The Eternal Beatles Discussion Thread

quote:
""No Reply"; I just love that part where John sings "If I were you..." and then the handclaps and Paul's harmony vocals come crashing in. Amazing."

agreed 100%!!!!!

all beatle fans have their fave songs and albums. some of us love "revolver" and others say it's overated. some love the "white album" and others say it overated. some people dismiss the early stuff (which i happen to love more that anything they did after sgt. pepper). when it comes to the beatles, no one opinion is right or wrong. what made them so great was the diversity and style of their music over the years they were together. from the simplicity of "i want to hold your hand" to the complexity of "i am the walrus". and actually if you really listen to some of the early stuff, it was not as simplistic as you may think. just because a lot of it was sweet love songs, there were some great chord progressions and tremendous harmonic vocal structure in a lot of them. try to pick out the vocal harmonies on "and your bird can sing"....quite complex when you give it a real listen. when i was attending music school, the instructors were always squawking about how you can't cross voices in vocal pieces. obviously they never listened to anything the beatles did. their harmonies completely blew out of the water what my instructors were telling me you COULDN'T do!!

no one before them did what they did, and anything after them was just pale comparison attempts at trying to copy them.

Am I the only one to be listening to the bootleg studio session and live stuff...any thoughts on what you all have heard ?

Almost always "better informed", as I see it.

Regardless of the myriad pages written, I find Abbey Road anything but soulless.

Far from it. I have over 150 hours of material sitting right in front of me. I'd venture to say that I've heard more than pretty much anyone on this forum.

What point are you trying to make? After your first vitrolic post, I don't know if there are many Beatles fans that are interested in it.

For the record, most live Beatles stuff was poor. They didn't have much of a monitor system in those days, so most of the time the band couldn't even hear themselves playing. Couple that with the crowd noise and most live performances were less than spectacular.

Which studio material are you referring to?

"Am I the only one to be listening to the bootleg studio session and live stuff...any thoughts on what you all have heard ? "

Does Anyone else...please...have or hear this bootleg stuff and want to share your feelings about it, say compared with the finished versions they like ?

Mike,

Like Ric, I too have a collection of "unofficial" Beatles material, though nowhere near the 150 hours he has! While I'd like to tell you what boots are great and what boots are bad, the forum has an anti-bootleg policy, which I why I stopped talking about it a few posts up.

But to answer your question: there's some great material out there that was not put on the various Anthology sets. But the majority of the stuff out there is just alternate versions of officially released songs, with mild to little difference. I mean, there's only so many takes of "Drive My Car" that one can listen to before they all start to sound the same.

I learned to play the guitar using a fake book of The Beatles early stuff. Lennon's songs from A Hard Day's Night translates nicely with a small group of players with acoustic guitars, bongos, and a harmonica. Last night in fact, I played I'll Cry Instead with a few friends at a
bar-b-que and it sounded really good.
Beatle songs make many people smile.

-Gary

I wouldn't go THAT far... But I think some of the material on the album is weak in different ways. Not much on side one strikes me the same way as their earlier material. "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" is a song that arguably should never have been recorded. Side two comes off much better. I do adore "Here Comes The Sun" and "Because" And as much as I can enjoy parts of the "Huge Melody" that ends side two, I still prefer my Beatles without show-off solos.
I can understand that, however I do enjoy hearing the evolution of the songs in the studio. (Yes, even to the point of listening to ALL the unused backing track takes of "Help!") The second disc of Anthology 1 has some great samples of this, particularly the changes made to "Can't Buy Me Love" and "Eight Days A Week."

My favorite discovery of the Anthologies was the original take of "And Your Bird Can Sing." I wish they would give us a version without John & Paul's goof-off backing vocal attempts.

And I completely agree with Ric about live Beatles recordings. I could listen to hours of studio outtakes, but I think the live performances on the Anthology discs are more than enough for me.

Very true. Ever hear Beatles Live at the Hollywood Bowl? It's basically an album full of teenage banshee wails with an occasional musical sound coming out. Quite glad this never made it to CD; the mix is godawful.

However, if you can find it, I would suggest picking up Live at the BBC. It's a fantastic two-disc set with a lot of great covers (Carl Perkins, Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc.) and nearly 60 songs total...though I wouldn't listen to both discs back-to-back; it can seriously try one's patience. I think BBC is out-of-print, but you can find it in most used music stores.

Amazing that my son, age 11, wanted not only a cd player for Christmas, but also Beatles cds. I got him the Number 1 hits collection, but now he wants me to get him all the cds. He can't stop playing the music.

Hehe, I had that a long,long time ago, and a few years ago I found a mint copy in a used LP store. Certainly not the way you'd choose to record a concert today, but what a fun album. "Sing a song called "Boys" Ringo!"

Well, for some interesting opionions on Paul, go here.

What a load of crap (IMO if course). The Sex Pistols were just a bunch of pissed off doped up punks (pun intended - I know - ) who listened to "My Generation" one time too many and decided that they couldn't deal with their heroes growing up. Their legitimate "rebellion" ended up being gimmick that the record companies exploited. They were just as much a product and piece of the "Music Business" as their "fallen" heroes, they just weren't smart enough to realize it before they fell apart and Syd ODed. Hell, DEVO was at least as important as the SP to the business as an agent of change (which the Music Industry thrives on). In choosing a Rolling Stones song, their fantastic cover of "Satisfaction" was an even more direct shot at the establishment than Syd's "My Way".

"In Through The Out Door", "The Who By Numbers", and "Who Are You" are fantastic albums. Just because they're not as "angry" or "fresh" as you think all music should be doesn't mean they're not brilliant. Can you honestly tell me that the fantastically irreverant "God Save The Queen" or explosive "Anarchy in the UK" is any more valid than Townshend's brutally honest introspective "Dreaming From The Waist" and "However Much I Booze"? And what's wrong with "Squeeze Box". I guess in your musical universe simple fun songs are somehow less musically "valid" than something either rebellious or musically complicated.

As a musician and a sometime songwriter I've got a little secret for you: Writing a simple yet catchy and memorable song like "Yesterday", "In My Life", or "Sqeeze Box" (or "Silly Love Songs" or "Imagine" or "Something" or "Let My Love Open The Door"....) is the most difficult act of musical creativity possible.

Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs, and what's wrong with that?

Great thread. Huge Beatles fan here. But im also a huge Paul solo fan.
How can someone argue that Flaming Pie isnt one of the best albums in the last decade? You cant get much better than this album with great song like Calico Skies and Songs We Were Singing.

My fave Beatles albums:
Help
Revolver
Sgt Peppers

I wouldn't argue against that. FP is definitely one of my favorites of the 90s no doubt. The most brilliant album from Paul since "Flowers In The Dirt", maybe since "Band On The Run" even. And I can't get his new album out of my head either.

Excellent post Phil, even though I don't agree with a lot of it.

Why is it that rock and music are the only genres where a musician is considered irelevant when they mature? Older jazz musicians are revered for their wisdom and experience. Younger players seek them out so that they can learn from them (the big exception to this was in the late 40s and 50s with the growth of be-bop, but that's another story). A classical composer is more respected when older.

Oh, but jazz and classical are about music, sorry, we can't have that in rock, we have to worried about image, style, and youth culture.

Sure, many rock musicians try to rehash their older glory. Sometims it's because they lack the ability to do more, sometimes it's because they are pressured to do so. However, plenty can still make good music, and whey should they follow some punks' formula?

I've said before that I don't "hate" any band or musician. Let me take that back: I hate the Sex Pistols. They did nothing for music except start a bunch of useless arguments. They are hypocrites in the extreme: getting famous by exploiting an image based on attacking others for exploiting images. What baloney. I like my music bullshit free, thank you very much.

Absolutely. Any Ibanez-endorser worth his salt can make lots of notes picked from impressively obscure scales. I've long thought that a good song, good music, can come across on just a guitar or a piano. When flayed to its essense, as simple as it gets, it either works or it doesn't.

I have both the capital release 'live at hollywood bowl' and the boot of it ( and also the shows at sam houston) and believe it or not, the screams were filtered down quite a bit on the official release. You can see why they didn't want them released.
I had most of the anthologys and the BBC before it came out.
It's amazing how well they cleaned it up.

Too Bad they never put out the Beatles "Rock & Roll Music" out on CD, it was a great double lp that put all of there loud music in one place.... and it still has the great quality to piss off the neighbors / parents / Mariah Carey fans etc...

Anyone else have a copy of 'beatles live in italy'???
i do ...not an easy one to track down

After seeing this thread go 3 pages, I have to say:
THIS IS GREAT.

It shows how diverse the Beatles were. Everyone who like the Beatles have their own material they like and it that's why the music still lives today.

The best way I have heard the Beatles music described as a time in the pop music era where the most popular was also one of the best. Very few artists can combine both aspects and some would not want the first aspect.

Unofficial releases - It true that most of these tracks don't interest most people or are deemed "not very good" John and Paul have been quoted many times that the best was what they released. They had bery few leftover tracks to create anything relevant or to their standards. Even when Rubber Soul came out, they had to scrounge for Help! leftovers to make up the balance (see Mark Lewisohns's the Complete recording sessions).
However, my opinion is: I love the outtakes. Its great to hear the multiple takes of I saw her standing there. Also, if you heard all 3 takes of Day Tripper, you can hear in take 1 that John was such a driving rhythm guitar player. With the lead bridge not inserted yet, it's amazing to hear him pounding on his chords.

Dunno if it's officially OOP, but it's easy to find at non-used stores as well. I just got mine from Sam Goody.com a few months back, and they still list it as available. Amazon, Best Buy and CDNow also offer it without much/any delay, it appears. I can't say I'm wild about the package; I actually sold my original copy a few years back but recently reconsidered since I'd like to have it for archival purposes. Nonetheless, it's still out there at an e-tailer near you!

I have the LP "The Beatles In Italy" which I only discovered was not a live album upon opening and playing it. If I had done my research, I would have known better. But what I can I say, I was like 12 or 13 when I got it.

Oh, and as far as the BBC 2-CD set, it was out of print for a while, but it was reissued within the last six months or so and can now be found at just about any store.

I'm fairly certain that BBC was re-released. It's commonly available now.

Philip is correct. It was pulled from release for a while so as not to be confused with other newer Beatles product (Anthology, Yellow Submarine, & 1). Now that all of THAT has died down, it's back. Definitely worth owning (IMOHO).

C

Phil and Jack...

"Squeezebox", aesthetically...is just Mediocre Junk Music for people who love that kind of thing, The Same Old Thing, and NOTHING innovative...a band truly in it's Death Throes!
And I'm sure they are embarassed by it too! McCartney is the consumate purveyor of this kind of thing, as it has made him a billionaire in the process...Paul Beatle just keeps on churning out, with his splatter it on the wall approach to marketing mediocre, slight variations of Paul Beatle Music.

The Sex Pistols...et al...pushed The Music and The Music Industry forward when it was dying and constipated with the dinosaurs of Rock, who didn't get it and die-hard Fans who didn't want to get it...kind of like it is Now. But now we only have The Strokes to save us! God help us All! Watch "The Filth and the Fury" and learn...if you want to.

The New Bands are out there, but The Industry solves the current talent malaise and ever flagging music sales of mediocre music, by saying it's too expensive to invest in and by throwing technical gimmicks like SACD out there. It's just cheaper to multi format reissue and get multiple sales on one old title. And the public is lapping it up like Pavlov Dogs, who want MORE of them.

So who's to blame, if consumers don't "want" New Music, just some new expensive toys to distract them ?

That's a good one. Pushed the industry forward eh? What were their sales numbers? After all that's all that matters to the industry.
Maybe when you have a clue as to what you're talking about there can be a decent discussion here, however I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Well, I didn't mean to defend "Squeezebox" specifically, although my point stands as it is.


Well, depending on one's opinion, one could substitute "Never Mind the Bullocks..." for "squeezebox" in that quote and it would be equally valid. Or is your point that someone who doesn't agree just doesn't "get it"?

You really don't know enough to make any kind of case for SACD being a "technical gimmick". Or do you know more than you've posted?

Old music isn't necessarily "bad", and new music is most certainly not necessarily "good". Obscurity is sometimes well-earned.

On the whole, The who by numbers is a fairly depressing (content wise) album. I always thought Squeeze Box was a fairly good fun song that lighten the album

Isn't it obvious that this is his point?

Mike, I'm done arguing with you, but I'll tell you this, as a musician (sometimes semi-pro) for more than 20 years, you have a hell of a lot to learn about music. (but then again don't we all..?)

Phil, you always bring up the fact that you're a musician and that therefore gives your opinion more weight. I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. For one thing, music isn't created for other musicians to enjoy. (Sidenote: people claim this about some of the music I listen to, which is total nonsense. If I'm not a musician and I enjoy it, then it's made for non-musicians, too.) Second of all, different people with all sorts of experience and expertise will give starkly contrasting opinions on the same thing.

There is only one person to trust: yourself. If I like a band, someone can tell me that, "Oh, you shouldn't listen to them. Trust me, I know about music." Frankly, I would laugh in their face.

I believe that to judge music and, ultimately, to enjoy it freely (which is the point, after all), it's more important to have the following:

1) A sense of history, knowing basically where the respective type of music comes from. Not fanboy details, just a good sense of scope.
2) Appreciation of different styles. There is good in everything. I, for example, really dislike punk, but I understand that attitude of punk influenced heavy metal, which has music I do like.
3) Don't HATE anything. No musicians are evil. They're not out to get you. There are a few bands that really annoy me, like U2 and Sting, but I'm not going to begrudge their success or their fans.
4) Always acknowledge talent. Using the example of Sting again, I know the guy's a very talented player, songwriter, band leader, and overall musician. I just think he ends up making boring, awful music (or awfully boring?). Heck, I like Cypress Hill more than Sting, and I know very well that Sting is infinitely more talented.

None of the above requires first hand technical musical knowledge. In fact, it hurts more often than it helps.

Then, of course, there's the more common reason to listen to a band: "I like this, it sounds good."

Anyway, bringing this back to the Beatles, the reason why some people get annoyed as that many refuse to say that the Beatles are capable of writing bad songs or making some questionable musical decisions. For example, I am always wary when a band makes double album. They almost always suck. IMO, the White Album is not exception. Let It Be would not be nearly as popular if it wasn't the Beatles. That's OK, the Beatles were just a band, they are allowed to realease the occassional clunker.

I don't buy that philosophy, though it has some very valid points. Being a creator of any kind of art, or having studied the disciplines involved with the creation thereof, is instrumental (pun intended) in understanding the art form. This applies not just to music but to all art forms.

As a musician I have an intimiate knowledge of the different talents involved in making music. Much of my knowledge comes from coming to grips with my lack of certain talents, particularly songwriting, and working closely with others.
Mike, I'm sorry, but you are definitely mistaken here. I can tell you without a doubt that the vast majority of music (across all genres) if not all music definitely is created for musicians to enjoy. That may not be the sole purpose of the creation, but it's definitely a goal. Heck, musicians write songs for themselves to enjoy, or they wouldn't be writing at all. Musicians are first and formost music fans, after all, that's why they bothered to learn music at all. Particularly in the Beatles, where John and Paul were huge fans of each others' stuff.
What if it's a band you've never heard and someone whose taste you agree with and/or whose opinion you respect? Would you seek out the artist in question or simply act like the comment never happened regarding that artist? This is a tough quandry for anyone - do you completely disregard all musical advice and try to listen to everything? I often go with my friends' and family's recommendations, and that philosophy has served me well so far.

Very well said, and I couldn't agree more. Here, I couldn't disagree more.

Musicianship
1) Imparts a sense of history. If you are truly interested in musicianship, you study the history of music.
2) Engenders appreaciation for different styles, particulary through the study of musical history. To an enlightened musician, good music is good music whether it's coming from Limp Biskit or Lawrence Welk. This is the #1 most important thing to understand for any music lover, regardless of whether they play or not. I believe that musicians are more likely to have this attitude than non-musicians, because they know what it takes to create any kind of music at all. For example, a country and western guitarrist will have a better appreciation of Joe Satriani's technical ability than a non-musician. A country & western non-musician fan would be far more likely to state that Joe Satriani "sucks". The C&W guitarrist may not like Satriani's playing, but he certainly would not call it "junk".
3) Kind of a combination of 2) and 4). Like your example there are some very talented musicians out there that I can't stand. That doesn't give me the right to call their music "Junk Music" or anything else judgemental like that.
4) Creates a better understanding of the true nature of musical talent. Also musicality lets one understand different types of talent, e.g. songwriting talent as opposed to technical ability. I think this is a misconception. No-one truly believe this, but it's an easy scapegoat attitude to jump on.

It's annoying to me as a musician to hear someone completely disregard what I know to be very talented musicians as "mediocre, boring, duds", or music that I know has value as "Mediocre Junk Music". Anyone who thinks they have the ability to judge art like this, as opposed to simply stating an opinion about it, has a lot to learn IMO. And I most definitely plead guilty myself in this area by the way. I've learned as I grow older that I love more and more music of all styles. Every piece of music no matter how small has value, every one. To call any musicians "duds" or call any music "junk" serves no purpose other than to highlight one's own non-understanding of what music is.