By Terry Ott

This is my un-May Pang Beatle Bits interview.

For repeated attempts to contact Ms. Pang for an e-mail exchange have gone for not, or is that knot?

Could it be that my Beatle bona fides are just not up to scratch? Or is it because I adventureously declared Yoko Ono the "fifth Beatle," several weeks ago?

Whatever. But May, if you're out there, this is what I wanted to ask you:

What exactly-and no fudging May-do you think of Ms. Ono?

What did John Lennon REALLY think of Paul McCartney in 1973-4-again, no fudging, May.

What, Ms. Pang, do you think of John's post 1975 work?

Do you, Ms. Pang, really believe that John and Paul could have actually gotten along in any potenital reunion?

(May has already told several other media outlets that John was not completely rejecting a reunion out of hand.)

Was John really as "Nasty" as he has been painted?

Yes, these are questions that continue to boggle the mind of Beatle and Lennon fans worldwide.

The old, "what could have been," routine.

Perhaps Ms. Pang will read this, and send in some answers.

Perhaps not.

Geez, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but just how the holy heck does that rascal Mirror Spock keep topping his previous masterpiece?

I mean, I gotta tell ya true, the Spockster has sho nuf done it again with his own tricked up Beatles Ed Sullivan performances, circa 1964-5.

This DVD contains just the Fabs performances on the really beeg shew, complete in "stereo," for the first time. (We could debate the point of "stereo" for TV tapes that were definately recorded and broadcast only in mono, but hey, what the hell.)

Now the pointy eared devil MS did send me a long tech report on how he achieved a goodly improvement of video quality of these 40 year old tapes, as well as a very involved explanation of how the audio was restored.

But all you really care about is how it looks, and sounds.

So suffice to say, if your home theater system is equiped with Dolby Pro Logic II (DPLII), then you will be in an other galaxy when you cue up this baby, and hear the Fabs in some really good faux 5.1.

It seems to me that the final 1964 show, and the 1965 appearance, may sound a bit better than the first two shows, but you should decide for yourself as every system is different.

Two things come to mind when I watch this DVD.

1/ How really kinda silly the Lads looked in that first show with their collar-less jackets, that I always thought were so kool. And what a dork Ed was.

2/ Just how great the music and charisma of Fabs was, and continues to be.
I love the final show, when John Lennon absolutely butchers the second verse of Help, but still carries on and finishes strong.

Plus, if you just don't bother to designate a specific show on your DVD menu guide, instrumental Beatles music plays-live, stripped of vocals and outtake material, some of which I have never heard before- which is way cool, too.

So, my overall recommendation to you Fabs fans out there, is to beam yourself up to where ever it is that Mirror Spock hangs out in the solar system, and get him to transpond you one of the DVDs, and get ready to feel like a kid again.

And may God bless MS's pointy eared little head.

Perhaps this is a tad redundent question, but which Beatles related character do you think is the more apparently guilty/weird?

Phil Spector or Michael Jackson?

I ask this question, because just when I thought it couldn't get any weirder than the circus of the MJ trial now mercifully hitting the backstretch in a southern California courtroom, up pops Phil in a Los Angeles court photographed with what could only be modestly described as an outrageous and bizarre dye job afro curly-Q hair-doo.

When I saw this pix in the paper today, it reminded me of what Alice Cooper said last week about MJ showing up each day for court with red lipstick on: something to the effect of "hey, your life is on the line here son, just what the hell are you thinking?"

In any event, when Spector appeared in court he got news from the judge that may add an extra curl or two to his loopy doo.

The court ruled that the prosecution in Phil's murder trial could introduce as evidence some prior incidents where Spector was known to have pulled a gun on people. (I was unable to find out if one of the incidents was the infamous 1973 event when Phil was alleged to have pulled a rod on John Lennon in the recording studio in LA during the Rock N' Roll sessions.NB:A late report today said the incidents to be introduced into court date from 1988.)

And if you have not seen the latest photo of Phil, you MUST see it, because it gives all new life to the Coop's observations about MJ.

As in, Phil, just what the hell were you thinking?

So, even though it will be a tough call, I'd like to here from you on which nut is nuttier and more liklely to be convicted.

Good luck!

(And speaking of luck, you can try yours at www.tradesports.com, where today odds are down to 5-2 that MJ will be convicted of at least one count of molestation. Conversely, a $40 bet on conviction today would return $140 if Jackson was in fact found guilty.No line yet on PS.)

Finally found a used copy of the Rutles DVD with the commentary by Eric Idle. (Journalists are so cheap!)

In my opinion, the original Rutles is among, say, the top 50 funniest movies of all time.

And in fact, as Idle notes in his commentary, it is sometimes difficult to judge when the real Beatles intercede with the faux Fabs. Especially when Mick Jagger is giving his side of the Rutles story which is maybe sometimes too close for comfort with that of the Beatles.

Idle tells us that the famous "shocked and stunned, very stunned," bit in the Rutles when the pre fab four find out that their mamager, Leggy Mountbatten, had taken a teaching job down under, is actually exactly what George Harrison said when informed of John Lennon's murder. How's that for irony and symmetry?

I interviewed Idle for the National Post in the fall of 2000, and when he told me about Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch was in the works, I was excited as hell.

So now, I am just as intrigued to ask Eric wot the bloody 'ell happened to such a promising project? CBML is funny at times, but if the Rutles was a solid 8 or 9 on a scale of 10, Rutles 2 is lucky to pull a 3 or 4.

Idle had told me in 2000, that he had found all of the Rutles archival footage in New jersey of all places, and that Rutles 2 would have tons of stuff that were left out of the original. Now I have not taken the stop watch to CBML, but in a film that lasts just over 60 minutes, I would guess that there might be 10 minutes of heretofore unseen footage.

I have not been able to find much in the way of an explanation from Idle on how Rutles 2 wa sort of shown the door in less than tight trousers, so it must come down to that old catch all: not enough budget to do the thing right.

And that is a shame because in the great Hollywood tradition of milking a franchise-otherwise known as the sequel-Rutles 2 may qualify as one of the worst, ever.

So, let it rot, I guess.

When I was talking to Pete Best last week, it struck me how incredibly well adjusted he seems for someone who was so uncerimoniously cast out of the Beatles, now some 43 years ago.

Although he did go through a period of despair back in the 70s when he got out of the music scene altogether for a while, this is a guy-now in his early 60s-who if he is presently bitter about his fate, it is damn hard to notice, such is his upbeat attitude.

And maybe-just maybe-he was actually done a favour by the Fabs and Brian Epstein when they punted him from what was to become the world's biggest band, ever.

Now that may seem like a strange statement, but when you really get down to brass tacks, fame and money ain't everything-yes I know some will say it's the only thing-but getting kicked out before the fame came, was probably better than say, getting the boot in 1964.

After all, try to picture the Beatles without the loveable and good natured goofy Ringo Starr. When the Fabs first stormed America, it was Ringo who was most popular, and Pete was just not that type, but rather a more brooding James Dean figure, that would not have mixed well in the mop top mania to follow.

So I will be real interested in how the documentary that Pete said was just about finished, and will feature at least 60 interviews with people in the music scene and who knew Best in his Beatle and other music scene days.

Best told me that there was a chance that Paul McCartney will be in the film, but I should have asked him if Ringo Starr had been approached for an interview.

Now that, would really be something!

Do you find it suprising that very few-if even any-media outlets have made note of the fact that for a time back in the 80s, Sean Lennon was a sometimes visitor to Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

Another child star, Macaulay Culkin, has already gone on record as saying that nothing untoward happened between him and MJ, although a prosecution witness at Jackson's child molestation trial in California begs to claim otherwise.

But evidently, no one has even bothered to ask Sean Lennon what his experiences at Neverland were like, and unlike Culkin, does not appear on a defense list provided to the media as a possible witness for the trial, now in its 3rd month.

Of course there is the possibilty that some journalist has asked Sean, and received no reply, a no comment, or even something off the records, but in the Beatle world, secrets are not kept very well, so I'd imagine any back and forth between Lennon and the media on MJ would have leaked out long ago.

Plus, I don't think Sean or Macaulay fit the profile of those who have alleged wrongdoing by MJ. Both came from wealthy celebrity backgrounds that even a twisted Jackson would have known would have been disasterous for him if the kids talked to their parents about any money biz at Neverland.

But then again, one never really knows what really went on at Neverland, because you can be damn sure MJ ain't never gonna admit to anything, and Lennon and Culkin sure don't want to have "touched by the King of Pop" on their CVs and bios.

And in fact, Culkin DID testify that he was never molested by Jackson and the charges against MJ, in his opinion, were "totally ridiculous," but then again given the former child star's continuing support of Jackson, what else would one think he would say?

Let's hope Sean Lennon is spared this whole circus of a trial.

I would really like to sincerely thank all of you who took the time to send in your suggestions to mark the 300th Beatle Bit on AbbeyRd.

As usual, Beatle fans came through with some excellent-and clever-ideas for BB300.

I even got some cheeky ones, like the cousin of Leggy Mountbatten from down under way, who said that BB299 was nothing but a shameless plug for 300. And to him I say,yes, but please don't be filled with thoughts of grief, about 300.

In addition, I can honestly state that I think BB300 will last a lunchtime.

And Matt from Cleveland, a regular reader and corresponder, urged me to assess the good, the bad and the ugly of all the posts. Nice idea Matt, but far too boring for me. (I hate reading my own stuff well after the fact, but thanks for everything else Matt, you've been great.)

Sean from jolly olde England suggested the "300 Beatle recordings you may never have heard but should." Sean picked Macca's Got to get You into my Life from Glasgow, 1979
George's Blood from a Clone outtake, John's What You Got demo, and Ringo's Blind man B side.

A humerous suggestion came from Phil, who said "just remember, that 20 years ago it was May 3," and complained that George "was rather cheap with his bonus tracks," on the Dark Horse reissues from last year. Phil, I agree.

Javier, from down South America way suggested that I should write about future releases, including the Holy Grail 27 minute Helter Skelter, Carnival of Light, and Suzy's Parlour. (And by the way, those who claim to have knowledge of, or have listened to HS 27, say that the Holy Grail may turn out to be a rotten egg, with the plodding 5 minute take on Anthology 3, likely what the near half hour version sounds like.)

Still, it has always been my belief that eventually, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING that can be legitimately released will find its way out of the Apple/EMI vaults.

(AbbeyRd Steve suggested I address the Beatle world via that great one hit wonder, In The Year 2525, so here goes.)

In fact, the Beatles archives are a 24 karat goldmine that will likely be mined for another 20 years, with perhaps the most activity beginning around 2014, when the fabulous Fabs will mark 50 years since they set the world's toe's a tappin'.

Most likley within 5 years we will get the full back catalogue remastered in multichannel sound, be that 5.1 or even 7.1.

We should also be getting Help and Let it Be in expanded editions, as well as the continuation of the Anthology concept, although it may be named something else.

And this is not even counting all of the Beatles solo catalogue efforts, that will be re-released in multichannel sound, as well as more outtakes and alts and live material by all four Fabs.

I think when it is all said and done, that is what fans are the most interested in-I know I am-and that is what I have chosen to highlight in this, my 300th BB.

Please, Apple/EMI, listen to the yelps of the fans, and start releasing the good stuff like Hollywood Bowl, Shea Stadium and mono Sgt. Peppers and White Album.

However, I must confess some thoughts of grief that not one single Macca Madhatter saw fit to drop me a line and tell me where I could put BB300-where the sun don't shine, I'd assume- and I fear we are all the lesser for their silence. They make such good sport.

Oh, and before I forget, I'd like to give an old Macca thumbs up to Gotham Johnny, and the Boys from TOUP, who have taken the time and effort to provide me with some fantastic Beatles goodies over the past 18 months. Lads, you rock!

So, once again, to all I say, THANK YOU for your input and support.

Yes, even the nutzoid MMs.

And now its on to 500, and I'll leave you with this thought: in 1970 John Lennon sang that "the dream is over," yet 35 years later, it is still in full bloom, with millions still "believing in Beatles."

I know I do, and will.

Wow! Just one post away from 300 Beatle Bits columns for the AbbeyRd website.

When I suggested this idea to Steve back in October 2003, I was not sure how it would go, or even if it would catch on, let alone me catching up to it.

But here we are, some 18 months later and the next BB will be 300!

First, I want to thank Steve, who has kindly given me a forum, as well as riding shot gun for me when some of those wild and crazy Macca Madhatters got an extra bee in their nutty bonnets. (Thanks Steve, and go Giants!)

So, to mark 300, I would like you to e me the premise for number 300.

Maybe a single idea will be good enough, or I may combine some of the best ones.

In any event, here's hoping you great readers can help me mark BB300.

Cheers,

Terry

Maybe by coincidence, and then again maybe not, I got an e-mail today from a reader complaining about the $125 tix price for Paul McCartney's '05 US tour, on the same day that the New York Times ran a full page color add for two October shows at Madison Square Garden.

The reader said that he wrote Macca management to complain, and did "not buy" the response from MPL, which was that the promoters set the ticket prices.

Well, yes and no.

The promoters usually buy the tour from the artist for a certain up front fee, and then set tix prices accordingly to make a profit.

So, from that perspective, it would not be hard to understand that an artist who billed a fair promoter $5 million before one note was played, as opposed to say $3 mill, would likely have that promoter charging more for tickets at $5 mill, if only to break even.

(Such seems to be the case whenever the Rolling Stones go on the North American road, with the promoter paying huge, huge advances to the Stones, just to be, it would seem, the promoter, as Stones tix price are usually on the lower end of major acts.)

The reader rightly points out that Bruce Springsteen-who could probably charge $500 a head and get it-insists on lower (by comparison) ticket prices, and most likley takes less of a cut for his tour to make affordable tickets a reality.

Now, I understand the reader's frustration at having to fork over $500 bucks to take the family to see Macca, but in all fairness, I don't think that in this day and age, $125 is that far out of line. Sure, $100 or even $75 would be better for the fans, but I would say that Macca gives pretty good value for the money, what with his advertised all new show that runs close to 3 hours.

I guess one way around this, would be for the promoters to sell a block of tix-say 3-5 thousand seats depending on the venue- for $50, the way they do for pro football games in the so-called "family section."

But if that happened-and all other things remaining the same-the very best seats would most likely have to be yanked sky high to make up the lost revenue.

Or, maybe as a gesture to the fans, Paul could play one outdoor free concert during the tour.

Other than that, I don't think there is any one way around the issue of $100 plus rock show tickets in the 21st century.

Or, if you wanna blame someone, blame the Eagles, who 10 years ago started the $100 plus tix escalator.