The Eternal Beatles Discussion Thread

Mike,

Another side-track...... I completely understand this philosophy and paritally agree with it. I'd be interested in your opinion on:

* The ever increasing album times on current releases? People feel they are being ripped off if the latest album by their favorite band is less than 60 minutes. More and more albums these days are coming out at lengths that would translate to double albums in the LP days. What do you think of this trend?

* Dual CD / Triple album releases? Personally I find them very difficult to access, but sometimes can have incredible rewards. Case in point The Clash's brilliant triple LP "Sandinista" which I absolutely LOVE (of course I love everything from the Clash).

* The Who's "Tommy" - is it the ideal concept double album? It doesn't drag at all (except the boring "Welcome", even Underture, IMO, which would be seen as its weak point). How about "Quadrophenia"?

First, let me clarify one thing I said:



I should have, instead, said that music isn't created only for others to enjoy. The greatest artists do, indeed, create primarily for themselves, something I've said quite a few times. But different musicians play for different reasons. The best illustration I can think of is Herbie Hancock: an amazing talent, possibly a prodigy or even genius, he got his name playing the jazz the he loved to play. Then, because of some religious or spiritual beliefs, he decided that his purpose as an artist was to "make people happy." This inspired him to play the accessible funk/pop music. Though this did, at the time, please more listeners, his jazz music is more respected and more remembered, and people forgot about his forays into jazz-pop because that stuff was disposable.

Now, regarding recommendations from friends, reviewers, etc: of course I take them, and seek them out. I've gotten stuff based on what I read in this forum, as a matter of fact. If it wasn't for friends (who happened to be musicians as well), I wouldn't have gotten into jazz and Rush and a lot of the other stuff I love. And, in turn, my "discovery" of blues, Zappa, and King Crimson got my friends into that stuff. But I'd sooner trust a non-musician friend who knows my tastes and listening habbits than a genius musician who doesn't.

The problem with listening to musicians and experts is that, like I said before, they use their "credentials" to push diametrically opposing views. I'll make up an example of the kind of thing I see all the time. Warning: I'm going to use the band Rush because I see this kind of thing with them all the time, but I'm not starting a debate about them, so don't yell at me:

"I am a musician, and I know about playing, song craft, and making albums. Rush is one of the best bands I've heard: they manage to make solid, melodic rock songs by incorporating different times, harmonies, and a strong rhythm section. As a bass player, I recognize that few have the complete understanding of the relationship between melody and harmony than Geddy Lee, and he uses it admirably."

"I am a musician, and I know about playing, song craft, and making albums. Rush abuse their technical skill to make self-involved, unintersting music. Though their songs seem to have something of interest, it's all a bunch of nothing when one looks past their shiny surface."

I have seen and heard this, both from various musicians, all of whom can play and/or write songs. This alone tells me that musicians are simply not more qualified to be better judges, because they disagree. This sort of thing works for science, where peers review and claim the validity or lack thereof of someone's work. Not so for art.

Regarding my 4-item list, being a musician can certainly help with those things, but aren't necessary. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think it's pretty safe to say that I am living proof. I am not a musician. I am, however, an avid listener, and a great lover of all sorts of music.

As far as musicians being able to recognize and respect skill (ie the example of Country guitarists and Satriani), I have not seen this. Or, I should say, not more so than in non-musicians. Musicians can be the most snobbish, arrogant pricks around. As a jazz lover, I see the bitter, destructive attitudes people take towards each other- and these are people who usually really know their stuff musically.

I've even known musicians who agree with me. A buddy of mine, very talented singer, guitar player and overall musician, told me that he envied me because I can listen to music without guilt, without fear, without anger. This guy used to love King Crimson and Steely Dan, but couldn't stand to hear them anymore because he tried to learn their material and failed, got angry, and became a punk fan for a while.

The point is, anyone can be as subjective or objective as anyone else. The thing that scares me about the attitude that musicians "know better" is that it would become impossible to have discussion with such a person. He would always say, "Pff, you don't know what you're talking about, you're not a musician."

If it weren't for internet music (read: mp3s), I wouldn't be into have the stuff I am today. I only got into jazz by downloading it and listening to it repeatedly until it grew on me. Just an aside.

-Tom

Once again, I agree completely with this statement. And I love your examples of two musicians talking about Rush. I love using Rush as an example also, because I can't stand their music. However, I greatly respect their technical abilities both in playing and writing music (music that I don't like to listen to, but most definitely valuable music nonetheless). I plead guilty of having the attitiude your second musician had, but thankfully I'm many years past that stage in my musical development.

I suppose what it all comes down to is maturity. Whether the listener is a musician or not, the understanding that all music is of value (Yes, even Hancock's pop work, or even Wesley Willis' music - not that I'm comparing Willis with Hancock). Just because we think something is good or valuable or not is irrelevant.

Great conversation.

The nice thing about being a musician is that it puts a definite experience perspective on music. Like a writer when they read a book can more easily recognize bad writing than I can.

And please if you get a chance respond to my post at the top of this page. I'm interested in your further musings on the matter.

Phil,

You have an elistist attitude about music, that disparages the Art of Listening. Being a technician may give you a different perspective on how a song is constructed and played, but it doesn't necessarily endow you with special powers on evaluating it...in fact, I would say that it
hinders you from listening and enjoying music, in a purely passive way.

As to the "arguing", as you put it...well, I don't see it this way, and I'm sorry you do. Everyone has something to offer here in this discussion. I have enjoyed reading ALL of the posts, even the negative ones from a certain individual...because even he, in his own way as best he can, and is contributing here. I am learning from all of the posts.

As music is very personal thing with people, as evidenced by the now fourth page on this particular subject, it should be enjoyed, not thrashed about like this is War.ALL our views about it are worthwhile, and should be respected and enjoyed as a kind of a learning and sharing experience.
I can see how sometime this is lost in the heated nature of this particular topic, but it NEVER should be forgotten.

You should start taking your own advice then. IIRC, you were the first one to jump in here with a contrary opinion? Were you just trying to stir something up or what? Some of your comments in this thread have bordered on ridiculous.

After all you did say...
So why should we give the proverbial flying fig about your desire to crash this thread with pointless blather?

I would say you're way off base here. No musician loses their ability to enjoy the sheer joy of a great song when they learn an instrument or learn how music works, anymore than a filmmaker starts appreciating films less when he begins to make films. I'm a musician myself, and I can enjoy music on the same level that most people do (the visceral, complete feeling you get from a great piece), but I can also appreciate the work that went into it because I know just how difficult it is to write unique and relevant work. Non-musicians simply don't have this perspective.

-Tom

I completely disagree.

Who is the one declaring certain music as "mediocre" or "crap" in this discussion?

OTOH, who is the one who is stating that everything categorized as "music" has value????

My reading comprehension may not be as good as I'd like, but I'd say that anyone reading would not declare me as the one with the "elitist" attitude here!

(though I may be displaying an elitist attitude regarding music appreciation - guilty as charged, and I think justifiably so, though a non-musician's appreciation is just as valid, if not as informed, as a musician's)

Saying that being a musician hinders anyones enjoyment of music is ludicrous. It's like saying that a mechanic can't appreciate a well tuned car because they know how all the parts are working. The only one who can enjoy the car completely is the person sitting in the car enjoyiong it completely igonorant of how it works? I think not. Same with music. Non-musicians enjoy music in different ways than musicians do, but believe me, musicians enjoy the music just as much if not more, for understanding a little bit of how it works.

and, within the same post:



What was that that just flew out the window? Oh, it's MikeAW's credibility.

Jon

That's it in a nutshell. For me, it's much more than something to do between DVD releases, much more than "just music".

And ,of course, people can like whatever they want for no reason whatsoever. But if you're going to trash something or tell me it's overrated, let's jam first.

Phil,

I apologize for not responding to the post about double albums. I totally didn't even see it, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Stupid "work" must have gotten in the way. I hate it when important things get in the way of fun. I shall now consider the matter:

I don't judge music based on length- of song or album. Like most people, I would rather have 40 minutes of good music, then 80 minutes of music that is half as good. Too many bands feel that they have to release everything.

Double albums I like:
The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway- Genesis
Now I'm going to sit here and watch as your respect for me goes down the drain...
I know it's weird one, but I like it. Carpet Crawlers, In the Cage, and the title track are just pure gems of melody and arrangement. There are some dull moments, especially on the second disc, and maybe it would have played better as a tighter, single album. But overall, it's worth it.

Tales From Topographic Oceans- Yes
If I didn't lose you on the first one, I'm sure I did now.
No one likes this. I do. Yes were one of the best arrangers in rock, and they are in full force here. Ok, sometimes they seem like they're too worried about making sure the song is the right length (an album side), but I like it.

Joe's Garage- Frank Zappa
Technically, it may be considered two seperate albums. Either way, I think this is sheer brilliance, and I enjoy every single moment.

Blonde on Blonde- Bob Dylan
Possibly my favorite Dylan album, this is just great, and I won't explain why :p

Exile on Main Street- Rolling Stones
I'm not even a big stones fan, and I don't like some of the songs on this album, but I'm impressed that they can have that much good material on one release. This and Sticky Fingers are the only non-compilation Stones CDs that I have.

Double albums I don't like:

The Wall- Pink Floyd
I like the first disc, I don't like the second. Very whiny, drawn out, and somtimes torturous.

Mellancolie and the Infinite Sadness- Smashing Pumpkins
Or, as I like to call it, the Billy Corgan jerks off album. There are two cool songs on this album, and those are the hits. The rest is just too damn boring- Corgan trying to prove he's some sort of visionary artist or something. Billy, shut up and play some rock.

Umagumma- Pink Floyd
1st disc- awesome live album. 2nd disc- makes Mellancolie look like the model of taste and restraint. Do we need to hear a three part, 10 minute drum composition that sounds like sleet falling on my roof?

Now, your examples, Phil:


I think it doesn't really matter, because there are plenty of albums that are great at 70+ minutes, and some that stink. The Blues Travelers are a great band, but simply can't fill up 70 minutes with good material. I have three of their albums, but I really wish they came out with a good 2CD compilation. On the other hand, Dreamtheater's last album is perfect at 74 minutes. Now, to further make you lose all respect for me, Phil, I would say Tool knows how to fill up 70 minutes better than anyone else. They manage to draw me in completely and keep my interest, by making true Albums which are greater than the sum of its parts. I also think this is why they wait so long between releasing albums: if we were still using records, they might be releasing shorter albums more frequently.

Most modern rock and metal acts have a true quandary with the long CD lengths. For example, I really like the Disturbed songs I hear on the radio. I listened to the album- those songs are the only ones I liked. If a band releases only 40 minutes of music, people will say they are being "ripped off." A band then has to decide between releasing a shorter album than their peers or a longer album with mediocre material. This is especially taxing for new bands that need to release records as soon as they can.


Well, first of all, I really dislike the Clash, at least based on the stuff I've heard on the radio. Not my thing at all. I want to punch the radio everytime I hear Rock in the Casbah- something about that song just really makes me angry.
I don't understand the difference between double albums and "dual CD" releases. Again, I don't really care how the music is presented, as long as it's good. Do musicians sit down and decide, "I'm goint to release a double album now, so I guess I'd better come up with a bunch of stuff." If so, this can be a problem, because you're releasing music for a reason other than just releasing music.


Oh boy, Phil, are you gonna get me now- I don't like the Who. They just don't do it for me, sorry. I've never heard those albums in their entirety, so I shan't comment. The only Who album I've heard all of is the one with Baba O'Reily on it (Who's Next?). I like a few songs a little here and there. I really don't see the big deal about them. Daltry is a decent singer, no better or worse than anyone else. Entwhistle sounds like the most skilled member of the band. Moon is erratic, and Townshend is loud, but I've heard guys play in garages the same way.

Please don't kill me.

Now, when I say musicians can be snobs, that doesn't mean they all are snobs. I knew quite a few musicians who were quite cool.

Maybe the problem is, I'm seeing this from a jazz perspective. Be-bop was harshly criticised by older, more respected musicians as erratic and chaotic. Free jazz was then, in turn, criticised by be-bop for the same reason. Fusion was attacked by everyone. I won't even begin to tell you the kind of crap John Coltrane had to deal with.

But the same thing does happen in rock. Are you telling me you don't notice how musicians attack each other? I envy you if you are in a more nurturing, creative environment than I. I see this crap all the time.

I used to be a true music snob. I, like Phil, outgrew it. As I was discovering my love of jazz, I would have other people listening to it. One of my favorite experiences was taking a girlfriend who never liked or listened to jazz in her life to McCoy Tyner performance. She asked me to tell her about what he would play; I refused. Music speaks for itself. She loved it, and was shocked that she did. This, to me, was more rewarding than reading all the reviews and commentaries combined. Musician performs- audience enjoys. And it wasn't because of any fancy stage antics, or young good looks, or any gimmicks- it was Music for the heart and soul. This is what it's about, and this is why you don't need to have a PhD in music theory to tap your foot along to a good tune and just enjoy.

Thanks, good reading.

BTW, The Who's "Who's Next" album was borne out of a double concept album that was abandoned. The best songs from the project were collected to create the "Who's Next" album. It's just the type of idea you'd like. And there was plenty of total crap thrown out (along with two gems that should have been incorporated).

I haven't heard "Tales" but I like "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" a lot. A good example of a double LP that works, but the ending is fairly weak and some of act III is somewhat boring. (and what's with "The Waiting Room"!?!?! Did Gabriel actually like "Revolution 9"?!?!)

I don't listen to much modern progressive rock, I haven't heard a note of Dream Theater though I've heard enough positive about them to initially respect them. The problem with progressive rock to me is that it takes multiple careful listens to really grok an album. I just don't have that kind of time to listen to music (used to ). Jazz, which I've been getting into a little lateley (primarily bee-bop), doesn't really require that kind of investement of time, though multiple listens is revealing.

Personally I've been talking with my brother about this exact idea, and he's come to the conclusion, which I think I agree with more and more, that the perfect length of an albu is 40-50min. It has more to do with our attention spans as human beings and how we react to music really than how any concept works. Longer concepts work in context of course, and shorter singles/EPs work also. 45 minutes is a perfect "average" amount of time for an album IMO. I think that more and more albums are being loaded with "filler" in order to be competitive.

Who's Next is the Who in top form, great stuff.(Speaking of which, Phil, did you ever get to pick up that Canadian CD of it? I think it was you I mentioned it to
a while ago. Magnificent mastering job.)

Mike, if you don't like the second half of The Wall, you probably wouldn't like The Final Cut, which I consider their finest work. Basically Roger running the show.

I laugh when people complain about "progressive" bands, and then use the Who as an example of the opposite. The Who made concept albums, did "artsy" things, etc. And good for them, really. No one here is doing that, but I've heard that argument, which is weird. The Who were very influenced by the prog thing. Townshend himself had nothing but praise for King Crimson when they came out.



lol Yeah, Pete liked to get a bit silly. The worst is "Three Boats..." something or other, where it's just eight notes repeated over "ambience." Boooring. Well, thank god for the "skip" button on CD players.



Yeah, I know. I've never heard the Final Cut, but I want to out of morbid curiosity. The idea of a Roger Waters album performed by Pink Floyd is just not attractive.

No band drives me more crazy than Pink Floyd. It's like they need an advisor around them to sometimes say, "Ok boys, now you're getting a little silly." Eh, it's part of the fun.

Steve Hoffman of DCC fame is the one that mastered the Canadian MCA release of "Who's Next". It has better staging and dynamics than either the new remaster or the MCA GOLD cd, and all for $10!!

Amazing isn't it?

Got it. Like it.

Let's see if some of you Fab Four experts can help me out. I'm trying to put together a collection of Beatles music videos. To the best of my knowledge, the videos the group made were:

Day Tripper
We Can Work It Out
Paperback Writer
Rain
Strawberry Fields Forever
Penny Lane
Revolution
Lady Madonna
Hey Bulldog
Something
Real Love
Free As a Bird

Am I missing any others?

While technically not "videos", the Beatles released promotional shorts for virtually every one of their singles.

I have the following on video:

1. Love Me Do
2. From Me To You
3. She Loves You
4. Please Please Me
5. I Want To Hold Your Hand
6. This Boy
7. Can't Buy Me Love
8. Hard Day s Night
9. I Feel Fine
10. She's A Woman
11. Eight Days A Week
12. Ticket To Ride
13. Help!
14. Yesterday
15. Day Tripper
16. We Can Work It Out
17. Paperback Writer (Version #1)
18. Rain (Version #1)
19. Yellow Submarine
20. Eleanor Rigby
21. Paperback Writer (Version #2)
22. Rain (Version #2)
23. Strawberry Fields Forever
24. Penny Lane
25. A Day in the Life
26. All you need is love
27. Lady Madonna
28. Hey Bulldog
29. Hey Jude
30. Revolution (David Frost outtake)
31. Get Back
32. Something
33. Ballad of John & Yoko
34. The Long & Winding Road.
35. Free as a bird
36. Real Love
Hope that helps!

Here's an interesting Fan link that should keep everyone busy and pleasantly entertained for quite some time....

http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/beatles/var-index.html

Here's a link to a allegedly complete list of Beatle unreleased videos through 1970...

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/unrvid.htm


This is the home page for one of the best fan sites....

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/fabnews.htm


Enjoy !

Interesting petition to "Remaster The Beatles".

Here's the link...

http://www.petitiononline.com/beatles/petition.html

While not yet having reached fourty, put me down as a fan who first heard the Beatles with any understanding in the late '70's, as EMI used the lapse in the Beatles' original contracts in 1975 to begin issuing their own theme product - the red and blue compilations, Rock & Roll Music, Love Songs, the colored vinyl and picture discs, etc. A great way to start hearing the Beatles.

Fast forward a few years, and I start buying re-issues of British LP's. I never bought a North American release with the exceptions of Yellow Submarine and Magical Mystery Tour.

I have most of the MFSL albums, and have most commercial stereo vs. mono tracks. A true mono Rubber Soul and White Album elude me.

What is my pride and joy however are the hours of 'unofficial' recordings - call them what you will. I have collected enough material of good to high quality over the years to produce my own radio series, telling the history of the band from before the beginning to the last bitter interview. This series is currently airing on fixxradio.com on Sundays, and was created expressly for this internet radio station at the request of a mutual friend who is one of its founders. Anyone with a 56k modem can hear it and is streamed live in AM stereo quality sound.

As of this date 10 episodes and 3 specials have aired, and the next show can be heard Sundays at 12 noon and is repeated at 9:00 central. It will play on Winamp and Real Player, but Media Player doesn't seem to support the feed. the direct link is here...

I am not paid for this program, it is simply a series written out of years of appreciaition
Your comments are appreciated.

Sounds like a worthy project...thanks for putting the time in it !

I just want to clarify this point as your dates are incorrect.

The 2 "Greatest Hits" compilations were released in the U.K. on April 19, 1973. They were relased even earlier in the U.S. with the date in America being April 2, 1973.

The release of these 2 double-LP albums really had nothing whatsoever to do with any contract expiry on the part of EMI or the band.

Rock and Roll Music The double LP was released on June 10, 1976 in the U.K. and was really just another way to foist a "greatest hits" package on the public. EMI was just looking for ways to make more money off of the most successful band in history, but it really wasn't due to any contract expirations per se.

Your series sounds very interesting Keith and I'd be interested in hearing what you've put together. As the owner of over 150 hours of non-released material myself, I'm eager to see how you've structured the show.

If there's anything you're missing, let me know, odds are I may have it...like that mono "Rubber Soul"

Thanks Ric. My bad. Those comments are roughly translated from the research of others, and the information can sometimes be taken with a grain of salt.

To give you a bit of an idea how this show works, it runs 1 hour in length without commercials (that's the station's requirement), but does include station id's which I drop into the shows. The series is entirely chronological in nature, and this week's episode highlights the 1965 Shea stadium concert, the meeting of Elvis, and the Hollywood Bowl show. The main sources of research are Mark Lewisohn's fabulous Complete Beatles Recording Sessions and Tom Schultheiss' A Day In The Life, a day-by-day diary from 1960-1970. Details of many of the concerts are cross-checked with some on-line Beatles pages.

Two of my favorite shows feature the landmark Feb 11/63 whirlwind sessions for the Please Please Me LP, and the sessions for A Hard Day's Night.


The special shows of which I spoke include the final Lennon interview on Dec 8/80, a Christmas show featuring all messages and several session reels including a complete Christmastime Is Here Again, and a short-notice-created tribute to George Harrison featuring tracks from the Japan Tour with Eric Clapton's band (the regular episode was already in-the-can and I was asked to create a tribute show with less than 2 days to air, which was also a means to show listeners that we are a live, 'current' stream, and not canned).

There was apparently a problem with the live365.com feed this morning at 10:00am and the feed got lost. A temporary standby feed is running, but we should be back shortly, so you can catch the show tonight at 9 central as linked above.

When our local oldies AM station got literally pushed off the air by its owners who wanted to put their other station on a lower bandwidth, a landmark station was gone. Their daily Beatle Brunch program was okay, but on the whole the jocks who were on-air were uninformed kids who couldn't pronounce names of artists properly, and their playlist was very small, which made the station sound too repetative.

When I was approached to do the show, I thought I would take a unique (and hopefully) fresh approach to telling the Beatles ' story - I would use session tapes, concert recordings, BBC appearances, and chronologically correct interviews and promotional materials to put a new spin on a band that only a few hardcore collectors know about, and that EMI finally gave a small glimpse into with the Anthology discs. Rarely are the final tracks or commercial releases used except to illustrate a point or help tighten the show's length, and I tend to use the MFSL albums for stereo masters, or rare single/album edits.

Thanks for your comments. Send me an e-mail if you don't catch the show for some reason and I'll send you a zip file.

Ric, you've not got mail... .

Your webpage e-mail address didn't work. The station is back online, so if all goes well, you'll catch the show tonight at 9 central.

How so? It's been working great for 4 years! Could be a glitch on your mail servers end. Try it again.

Sorry, I mistyped your address in my e-mail book. Check again...

Just thought I'd resurrect this thread to let people know that I recently picked up a copy of Mark Lewisohn's The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions at Borders for around $8. There was a huge stack of them in the discount pile; I can't guarantee every Borders will have it though.

I remember reading this book back when I was working as a librarian and spotted it in a stack of returns. You'd think reading a book with nothing but recording info would be boring; not a chance, as it's written in a style that doesn't confuse readers who aren't familiar recording jargon, but doesn't insult those who are. Additionally, the book clears up several recording misconceptions, reveals the identities of the never-credited guest musicians on Beatles records, gives several detailed descriptions of alternate versions and outtakes, has many comments from the engineers and George Martin, and contains a quite good 8-page interview with Macca himself. Lots of rare photos included too (alternate cover shots from Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road being the most interesting)--and everybody loves pictures.

After reading the book for the first time, I wanted to go out and buy it and found to my dismay it had been long OOP (used copies were fetching anywhere from $40 to $100+); so imagine my surprise when I saw the book available again, and at a fantastic price to boot! A truly invaluable resource, this book.

Also, I wanted to kickstart this thread because I went on a recent Beatles listening jag (official releases and bootlegs) after reading the book and wanted to see if we could get more discussion about The Beatles.

C'mon people, they're the greatest band in history; they certainly deserve more than 4 pages of talk!

Something tells me I'm going to love this thread!

I found TCBRS at Borders and nearly knocked an old woman over running to get it. I had almost paid $60 for it on eBay the year before but I lost the auction, thankfully.

Is anyone going to buy the upcoming John Lennon disc? It's titled Love: John Lennon Acoustic and will have 17 unreleased takes of songs previously available plus one new song. It's coming out October 19.

I second the recommendation for TCBRS. Also, I'd highly recommend Ian MacDonald's Revolution in the Head (I was too lazy to go back thru this thread to see if it's already been mentioned).