By Terry Ott

Well, well, well.

Well, well. WELL!

So, some Macca Madhatter ass broke and hacked into into the blog!

We'll see about you, then.

Oops! Just like old Britnitney, I gone done it again.

Got some of my wonderful readers upset with (another) perceived slight of Sir Paul McCartney.

So how can I make it up to you, you the legion of Macca Madhatters?

Well, I read tooday that SPM has debuted a new song called Follow Me.

Now in the spirit of the Rutles, I shall atempt my tribute to Sir P, with my version, entitled, Shallow, Be.

Ahem:


Dee dee dee dee

Dee dee dee dee

I have, and will have tea

Dee dee dee dee


Dee dee dee dee

Dee dee dee dee

Oh say can you see?

Dee dee dee dee


Dee dee dee dee

Dee dee dee dee

How shallow can one be?

Dee dee dee dee


Dee dee dee dee

Dee dee dee dee

Ooh, look at me

Dee dee dee dee

Repeat, puke

-------------------

Hope this makes up MMs.

Cheers then.

It is amazing, but the most frequently asked question of me when I do any broadcasting as a Fabs "expert" is the well worn "Why did Yoko Ono break up the Beatles."

In fact, it is rarely phrased as a question, but rather a statement needing even more elaboration other than a "yes, she did it!"

So almost 35 years after the fact, many people still cling to the notion that one single factor-in this case Yoko-could cause the whole thing to come crashing down, helter skelter like.

And when John Lennon pretty much spelled it out with "the dream is over" analogy, I'd have thought that those paying attention would have got the bigger picture.

Plus the last 20 years or so has brought a wealth of books about the breakup, with each member of the group getting a chance to put their spin on what happened.

Yet even though no ex-Beatle has fingered Ms. Ono as "the one" who did the dastardly deed, the general public still seems to think that she was the main cause of the end of the most successful musical group is history.

And no matter what, you just know that the footnote to the life of Yoko Ono will be "the one who broke the Beatles," at the very least.

How would you like to live-or die-to that one?

Ironically, Ms. Ono, at 70, is the sole surviving matriarch of the Beatles, and without her, I'd hate to think of what would be left of the Fabs.

Cue: Macca Madhatters to much pissing and moaning.

When the Anthology series finally rolled out, now some nearly 10 years ago, the general public got to hear what many hard core Fabs fans had already heard at least 5 years earlier.

The Anthology 2 set had two Lennon-McCartney Beatles tracks that had been completed but that had been held back for release, for whatever reason, by the group and producer George Martin.

And while If You've Got Troubles, basically a vehicle for Ringo Starr in his usual one track per album gig did not make the cut and probably for fairly good reasons, the other "lost" tune is different.

That Means A Lot, a song with those patented "weird" Beatle chords and change of pace, and dating from the 1964-5 era, was I think worthy of release.

Certainly not the best thing that Paul-as it's obvious that this is a Paul song-ever wrote, but still a nice bouncy tune with a good melody, and a strong finish.

I think it would be really neat neat if Macca would take a song like TMAL , give it a new arrangement and play it on tour, or even re-record it for release.

The hype that Paul could generate by playing a "lost" Beatles tune would be immense, and oh, wot the 'ell then, all Beatles music was better than most.

And that, means a lot.

Can't you see? Can't you see? etc. etc.

Man, I just can't belive that this here thing of ours has reached a bicntenial of sorts.

200 times I have sat down at my keyboard and pecked out a short essay on things Fab, and the person I need to thank most is AbbeyRd Steve, who has given me this terrific forum to sound off.

Steve, you are the man.

Since I started up beatle Bits in October 2003, I have received hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from readers from all over the world. many readr e-mails come from regulars who usually check in 2 or 3 times a week.

I don't know if the readers really understand it, but it is the feedback that keeps me motivated to keep writing, even on days when I would like to do anything but.

Even the small legion of nutty Macca Madhatters are worth hearing from, as they demonstrate to me how important it is not to take yourself, or anyone else too seriously.

To celebrate my 200 BB, I will be appearing on 900 CHML AM radio in Hamilton, Ontario on Wednesday from 2:30-3PM. You can listen in via the WWW at www.900chml.com

And thanks for all the fun along the way.

I received an e-mail from a reader,Rick, after I did a BB on the Beatles song publishing situation, and I think I need to update what I wrote.

According to Rick-who is a musician and has a background in such matters-Yoko Ono may actually own more of the Beatles song publishing rights than Michael Jackson or Sony Music.

Rick says that "First of all, song publishing works on an arcane two hundred percent share. In other words, one hundred percent to the authors, and one hundred percent to the publishers (which rights includes right of assignment)."

"Lennon and Mccartney had an even split of the author's shares but controlled only 49 percent of the publishing of Maclean Music, the 51 percent controlling share was owned by Nems (Epstein's company) this is the share that has been sold numerous times and was bought by Jackson, but is not as big as what Jackson bought 20 years ago."

"Copyright law in 1979 had a reversion clause that had publishing share revert to the author's estate ten years after his or her death which means that Yoko now has more control of the catalogue than anyone."

"In addition, Jackson further divided his share by selling some of it to Sony and that is the kicker. If McCartney were to purchase what Jackson has left, he would still have less than a 50-50 split with Yoko who would undoubtedly side with Sony in exploiting the catalogue." Not so sure about that last part, but still, a possibility for sure.

As Lennon once sang, well, well, well.

If the above scenario is accurate, the chances of the Beatles song catalogue belonging equally to Yoko and Paul would have to be a long shot, at best.

I wrote a story for the Vancouver Sun over this weekend on the buying and selling of Beatle records and memorabilia.

I touched on the upcoming Christie's Beatle auction in New York City on June 24, and, believe it or not, even worked Eddie Munster into the story.

You see Eddie, AKA former child actor Butch Patrick, is a first gen Beatles fan who says he is selling his fairly substantial Beatle collection to finance an attempt to purchase the Grateful Dead's touring bus(!)

(Hey! Why didn't the Fabs appear on the Munsters then?)

In any event, one of the angles I worked in my Sun story was the possibility that not all Beatle items are genuine, even ones auctioned by Christie's.

I had well known Beatle collecting expert Jim Kendall take a look at some of the items offered by Christie's, and he was pretty sure that some of the signatures on several items were "suspect." Jim and I are not making any accusations, but rather discussing a topic that should be of interest to any serious collector.

Afterall, who wants to even bid on, or oops, pay big bucks for a possible bogus piece?

And now I have been receiving e-mails from several readers who ask my opinion on whether they have a Fabs' buried treasure in their possession. One reader even sent me some scans of their copy of Song, Pictures and Stories, the 1964-5 Vee Jay rip off, cash in LP that although neat, most likely is not worth much. Although it did have the inner sleeve, which usually accounts for something.

I advised the reader to take the LP to a record collecting shop, and hope they don't get underbid, or even shown the door.

My own Beatle collection met with a divorce, now some 10 years ago, and a major casualty was my only Fabs autograph, contained in Songs By George Harrison book and CD set.

Bought for $700. Sold for $400 Now worth at least $2000.

I could scream, but I'll cry, instead.

You know, if I was in Paul McCartney's show biz shoes-besides being out on tour-I would be right now licking my chops at the trouble befallen ex "King of Pop" Michael Jackson.

McCartney, who according to some reports was duped by Jackson almost 20 years ago when the Beatles song ownership was being contested, may be able to snatch back the catalogue at a distress price.

Jackson , who will stand trial later this year on new crimimal charges of child abuse, is in a world of hurt.

Recently, the "confidential" legal agreement between Jackson and a minor who accused Jackson of molestation in the early 90s was posted on the Internet.

In amongst a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, was the name ATV music, which is, I believe, the vehicle that runs the publishing of Beatles tunes for the myriad of Jackson entertainment companies.

ATV was a defendant in the suit brought by the minor's family, and technically, remains a defendant in any future legal proceedings against Jackson, if Jackson was to break the "confidential" agreement or make any statements about the minor or his family.

In fact, some legal experts say that Jackson has made statements that might invalidate the agreement. Some observers also believe that someone close to Jackson may have leaked the heretofore secret agreement to the media.

And so Jackson is in so much money and legal trouble, it is extremely doubtful that he will escape it all with the Fabs' tunes-half of which he reportedly shares with Sony Music- still in his cumberband.

So if I was Macca, I'd be ready to pounce on the bones. And if Jackson was smart, he'd unload the songs when his leverage is highest-right now- before the prior settlement with the minor blows up, or Sony somehow snatches the catalogue.

I guess the major stumbling block may be Macca and his relationship with Yoko Ono. Meethinks if M and O can't get together, then the songs will-for the forseeable future-remain outside the control of Beatles and their heirs.

Which, like the self destruction of Jackson, is a damn shame.

Well, I see that the purported Olympic Studio Let it Be tape has been bought by a bidder on e-Bay for a reported $18,000.

The seller provided what looked to be authentic pix of the tape box with a scrawled "before o'dubs of Phil Spector," but several critics on various Beatle Internet discussion groups doubted whether the tape was genuine.

Supposedly, the seller received confirmation from Apple that the tape, a dub of AR14271/2, was legit, but as some of the doubters pointed out that there was no way to confirm the seller's claims.

If I was the seller-or the buyer-I would be concerned that if the tape is real, the next knock on my door would be the writ servers from Apple, who are known to pursue agressively when they believe they have ownership of any Beatle item.

The tape, with an early line up that was put together by engineer Glyn Johns, would be a neat thing to have, and would, I guess, sound great, but for 18 grand?

And the possibilty that Apple could claim it, or make you go broke fighting in court to keep it, makes it all the less logical, at least from my vantage point.

However, if one was going to start producing high quality CDs from the tape, then I suppose I could understand the whole affair. But then the seller would have already dubbed the dub for that eventuality. And I guess we'll find out about that sooner rather than later.

All in all, a strange one.

This is the one about the one that got away.

I found out last week that I just missed out on scoring my second interview with Yoko Ono by a simple twist of fate.

Richard Horowitz who is the curator of the traveling Art of John Lennon exhibit and whom I interviewed when the TAOJL came to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto in 2000 was trying to track me down, and drats!, he could not.

And Richard was very nice about it, but he told me that Yoko was now traveling and it would be near impossible to get her to commit to an interview while she was on the road.

Man, was this a great time for me to talk to Ms. Ono.

Beside the 30 new pieces of art added to the exhibit, I would have loved to ask Yoko what she thought about the recent revisionist raving and drooling by Paul McCartney regarding the lyrics to Lucy In the Sky and Day Tripper, to which Macca added his opinions on the alleged drug origins of the tunes.

Like I could have said, "Yoko, do you think Paul's a dope or what?"

She may have answered, and she may not have, but I sure would have liked to give it a try. The last time I interviewed her, she tended to stray away from any Qs that she considered to be controversial, but hey, ya never know unless you ask.

And to the legion of Macca Madhatters who are giggling as they read, I say a heartfelt, "how do you sleep?"

Evidently the Macca Madhatters are "buzzing" about my last few BBs.

And my name is an obscenity on a few Macca websites.

So, to cut down on some of my hate e-mail, I will address the recent announcement that the Beatles may (finally) be looking at selling their tunes via the Internet.

Apple Corps welcome to the 21st century!

A couple of news stories posted on AbbeyRd said that Apple Corps may be looking for some sort of exclusive deal, and the Microsoft name keeps coming up in the what if's. A special stand-alone online Beatle music shop has also been mentioned.

But what was most interesting was what was missing from the stories of the inevitable clicks delivering of the Fbas catalogue.

What type of product would any Internet delivery system be delivering?

The same shitty, digital dreg that we can buy in the CD shop?

Who would bother? Very few music consumers would give a rat's ass for the same old, same old. It has to be new remastered, remixed, SACD, 5.1 or whatever to drive Internet sales.

Currently, Bob Dylan is offering most of his back catalogue online, and downloaders can get special Internet only tunes for their bother.

At the very least, that's the only way Apple could successfully market the Beatles catalogue online without a remaster, as there are the hardcore fans that HAVE to have EVERYTHING.

Other than that possibility, I think the issue of Internet delivery anytime soon is mute(d).

Johnny from NYC came though again with a little package that I'd like to share with you today.

The John Lennon Alternate Mind Games disc has been around for ages, but I have never had the time to sit down and really listen to it.

But what came to mind (hee-hee) after spending the time, is that by 1973, John had clearly lost his muse.

Whether his muse had been or should have been Yoko Ono is open to interpretation for another time.

But the raw Mind Games shows-to me-that like George Harrison's post All Things Must Pass offerings, the songs on Mind Games were just not that strong.

I have always loved the title track, but MG the song had been around in one form or another for about 3 years prior to the release of the MG album in November 1973.

The rest of the material on MG was fair to good, but clearly not up to the standard set on Plastic Ono Band and Imagine. The alt Mind Games sounds sloppy, because to me, it sounds like John is just not into it.

(However, that is not to say I did not enjoy listening to the AltMG.)

In fact, one would have had to harvest the best tracks from Somewhere in New York City, Mind Games, Walls and Bridges, and Rock and Roll to create even one album equal to POB or Imagine.

Yet-now listen up you Macca Madhatters- Paul McCartney essentially worked in reverse of John and Paul.

Although Paul's first solo album was generally well received his first few try's with Wings were crucified-and rightly so-but then he found his groove with Band On The Run and several other Wings efforts from the mid 70s.

So take that you sensitive as shit-John said it!- MMs!

And therefore, in my opinion, I think Paul is the most musical of all the Fabs.

We're playin' those mind games, together....

Some kind soul posted an MP3 on the Internet of Paul McCartney absolutely knocking the snot out of Helter Skleter on his 2004 European Summer Tour.

Listening to the song made me believe that it was 1968, and Sir Mac was but a young lad of 20 something.

But the reality is McCartney is a year away from his 64th birthday, and some recent photos I've seen of Paul performing tend to betray Macca's unbelievable youthful exuberance.

And here is where I take a turn that may freak out the Macca Madhatters, so be forewarned.

I am concerned that at some point during the next few years, we will lose an aging 60s rocker, live on stage.

Think about it: John Entwistle of the Who died of a heart attack just hours before the Who were set to take stage in Las Vegas in June 2002. He could have keeled over the previous fall during the Concert For New York City, such was the degree of his advanced heart disease.

Now I'm not saying that Macca is close to Rock and Roll Heaven, and I have no idea of the status of his overall health, but what I am saying is that at some point in the not too distant future, I predict that an aging rocker will succumb on stage.

Many of the 60s rockers still out there touring were heavy smokers-like Macca-and although Paul has not smoked for years and is a strict vegetarian, experts say that damage to the vital organs from smoking and drugs can come back to bite the user on the arse many years after they stop using the substances.

But if you gotta go, I guess you could find worse ways than going out with your rock and roll boots on.

Don't say I never warned ya, and don't shoot the messenger.

In the spirit of one of Paul McCartney's acid/pot/smack/tea trips, I offer up the following for discussion: the (supposed) forthcoming Let It Be DVD.

Someone who had obviously had tea, posted an extreme wet dream of a fantatic Fabs' fans fantasy of what the ventual DVD would be like.

The "report" was a Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds AKA LSD "obvious" trip.

I'm not going to even bother to recount all of the acid pipe dreams included in the individuals "report" published on the Internet, of having heard from someone who knew someone who knew someone who may have heard something from someone who may have been near the editing room in LA. Bollocks all around.

Suffice to say, the "report" of the LIB DVD to be, contained not only the kitchen sink, but THE kitchen and the water closet. In fact, I'm surprised the "report" did not claim a bonus feature of the Fabs taking a leak at Abbey Road.

The only thing I DO believe about the "report" is that we won't see the LIB DVD until March 2005. Well, let me qualify that: we won't see the LIB DVD BEFORE March 2005. Most likely we will be LUCKY to see the LIB DVD by Christmas 2005.
In fact, we may be LUCKY to see it all!

And if it comes with more than just the bare minimum of extras, well then, you can say I'm a Monkee's uncle.

You know I warned you in BB # 189 that the great legion of Macca Madhatters would rise up as if one to slay the evil beast Ott for his intemperate comments about the Great Man AKA Sir Paul McCartney.

And some of the MMs who e'd actually had (somewhat) valid points.

For instance, one stealthy MM pointed out that SPM had confessed to coke before, a fact that I was unaware of, and to be fair, I had qualified my comments with a as far as I know or some such similar safety net. Still, duly noted.

And another MM told me that John Lennon IS on the record saying Day Tripper was an acid song. But again, I never knew, nor do I think I even care. But still, duly noted.

Yet the MMs are once again missing the larger issue, meethinks.

Every time Macca says or does something of questionable quality and is called on it, the MMs immediately trot out the "You like John better," horse-shit, stupidly switching the debate away from issues and into personalities, which is ugly and unfair for all concerned.

Barring the above nonsense, Macca apoligists then tend to get hung up in collateral detail, which really adds nothing new to the debate.

Granted I did get some balanced, intelligent e-mails from Beatle or Macca fans who were mature enough to argue their case with good insight and vigor. To those people, I say thank for you valued contributions

But to the rest of those of drooling, rabid, MMs, I say, you are nothing, if not comic relief.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to get back to snorting and smoking some tea on my day trip(per).

The Macca Madhatters are gonna bursta bloodvester, but the hell with 'em.

I just can't stay quiet on this one.

First Sir Paul McCartney does a good thing; rocking out with a 2004 version of Helter Skelter at the first show of his European summer tour.

This should put to bed once and for all the Manson mystique that has festered around the tune since 1969. Good one, Paul.

Then, as if to wreck the good will, he goes and gives an interview to UNCUT magazine, from which AP grabbed a few lines and published today, in which SPM talks what Archie Bunker used call, crapola.

In the bits I saw, Sir P admits to using cocaine during the Sgt.Pepper era-funny no one has ever heard even rumors of this before- as well as an admission that he once smoked some heroin.

Personally, I don't give a damn if he did have tea-Rutles joke- or any other drug but when he starts interpreting song lyrics of tunes that John Lennon wrote, well then, it's just plain bollocks. And he should know better.

Macca tells UNCUT that Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds was an obvious drug song.

Hold on, Pauly. John Lennon has always maintained-and repeated in a 1980 Playboy interview shortly before his death-that Lucy was based on a drawing his son Julian had given him, and that other imagery in the song, "a girl with kaleidoscope eyes," was John looking for "the female who would come save me," which he said turned out to be Yoko Ono.

Then, to make things worse, Macca said in UNCUT that Day Tripper-ocne again a John song through and through- was written about a drug trip.

Although I recall John admitting that he only told the truth 50% of the time in interviews and it was up to the journalists to figure out what 50 was true and what 50 was BS, I also recall that at some point Lennon had said that Day Tripper was really not about anything much at all. He had just liked the words.

I would not be surprised to learn that Yoko is having a shit about Sir P's latest remarks. I also would not be surprised if at some point we hear that she advised or was advising Macca to speak for the Beatle himself rather than a dead one.

Maybe Yoko should say that Hi, Hi, Hi was written about a stuttering friendly person.

Well, my good friend John from NYC came through again with some amazing goodies.

The Complete Imagine Sessions is what I'm on about, and although I had heard a single disc of the sessions ages ago, I had never managed to get my hands on the 3 CD set.

But thanks to NY John I am now enjoying John Lennon singing, "how do you sleep, you c**t," in one of the dozen or so versions of the classic track from the Imagine album.

However, unlike a blurb I had read long ago that claimed that there were much more scathing versions of the main lyrics-reportedly at the urging of Yoko Ono-that were openly insulting to Paul McCartney, I heard nothing other than the c**t remark on these discs.

But what I like most about the multiple takes of How Do You Sleep, is George Harrison's superb guitar playing. There are some amazing riffs in here that never should have got left on the editing floor.

Yet on the whole, I would say that producer Phil Spector did a good job on the album, and mostly made the right decisions of what takes to use.

Still, there are some beautiful alts in this set, with a lovely and airy version of Imagine that is not so dour as the released take, as well as a neat bunch of alt "I Don't Want To be a Soldier," that feature great sax bits.

But because Yoko reissued Imagine with not a single bonus track several years ago, I'd say we should be due for a "Deluxe Imagine," in the foreseeable future that then may become the gold standard for this record, IF she mines the vaults.

For now, try to get your hands on this set, if you can.

And in the meantime, remember these words to live by: "No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of Tricky Dicky gonna mother hubbard soft soap me, with just a pocket full of hope. Money more for dope.Money for rope. Whooa!"

The current issue of MOJO magazine has a great cover shot of John Lennon, circa 1970-71 radical John period, with the header,"Revolution In His Head."

I thought so much of it, that I reluctantly ripped the cover off the magazine and tacked it up on my wall.

But I have a few reservations about the article that accompanied the cover.

Although the story of John and Yoko Ono's exploits in America as they took up the protest life is factual and entertaining, the impression that I was left with was that John and Yoko may have been fair weather radicals, which I doubt was (is) the case.

Crazy New York City street musician-and former Apple recording artist-David Peel, whom I interviewed in 1980, sort of chastises the way the Lennons abruptly quit the radical rackets back in late 1972, and that even though Peel said that he could understand that the FBI investigations of John would tend to turn one sour on the whole mess, he eventually opines maybe they could have done the movement better instead of simply bailing after Richard Nixon was re-elected in a landslide in November 1972.

I mean come on Mr.Peel, the New Left should have been satisfied with the 2 years that John and Yoko gave them, and the way the Lennons raised the profile of the idea of "power to the people."

(I don't recall any Fugs or MC5 tunes making the Top Ten.)

Without an ex-Beatle to help bang the drum, I doubt the protest movement would have made it much out of the 60s.

"JohnandYoko" may have been a lot of things, but stupid was not one of 'em, and I think the couple sensed "the dream is over" and so were the 60s, come 1972.