I have had it up to here waiting for the Beatles catalogue to be remastered

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What's the hold up? Does anybody have any information?

― fizzcaraldo (Justin M), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:07 (4 years ago) Permalink

up to where?

― jed_ (jed), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:11 (4 years ago) Permalink

I still listen to old LPs. Are the currently in print CD versions that horrible (and, if so, why not just buy them on vinyl)?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

it's paul's fault. bless him.

but yeah you're right it takes the fckng p-ss doesn't it?

latest word is that magical mystery tour is coming out on dvd with all sorts of extra stuff. as if the actual movie isn't like 1 big 'extra' already.

― piscesboy, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:13 (4 years ago) Permalink

"it's paul's fault"

What isn't, really?

OK, why is it Paul's fault?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 22:18 (4 years ago) Permalink

well i mean it must be paul/ EMI's dithering and arsing around that's to blame, the other fabs are either
a) dead or b) couldnt *really* care less.

maybe it's a question of who's up to the job, george martin sure as heck isn't. god don't let them get ELO=guy in again.

meanwhile, this ere beatles 10-dvd anthology unofficial bootleg edition can be yours for $150 :

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Original-BEATLES-Anthology-Directors-Cut-Real-10-DVDs_W0QQitemZ6430061859QQcategoryZ617QQssPageNameZWD2VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

must say i'm tempted

― piscesboy, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:00 (4 years ago) Permalink

Well, there was that first-five-American-Beatles-albums-before-the-band-demanded-UK-US-consistency-in-the-tracklistings box set which was some sort of start...although the purist in me rather just have proper remasters/issues of the original British albums/track listings w/ the surrounding singles as bonus tracks.

That said, Macca, Ono, the Harrison family, and Da Ringosta can take their time settling this. I plan to finally digitize and sell off the CDs while I can get 'em for at least $4+ each back.

― donut Get Behind Me Carbon Dioxide (donut), Wednesday, 7 September 2005 23:15 (4 years ago) Permalink

7 months pass...

Looks like it's coming:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,70658-0.html?tw=rss.index

― Brakhage (brakhage), Thursday, 13 April 2006 17:01 (3 years ago) Permalink

Vague but sort of promising, I guess. The catalog does need CD remastering, badly, as the in-print CDs (except Let It Be Naked, and maybe that Yellow Submarine "songtrack" from a few years ago?) are all from that late-80s batch of early-generation CDs that gave CDs such a bad name. Mind you, I do think it's a wasted opportunity if they don't take the chance to delete Past Masters and Anthology, and just put all the singles and bonus stuff on second discs packed with the remasters...

― Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:10 (3 years ago) Permalink

"I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters when I am making new masters," he said in a written statement submitted to the High Court in London earlier this month.

But it's not wrong to continue to sell them on cd?

Agree re Past Masters/Anthology but they're such cash cows that they're not going to do it.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:26 (3 years ago) Permalink

god remember the whole "anthology" phenomenon? those were awful.

― amateurist0, Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

I like the Past Masters CDs. Don't like the idea of Beatle albums being treated as mere collections of electronic data stuffed onto a compact disc. The problem, of course, is that CDs are too expensive. (Solution: buy old LPs.)

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

I kind of like the anthologies sets, too, especially the first one.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, the anthologies are great. Second one for me, though.

― everything, Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:34 (3 years ago) Permalink

A good thing about the "anthologies" is they are a good depository for the alternate mixes/takes etc., which--let's be realistic here--most people really don't want to hear (or have piggy-backed onto pricey new editions).

― Chairman Doinel (Charles McCain), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

George isn't around to veto the inclusion of 'Carnival of Light' this time round.

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

there is no reason to put the singles and alternate takes on the albums. if they just follow the capitol box model and do mono and stereo mixes of the albums (with better packaging of course) that will suffice.

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 13 April 2006 18:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

I vote for Badmotorscooter.

― QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Thursday, 13 April 2006 19:36 (3 years ago) Permalink

How in the hell...Am I wasted?

Ah yes, the Beatles. I say buy the albums.

― QuantumNoise (Justin Farrar), Thursday, 13 April 2006 19:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

The Past Masters comps on their own are fine - I think I'd rather listen to the first one than anything up to Revolver at least. If they are to re-issue the lot, The White Album is going to need a box set all to itself.

― Lotta Continua (Damian), Thursday, 13 April 2006 20:09 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm sure Paul will get it out all again eventually so he can ramp the price up to another ridiculous extreme. And turn himself up in the remastering process.

It would be nice if they released the red and blue anthologies so that they were in modern slimline 2CD cases rather than the FUCKING MASSIVE and HORRIBLE ones that they are in now.

― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Thursday, 13 April 2006 21:53 (3 years ago) Permalink

And in the case of the Red album, compiled on to a single, less overpriced, CD - the total running time of the 2CD set is just over 60mins. The asking price of £20-£30 is a piss take.

― Michael Lambert (Michael Lambert), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:01 (3 years ago) Permalink

which--let's be realistic here--most people really don't want to hear (or have piggy-backed onto pricey new editions)

Are the people not interested in paying for pricey new editions of things really the target market for remastered versions of CDs that are available in droves in used CD stores the world over?

Seriously, I don't see what's so much better (and less cash-cow-ish) about retaining Past Masters and Anthology. OK, so it's kind of cool to have all the singles in one place, but it also robs them of context AND presents a somewhat confusing picture for buyers, who can't figure out which album it is that has "I Want To Hold Your Hand" on it. The PM sets are also really oddly-balanced, anyway - not quite a greatest hits, not quite an odds-and-sods. The Anthologies are just plain obnoxious, especially the first one with all the talky-talky bits.

I guess I'm just coming from a perspective where, if they just remaster the CDs I'll take a pass because I have the LPs already. But if they sweeten the deal I just might think it over, at least for a couple, assuming they went ahead and added more outtake/live stuff. Granted, they would still be kind of weirdly-sequenced albums with one or two singles at the front followed by a bunch of obscurities.... okay, maybe keep Past Masters after all. But I REALLY think it makes more sense to get the unreleased and live material wedded on to the appropriate albums - if nothing else, it means getting MORE of it, right?

― Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

"turn himself up in the remastering process"

What is an example where he has ever done this?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

Firstly, as any fule kno, Beatles CDs are not very common 2nd hand, except for the Anthologies and the BBC thing.

Secondly, Paul has little need to turn himself up anyway. He took a lot of care, recording his bass lines on a single track and spent ages getting the sound right. Why not? It's his friggin songs for fuxake!

― everything, Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

wow I had no idea the Anthologies were so hated. I only have the 2nd and 3rd ones and think they're fantastic - where else would I hear this stuff? Surely its the highest quality source for "What's the New Mary Jane" or "You Know My Name Look Up the Number" and a host of other rarities.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:27 (3 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand it either. Maybe it's just too much Beatles for some people? I've only got a couple of tiny quibbles with them and it's usually just those times when it gets a bit self-indulgent, like those different version of the Fool On The Hill. Paul is obviously so proud of them but I just can't take it.

― everything, Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

ppl just like to complain about the beatles, i guess.

anthology 2 is the best, what with the stoned cracking-up version of and your bird can sing and the gorgeous demos of strawberry fields. 3 is good for the white album stuff, and 1 is probably the only time any americans (me included) will ever hear any morecambe and wise.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:38 (3 years ago) Permalink

"as any fule kno, Beatles CDs are not very common 2nd hand, except for the Anthologies and the BBC thing."

Well, they are getting slightly more plentiful. In fact, I got most of my collection used. But, then again, I've been lucky. The worst thing about used Beatle cds is that stores priced higher than average (i.e. in the US 10-12 dollars vs. 7-9). Shopping around helps, and the prices have leveled off (and no doubt will continue)

I will concur regarding the Anthologies and the BBC, but--to cite my earlier post--alot of the people who bought them probably realized that they didn't listen to them as much as the regular LPs.

― Chairman Doinel (Charles McCain), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:40 (3 years ago) Permalink

The live stuff at the end of disc 1 and the beginning of disc 2 of Anthology 1 is really cool.

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

it's paul's fault. bless him.

Neil Aspinall is probably the one to blame.

Anyway, seems like some good news is finally coming up.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 13 April 2006 22:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

Man, I'm not hating on any of the contents of the Anthologies (aside from, again, the talky stuff on Anth1) - I LOVE the music on those discs, the glimpses into the recording studio, etc. And when I was 16 me and my Beatle buddy developed a substantial secret language out of the miscellaneous bits of studio chatter. "Sugar plum fairy, sugar plum fairy..."

― Doctor Casino (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 13 April 2006 23:03 (3 years ago) Permalink

Vague but sort of promising, I guess. The catalog does need CD remastering, badly, as the in-print CDs (except Let It Be Naked, and maybe that Yellow Submarine "songtrack" from a few years ago?) are all from that late-80s batch of early-generation CDs that gave CDs such a bad name.

While I agree that they need remastering, I don't neccessarily agree with your version of what they sounded like. The first four, sure, but the rest, particularly from "Sgt. Pepper" onwards, used state of the art remastering technology at the time, and sounded really impressive back then.

Only this is 20 years ago and a lot has happened since then.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 13 April 2006 23:08 (3 years ago) Permalink

the Pepper cd sounds horrible against the vinyl version. The White Album stacks up ok but I got the 30th anniversary reissue not the original cd.

― tremendoid (tremendoid), Thursday, 13 April 2006 23:25 (3 years ago) Permalink

abby road still sounds really good. I'm sure a remastering will make it sound better but I listened to it yesterday carefully with headphones and was pretty blown away by how good it sounded.

I think the Anthologies are a pretty good distillation of the best stuff that makes up the two major bootleg series (ultra rare trax and, uh, whatever the other one is called; they have most of the same stuff on them). I could do w/out the talking on the first cd.

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 14 April 2006 17:44 (3 years ago) Permalink

The Beatles are really smart to make people wait for every new issue. Keeps the interest up. When they are finally remastered it'll probably be on the cover of Time.

― Mark (MarkR), Friday, 14 April 2006 19:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

I assumed it was just a question of having to sort out all manner of legalities before anything happened in the Beatle world.

― Lotta Continua (Damian), Friday, 14 April 2006 20:34 (3 years ago) Permalink

What was interesting about the Anthology releases/phenomenon is that a lot of kids who were first getting into the band around that time all bought the Anthologies as if they were Greatest Hits Collections. I often see volumes of the Anthologies in people's collection as the only Beatles representation. "Just the b-sides, demos, and alternative takes for you eh?" They were hoodwinked!

― ryan_w, Friday, 14 April 2006 20:46 (3 years ago) Permalink

coincidentally (or perhaps not), michael jackson is also giving up his ownership of the publishing rights to sony this week, I think, to deal with some of his debt.

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 14 April 2006 20:52 (3 years ago) Permalink

yeah i can imagine people getting suckered into the anthologies as some kind of definitive look at the beatles... that bluesy version of helter skelter is really wonderful. and the acoustic "across the universe".

xpost

― dave k, Friday, 14 April 2006 20:56 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure The White Album will always sound best on vinyl.

― billstevejim (billstevejim), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

Are there any Beatle albums that don't?

― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 14 April 2006 21:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

Okay, so in that case, why does there need to be such a rush to get them remastered?

― billstevejim (billstevejim), Saturday, 15 April 2006 00:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

I for one hear absolutely no difference.

― Mr. Snrub (Mr. Snrub), Saturday, 15 April 2006 01:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

i mean it does take the piss doesn't it?

― pisces, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 12:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

lo-lo-lo-looooots of piss, sir! :(

― t**t, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 15:19 (2 years ago) Permalink

I bought Help for £1 in a charity shop the other week. It was cheap because the cover was ripped (and taped up again) and the vinyl's a bit crackly, but it's not scratched at all. Even with the crackles it sounds great - a lot better than the CD versions, The Night Before especially gaining an awful lot of character and energy. I too am amazed there's no proper CD remaster, I guess because people are still buying the current shonky versions.

― The Wayward Johnny B, Wednesday, 8 August 2007 17:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

This footage
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=compleat+beatles
of 'The Compleat Beatles' (snappy 1984 cheaply-made proto-ANTHOLOGY movie, shot on film and narrated by Malcolm Mcdowell) is
making me anticipate this happening all the more.

― pisces, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 13:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

It will happen before or since, but apparently at still takes time.

I expected they'd at least do "Sgt. Pepper" in June this year to coincide with its 40th anniversary, but they did't.

― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 13:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

But at least, with the current trend for remasters, the ultimate edition will be better. I hope they will do like The Bee Gees and Monkees remasters, and put out 2CDs with the stereo version + bonus tracks in stereo on one and the mono version + bonus tracks in mono on the other one.

― Geir Hongro, Wednesday, 5 September 2007 13:07 (2 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 1165 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

For Wings guitar skronk, find "Spin It On" off Back to the Egg. Then stop you search, because that's all you're gonna find in that vein from the Wings catalog.

― MumblestheRevelator, Friday, 9 October 2009 04:18 (1 month ago) Permalink

Put it this way, when Lennon and Harrison passed, the song(s) they were remembered by were solo ones.

Even though Macca has had way more post-beatles music (and success) for fairly obvious reasons, when he goes it'll be "Hey Jude", "Let it be" and so on...

― Mark G, Friday, 9 October 2009 07:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

Live and let die, Mark.

― Nate Carson, Friday, 9 October 2009 07:46 (1 month ago) Permalink

― Mark G, Friday, 9 October 2009 08:29 (1 month ago) Permalink

Well, Paul never worked with musicians as good as Harrison, Starkey, and Lennon again. Plus, Lennon wasn't around to tell Paul his songs were shit.

― leavethecapital, Friday, 9 October 2009 21:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

yeah, paul's songs were shit, of course.

― AlXTC from Paris, Friday, 9 October 2009 21:14 (1 month ago) Permalink

Well, Paul never worked with musicians as good as Harrison, Starkey, and Lennon again.

Haha, many of the members of Wings were and remain some of the best session guys in the music world. I mean, for all that I love the Beatles, very few people were calling up George Harrison to come in and lay down some leads for them over the year.

― a wicked 60s beat poop combo (Pancakes Hackman), Friday, 9 October 2009 21:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

Um, yeah, but you don't exactly call up a Beatle and ask him to play session man, do ya?

― & other try hard shitfests (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, 9 October 2009 21:51 (1 month ago) Permalink

Yoko did.

― Nate Carson, Friday, 9 October 2009 23:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

"Haha, many of the members of Wings were and remain some of the best session guys in the music world."
― a wicked 60s beat poop combo (Pancakes Hackman)

We're getting into the old argument of technique vs. musicianship. No doubt Paul's played with dudes whose chops are much better than Lennon's or Ringo's, but bottom line, there's a huge difference between someone you hire as your ersatz recording session employee and someone whose distinct musical style meshes with yours so intimately they can anticipate your every move.

As far as session work goes, McCartney has great bass technique; I don’t recall too many folks calling him up to lay down some tracks.

― leavethecapital, Saturday, 10 October 2009 00:19 (1 month ago) Permalink

Well, Paul never worked with musicians as good as Harrison, Starkey, and Lennon again.

The people who played on "Tug Of War" and "Pipes Of Piece" were way better instrumentalists than George Harrison or John Lennon ever were. Ringo Starr is a great drummer, but he also played on those two albums, that is, the tracks that Stanley Clarke didn't play on instead. Which was hardly a bad replacement.

― Tied Up In Geir (Geir Hongro), Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

Hey, wait, I mean Steve Gadd, not Stanley Clarke.

― Tied Up In Geir (Geir Hongro), Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:32 (1 month ago) Permalink

This guy is a way better guitarist than George Harrison, he should have been in The Beatles instead:

― Adam Bruneau, Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:35 (1 month ago) Permalink

lol wackiness

― It's on you to make the call (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:35 (1 month ago) Permalink

I don't think you can boil it down to mechanics/talent. Not to get all touchy-feely but alot of it was, I dunno, alchemy I guess. Paul practically grew up with John and George...sure not so much Ringo but then again it's a certain kind of alchemy that allows an outsider to fit so well with 3 close friends and stay so well fitted for 10 years. John said to Ringo after he left the Beatles, that he missed the kind of jams where you could give a look and everyone knew where to go. As much revisionism as has gone on since the breakup, it's true to say that a lot of Paul's songwriting was collaborative. Even if John didn't write the lyrics to Hey Jude, he told Paul not to change 'the movement you need is on your shoulder'. Paul goes off into the world to write songs with Linda, or alone, and it's a whole different dynamic. The counterbalance is missing, the competitiveness, the intuition, all the things he had with the Beatles don't go with him when he goes somewhere else.
It's nice to think that they would, given how much he steered the Beatles, but it just doesn't happen that.

Ack. Too bloody wordy and sentimental as per usual.

― VegemiteGrrrl, Saturday, 10 October 2009 01:50 (1 month ago) Permalink

Nope. Spot on.

― Sickamous (Scik Mouthy), Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:13 (1 month ago) Permalink

I see the idea of counterbalance but I'm not sure you can say Paul's songwriting was collaborative.
It seems clear that by 65 or 66 at most, each one composed alone and presented almost finished songs to the others. of course there are some exceptions.

― AlXTC from Paris, Saturday, 10 October 2009 05:26 (1 month ago) Permalink

Maybe. But I think that presentation process was a key part, no matter how brief...seeking that judgement rather than treating it as a finished song is still collaboration of a kind. Hair splitting I know. Where Paul's instincts leaned towards clear language, Lennon's instinct was towards indirect language, metaphors and such...and those instincts, even with a mostly completed song created a push-me-pull-you...I know I keep coming back to this but that line in Hey Jude...Paul was preparing, planning to change it. John said he liked it. And it's a choice that helps the imagery. We've all made it kind of mythological all these years later, but to me that process is huge. Creatively, you always want your stamp on your own work. It's not everyone who would work that way, with a finished song or not. I mean, the Robinson brothers got in HUGE fights because Chris would change Rich's songs around, make verses choruses...that's almost a norm. Collaborative songwriting to me is some kind of weird magic. It doesn't matter about the mix of who writes what, to me it's what that song would look like without the collaboration.

― VegemiteGrrrl, Saturday, 10 October 2009 06:09 (1 month ago) Permalink

Put that way, I totally agree with you. the presentation part is definitely key and allowing someone to change even details to your work is very important.

― AlXTC from Paris, Saturday, 10 October 2009 07:22 (1 month ago) Permalink

yet, about the idea that it's because there wasn't that counterbalance anymore that Paul's output was bad after the Beatles it may be true but by the white album, there wasn't much counterbalance left, it seems. the fact that John hated "Ob La Di" or "Maxwell" and they still made the cut shows that, for instance.

― AlXTC from Paris, Saturday, 10 October 2009 07:29 (1 month ago) Permalink

Yeah, but that was the actual reason for the split: John being outvoted on songs that he recognised as perfectly fine Paul songs, but songs he didn't want to be part of himself.

― Mark G, Saturday, 10 October 2009 10:49 (1 month ago) Permalink

x-post, VegemiteGrrl said it much better than I did earlier. Great bands are about chemistry and technique. The Beatles certainly had chemistry from playing Hamburg dives, endless touring, and countless hours in the studio. Other bands may have been better technically (Cream anyone) but not too many people would claim that Cream were better than the Beatles. As far as the voting process went, by Abbey Road at least, Paul had taken so much control that he got pretty much whatever he wanted. As an example, all the other Beatles hated "Maxwell" but it still got on vinyl anyway. To counter McCartney's influence, Lennon wanted two separate sides; one side of Paul songs and another side of exclusively Lennon songs, a perfect example of the song vetting process breaking down. If you add in the collapsing financial mess that was Apple, Allen Klein, and Paulie's control issues you see why the Beatles broke up.
By the way, I think Cream is quite awesome.

― leavethecapital, Saturday, 10 October 2009 13:48 (1 month ago) Permalink

The biggest thing I like in Paul's solo music is actually a thread I see going back into the late Beatle years: this compositional richness and eccentricity that begins with "Your Mother Should Know," "Lady Madonna," "Martha My Dear," etc. I think it's this style that accounts for the popularity of Ram, but I at least hear it here and there in every album, even up to recent things like "Riding to Vanity Fair," "Mr. Bellamy," etc.

(By the way, hello to any old friends reading this. I haven't posted here in a long time!)

― timellison, Saturday, 10 October 2009 15:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

oh hey, cool. i remember you, Tim.

― Fighting words,man. Just shut up. (Ioannis), Saturday, 10 October 2009 17:12 (1 month ago) Permalink

Whenever I think of Paul solo my thoughts turn to 'Simply having a wonderful Christmas time'...and then I cry. However, and I kind of hate to say it because it does reveal my own indefensible cheesy streak and I know I'm asking for SBs just saying it...I do love Mull of Kintyre. My mum brought me up on a lot of folk music (Foster and Allen, all that guff)...and it is written in a very traditional style, a la Caledonia, Carrickfergus, that I can't help but kind of love.

― VegemiteGrrrl, Sunday, 11 October 2009 00:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

I was thinking about the bit in Anthology where Paul talks about the Beatles as "a bit like being army buddies, you always knew that in the end you would have to kiss the army goodbye and go off and get married and act like normal people, etc". And I realized, wait a minute, this isn't what Paul ended up doing at all!

― Adam Bruneau, Sunday, 11 October 2009 17:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

um, yeah he did.

Amongst other things, sure..

― Mark G, Sunday, 11 October 2009 21:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

"Paul practically grew up with John and George...sure not so much Ringo"

To split hairs a bit, according to the Lewisohn book, the guys recorded with Ringo before they ever recorded with Pete Best. And I'd wager they grew up a lot more during their time together as The Beatles, than in the Quarrymen/Silver Beetles years...

― Nate Carson, Sunday, 11 October 2009 21:14 (1 month ago) Permalink

Sure but the three of them predate Pete Best by some years...

― Mark G, Sunday, 11 October 2009 21:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

hey tim!

regarding who wrote what - in the Playboy Interviews book with Lennon they go into detail about a lot of the collaboration, song by song. a good read.

― sleeve, Sunday, 11 October 2009 21:33 (1 month ago) Permalink

What's the Lewisohn book called? Amazon carries a lot of books by him, all with different but similar titles.

― Ismael Klata, Sunday, 11 October 2009 21:41 (1 month ago) Permalink

The one I'm reading is the Complete Beatles Chronicle. Though I guess there's a newer expanded edition than the one I'm reading now. He also wrote that complete recording sessions book which I want but don't have.

― Nate Carson, Monday, 12 October 2009 08:24 (1 month ago) Permalink

iirc the chronicle is the sessions book expanded and with extra stuff so chronicle is the one to get i believe. i don't think there's much missing, if anything from the sessions book that's not in the chronicle. someone will be able to tell us i'm sure.

― piscesx, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 18:32 (1 month ago) Permalink

At the store, the sessions book looks a lot thicker and more data-heavy than the Chronicles book I own. But maybe the Chronicle reissue combines everything into one mega-volume? I dunno...

― Nate Carson, Tuesday, 13 October 2009 21:20 (1 month ago) Permalink

Is that Lewisohn book available in both mono and stereo?

Hi Tim!

― Race Against Rockism (Myonga Vön Bontee), Tuesday, 13 October 2009 22:04 (1 month ago) Permalink

I DLed a PDF of the Sessions book with little effort. Have not read beyond the initial Paul interview yet. Maybe I will look for a file of the Chronicles one as well...

― Stillborn birth of a display name (Jon Lewis), Tuesday, 13 October 2009 22:15 (1 month ago) Permalink

I think VegemiteGrrrl is pretty much spot on as far as songwriting goes. Obviously the competition, the chemistry, the input from the others, it made the songs better, and maybe also the arrangements.
But I still think it's wrong to say that it's much of a matter of the Beatles as instrumentalists. It's more a matter of their creative input as composers and arrangers. Paul McCartney did indeed work with better instrumentalists on those three albums he made with George Martin, and also the two Rockestra tracks on "Back To The Egg". And, yes, they also played better, and they had "feel" enough. But the songs would never get as strong anymore as they were at his best back in the Beatles day.

― Tied Up In Geir (Geir Hongro), Tuesday, 13 October 2009 22:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

oh god rockestra hahahaha i forgot about that shit

― headroom (max) (M@tt He1ges0n), Tuesday, 13 October 2009 22:54 (1 month ago) Permalink

Chronicles, plus Sessions, is out there, you just have to hunt for it. I love Sessions, haven't read Chronicles yet...

― Adam Bruneau, Wednesday, 14 October 2009 15:24 (1 month ago) Permalink

I didn't know about Rockestra... after checking out some YouTube vids, I'm wondering about Paul's competitive streak. Do you think that after the Beatles he was setting out to try and top them? And I don't mean it in a cynical way, but his work after the Beatles seemed to be really reaching for 'new heights'...'everyone will be amazed by this'. But as a counter,I wrestle with that idea, because there is the fact that Paul was creative, was big into arranging, so maybe it's just a logical progression of the creative urge that he would just keep mining new inspirations and idea. Ugh. Okay it doesn't sound like a question now that I've written it down. Grr.

Got Past Masters today. Nick was right...Disc 2 is great! Can't stop listening. On 'Hey Jude' I actually jumped a little when Paul started singing...it's like he's standing right THERE. So great to hear it again now so loud and crisp, and clean. Jesus. And 'Don't Let me Down' brings goosebumps now.

― VegemiteGrrrl, Thursday, 15 October 2009 02:34 (1 month ago) Permalink

I should probably pick that up tomorrow.

― Nate Carson, Thursday, 15 October 2009 06:31 (1 month ago) Permalink

Get thee to the buying place.

― VegemiteGrrrl, Thursday, 15 October 2009 06:46 (1 month ago) Permalink

All I have left to pick up is Yellow Submarine. They should just rename that fucking thing "Here's 'Hey Bulldog' for 15 bucks". I'm deeply annoyed that those 4 songs weren't included on Past Masters.

― Darin, Thursday, 15 October 2009 07:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

So, come the day that the official downloads start, will "Hey Bulldog" get out-of-proportion sales?

― Mark G, Thursday, 15 October 2009 07:09 (1 month ago) Permalink

I wouldn't be surprised. They should have just released a single w/Bulldog as the A side and It's All Too Much as the B side.

― Darin, Thursday, 15 October 2009 07:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

They were gonna put out an EP with the new songs but the record company wanted to sell the public on a full album. It would have been crazy awesome to have the White Album come out followed shortly by an EP!

― Adam Bruneau, Thursday, 15 October 2009 16:55 (1 month ago) Permalink

Can the remastered Hey Bulldog compare to the remixed Hey Bulldog on the Songtrack?

― Nate Carson, Thursday, 15 October 2009 21:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

Yeah, exactly. It's not like I'm buying the damn thing for George Martin's soundtrack.

― Darin, Thursday, 15 October 2009 22:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-bluebeat7-2009nov07,0,5668337.story

A federal court in Los Angeles this week issued a temporary restraining order against a music website that recently had been offering the entire Beatles catalog for downloading at 25 cents per song. The Santa Cruz-based BlueBeat earlier in the week was hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by EMI's Capitol Records, the group's U.S. label.

The order set back a novel legal argument by BlueBeat that songs produced through digital regeneration are akin to songs performed by cover bands and therefore do not run afoul of copyright law. BlueBeat had argued in court filings that its downloads were legal because the company had created entirely new versions by computer through a process called "psychoacoustic simulations" that makes the re-created songs sound just like the original recordings.

"We analyze them and then synthesize new songs, just as you would read a book and write an article," said BlueBeat Chief Executive Hank Risan. The site's "intention is to create a live performance, as if you are there listening to the actual performers doing the work as opposed to a copy or a phonorecord or CD of the work."

But the court didn't buy it. On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Walter sided with EMI. "Plaintiffs have . . . produced sufficient evidence demonstrating that (the) defendants copied protected elements of their recordings," the ruling said. "Indeed, screen shots from BlueBeat's website show track titles with the same names as the plaintiff's copyrighted works..."

― Bee OK, Saturday, 7 November 2009 07:22 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

god bless santa cruz.

― ♪♫(●̲̲̅̅̅̅=̲̲̅̅̅̅●̲̅̅)♪♫ (Steve Shasta), Saturday, 7 November 2009 07:39 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.