at VIEW, and now I am back to my regular once-a-week grind.

Yet it is still an inspiration to me to be able to write for all the regular readers of BB, many of whom take the time to e-mail me with some pretty incredible and valued insights, the nutbars notwithstanding.

It never ceases to amaze me at how intelligent and articulate many Fabs fans are, and to tell you the truth, without the feedback from such folks, I don't think I could get it together to put something up each and every day.

I still continue to receive regular questions on when I think Apple/EMI will finally join the 21st centry and get the back catalogue out in passable fidelity.

My hunch is that we will get that long longed for rejig by next Christmas. But that is only a personal hunch, so don't bet the farm, or yer iPod.

Once again, many, many thanks to all of you that support Abbeyrd and Beatle Bits.

Secretly. I knew they wouldn't let me down.

The Macca Madhatters that is!

I was beginning to wonder what it would take to get them to come out and play again, and BB98 was just the ticket. Finally!

I had been feeling neglected in a hostile way.

So sure enough after I opined that not even the great man PM hisself would dare do a rapper record, the e-mail floodgates belched out and in came some keepers.

One from a reader even giving themsleves the header "from a misguided Macca Madhatter."

Now that is real compliment, kiddies, when the spot the loonies mimic ya.

But the best one I got was from an MM who said that "White people" like me make her laugh. And in a world of death, misery and destruction, I would venture that laughter is most welcome, even to these apparent mental health cases.

You know, I admit that psych was only a minor for me at college but I believe the correct technical term for these poor souls is "nuts."

One of these crazy's even invited me over to the Macca suck and blow Website, I guess so I could recieve a summary Internet assassination.

But I told the DSM IV bound inviter that I would be busy defrosting my fridge, so damn, I just couldn't make it.

Oh, I almost forgot. One cashew alleged that I was part of plot initated by Yoko Ono to discredit Mr. McCartney.

Maybe I'm amazed at that one! As I'm sure Yoko would be as well.

I did get some intelligent e's though, from readers who pointed out that Macca had already done some sort of rap with Lulu a while ago.

Oh well, all in a day in the life of an Internet columnist.

And as for the MMs: please gang; take your meds!

I got an e-mail recently from a reader who speculated on how John Lennon would have seen the current music scene.

Sorry to offer up this visualization, but I told the reader what with all the Rap Crap (TM) and Spears/Madonna sheit dominating the airwaves, I felt that John most likely would have "puked."

I say this because Lennon understood that there was a big difference between being a rebel, and a scumbag criminal, as well as what was music, and what was crap.

It's one thing to be unsure of whether to be counted out or in of the revolution, and another to be a vulgar, potty-mouthed degenerate advocating the offing of the pigs strictly for financial reasons.

By now, one would hope that it should not be fashionable to off the pigs at all.

And it also seems that if you are a well built, blonde female with dirty, slutty lyrics, you will sell a million records, regardless of whether you can sing or not.

John would have for sure seen the irony of his and Yoko Ono's musical exploits, that did not fit the above music model.

And I may hear once again from the legion of misguided Macca Madhatters, but not even Paul McCartney has made a rap record, no matter how he may have wished to fit in with what's happening so tragically to today's airwaves and CD players.

Plus don't try to brand any racist connotations to this rant because as far as I'm concerned, Motown records was perhaps only second to the Beatles in the 60s in shaping pop music.

The difference with Motown and the garbage today is that Motown asked the question what's goin' on, and was not instructing you to get rich or die tryin'.

Lennon would have been making his point of power to the people, but not with hate.

Today, I'm gonna be talkin' about their trousers.

Because the Pre Fab Four are in the news again.

Your friendly Webmaster, Steve at AbbeyRd, e-mailed me a sound file of a genuine Rutles outtake, and man oh man, did it bring back memories.

Dirk, Stig, Nasty and Barry set the world' s toe-a-tapping with their catchy melodies and lovable personalities.

Leggy Mountbatten went to see about them in a dark cellar way back in 1962, and came away knowing their trousers showed all the right things; outlines, clear as day...

The rest is history.

If you are a Rutles fan, you will know that their first album took 20 minutes to record, their second, even longer.

You will also know that they introduced the world to tea, and that Dirk was man enough to own up. "I have had tea," admitted Mr. McQuickly.

But Nasty blew it up; Rutle Corp., that is.

And there was a Magical Misery Tour, with Dirk as the waitress.

Finally, Let it Rot was released as an album, a film, and a lawsuit.

In the 25 years since the Rutles was first broadcast on NBC TV, I suspect I have watched it maybe 10-15 times, and have most of the dialogue committed to memory.

On the AbbeyRd Beatles Forum, there is a cool guy who goes by the handle of Nasty, and I'm sure he wants to own a squadron of tanks.

The lore is that John Lennon thought the Rutles was a real good larf, but that Mr. MCartney did not think it was quite as funny.

Of course, George Harrison appeared in the film, and has the immortal line of "Who hurt Stig?" spoken totally deadpan to Ronnie Wood, who was playing a Hells Angel.

Let's hope that the Rutles put out another album, and that Can't Buy Me Lunch, the sequal, will make it's way to home video, pronto.

As for the question of whether or not there could ever be another Rutles?

Aye 'ope not.

Way, way back in the late 1950s, the question for discussion was "who would be the next Elvis?"

Well, we would find out roughly 5 years later that there would be no next Elvis, but rather there would be a Beatles, who were convinced all along they would be bigger than Elvis.

And they were much bigger than, Elvis, and in fact much bigger than anything that had come before, ever. Or after, for that matter.

So almost 50 years later, I throw out this question: who will be the next Beatles?

My answer?

No one.

No one will be as big as the Beatles, or even as big as Elvis for that matter.

For some reason the Good Lord put John ,Paul, George and Ringo togther in Liverpool-and think about the odds of that-and then as we all know they became the "Four Lads Who Shook The Earth."

There may be-and there have been-bands that will be extremely popular and sell millions of units, but the fertile cultural ground that sprung Elvis and the Beatles is barren now, laid waste by technology, and unfortunately,really, really, bad taste and gangsters posing as musicians.

Think about some of the rap crap that is vile and putrid and yet sells millions because impressionable, disenfranchised youth buy into it's sub-culture of drugs, violence and quick bucks and even quicker stables of ho's.

The youth of the 50s and 60s bought into Elvis and the Beatles because of the rebellious nature of the performers, not because they thought the artists would help them to become better street hoodlums and drug thugs.

Some of what passes for popular music today is toxic.

Too bad there won't be another Beatles.

We could really use them.

How about another two words? Mirror Spock.

Whoever and whatever this vulcanized pointy-eared audio entity is,(it) has come up with a winner of a CD, entitled Driving Tampa, by Paul McCartney.

(And get ready to lissen-up, all you Macca Madhatters out there, cuz I'm gonna do a number on your boy.)

Although this 159 minute 2 CD set is seemingly identical in track line-up to the Driving USA tour CD released by Macca over a year ago, this MS edition has special charms of it's own.

As this is an un-edited-or lightly edited- complete performance of the Tampa show, the set comes off as intimate and vital, if not a tad dull or flat sounding.

MS claims some sort of new-fangled sound process for this issue, although it sounds to me like a hybrid of a soundboard and FM broadcast, for what it's worth.

What I really like about this Driving Tampa 2 Cd set is the "you are there" feel that you get when listening.

Much of Paul's between song banter is retained, and some corresponding fatcoids emerge.

For instance, Macca tells the audience that he composed the song Driving Rain whilst driving a rented Corvette up the Pacific Coast highway during a rainy off day in the 2002 tour.

Another highlight is what Macca says he could write a book about called "Massages I Have Known."

Paul pronounces massages as "mah-sah-ges," and this adds to the lore as he describes some of the more bizarre massages he has had during his time on tour, including one instance in Tokyo when the elderly massager sang a verse of Yesterday.

While introducing Blackbird, Paul says that he wrote the song about the civil rights movement in the United States in the latter 60s, contradicting what he has said earlier in published reports in which he claimed the song was not politically motivated.

As I mentioned before, this CD sounds pretty damn good despite it's somewhat unclear parentage, although there are some obvious problems, especially during the segue part of Band on the Run.

But still, and overall, I would say that this set demonstrates the superb talent of Sir Paul, depsite some botched vocal parts, that are laid bare by this un-polished release.

Yet hey, what do you want from the Macca Man?

This ex-Beatle is over 60, but he is definitely not over the hill, or even the fool on the hill.

Driving Tampa may be McCartney at his best in 2002.

Bless MS' pointy little ears, and that dear spunker, Paul.