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

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.

What isn't, really?

OK, why is it Paul's fault?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

What is an example where he has ever done this?

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!

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.

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.

Neil Aspinall is probably the one to blame.

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

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.

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.

xpost

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Hey guys? Could you not hang your jacket up on the patch cords?"

"You don't talk to a Beatle like that!"

John may have brought his girlfriend in, but Paul wore the vest.

lol @ this Maxwell's outtake, no wonder Lennon and Harrison reportedly hated these sessions. Macca's farting about is his cutesy worst.

ok one concrete thing: amazing drumming all over this record and the remix really brings it out

finally listened to all these and damn this is otm. ppl who diss Ringo are insane, I would kill to have a drummer that heavy and fluid.

totally.

Thirded. It’s almost as if they are repeating something they heard somebody say and haven’t actually bothered to listen to the records.

Never trust a drummer who disses Ringo

I heard a great story from a friend - maybe this is common knowledge? - about the writing of "Ob-la di, ob-la-da." John was apparently totally smacked out when Paul presented the song to him. Paul was struggling with how it should begin, and supposedly John roused himself over to the piano and goes "why don't you just start it like this?" and did the little introduction bit before slumping into a haze again.

I've heard that story though not with the smack bit..

I just read past those sessions in the Complete Beatles Recording Sessions book, and it doesn’t mention it (not surprising in a book with an intro by McCartney). But I think it did say that multiple studio staff remember the ob-la-first sessions as the starting point of bickering, beginning of the end, etc.

They first recorded a version of it with the three of them playing acoustic guitars. That version had session player overdubs and everything.

The Lennon on piano version was the second attempt.

July 8, 1968, ob-la-di, ob-la-da, takes 1-12, studio 2, 5pm-3am

Richard Lush: "after about four or five nights doing 'ob-la-di, ob-la-da', john lennon came to the session really stoned, totally out of it on something or other, and he said 'Alright, we're gonna do 'ob-la-di, ob-la-da'. he went straight to the piano and smashed the keys with an almighty amount of volume, twice the speed of how they'd done it before, and said 'this is IT! come ON!" he was really aggravated. that was the version they ended up using."

as regretful as it may seem now, the beatles' split in 1970 was acrimonious, and many observers attribute the break-up to having started during sessions for The Beatles. to a man, the staff working with the group inside Abbey Road confirm this. the sessions were becoming tangibly tense and fraught, and tempers were being lost more easily and more frequently than ever before. it should be stressed that not all sessions were conducted in this atmosphere, but certainly a good many were. and they would continue in this way until the end of the group."

sorry, that's unclear: the part i just quoted was takes 1-12 of the remake - as tim mentioned, they started with session players on previous days, and then ditched those before starting the remake.

Was Nicky Hopkins one of the session men?

I don't think so; I believe the only Beatles session Hopkins played on was "Revolution" (the single/b-side version).

The best version of Revolution is the TV performance

Great version yeah, although i always thought they were miming to a backing track on that but maybe singing live. Maybe it's all live though i dunno.

Like the "Hey Jude" from the same show, they're singing live, but miming playing.

Yeah, but the extra vocals add just that special somethin imo

I agree, the "shoobeedoobee" etc. is a great addition, and Paul really goes for it with his "alright!"s near the end.

The « shoobeedooha » are on the album version too but yeah that « live » version is fantastic, dirty, loud, exciting and indeed Paul is awesome on it. One of their greatest moments imo.

Proving it was possible to shoot a great performance of the band at Twickenham !

Now I’m wondering if there’s a mix of that version that includes Paul and George’s backing vocals.

(a studio mix, I mean)

is I Want You/She's So Heavy a Zeppelin pastiche (Dazed and Confused, How Many More Times etc.)?

always wondered about/suspected something like that

hum. interesting. I always thought it was influenced by Santana and like Deep Purple.
But LZ would make sense too.

They absolutely succeeded at recording a long song

Ha, exactly

it's not just that it's long - the riff at the end is sort of an ascending inversion of the descending Dazed and Confused riff, and has the same general tempo/rhythm.

Dazed and Confused also flirts with tedium

haha yeah it is uh not my favorite Zep tune

I'm not sure how aware the Beatles would have been of Santana during the AR sessions, as Santana really wasn't known much outside of California until Woodstock and the release of their first album in August '69, which was when--after several months of work--the finishing touches were being put on "I Want You".

The verse part does have a bit of a Black Magic Woman groove, would they have been listening to early Fleetwood Mac?

John Paul Jones and Page were such insider London studio dudes I'm sure the Beatles would have known them

They surely knew The Yardbirds

They were definitely listening to Fleetwood Mac--"Sun King" was a particular nod to "Albatross".

who is playing organ on this I Want You/She's So Heavy outtake anyway? Is that Preston? cuz that playing is p wild.

Yep, Billy's on that and on "Something." Weirdly, he's not credited on the sleeve.

I mean, they co-credited him on a single -- the only non-Beatle to get that treatment -- but didn't list him in the thank-yous on Abbey Road...?

https://youtu.be/L1zQDMizcKw

Thanks for confirming that was Preston, was wondering the same thing this morning. That outtake version is so killer with the organ.

There's a story that has George asking Bonham why Zep never did ballads, and Page is said to have written Rain Song is response, with the opening a nod to "Something"

That outtake version is so killer with the organ.

it's definitely the most striking/interesting of the outtakes, a no-brainer to make it the opener

organ playing also reminded me of JPJ tbh. It's definitely not the way Paul, John or George played organ.

John Lennon on Led Zeppelin

Q: “Do you think in terms of feelings? Do you think of music, popular music, in terms of emotional reaction as opposed to saying something…”
JOHN: “I think in any of those terms. You know, I just think it’s either something I like or don’t like or it’s heavy or it’s light. I like heavy music, I call it rock. I like Zeppelin, I’ve only heard a couple you know, they’re okay.

Lennon said this about them :
“I don’t really know much of what they’re about. But one thing’s for sure, Jimmy Page is a bloody good guitarist”.

it's definitely the most striking/interesting of the outtakes, a no-brainer to make it the opener

I've only got the 2xCD version, where it lands closer to the middle, but still definitely my favorite of the outtakes I've heard.

I thought it was the of the outtakes in the tracklisting? idk

I'm not sure how aware the Beatles would have been of Santana during the AR sessions, as Santana really wasn't known much outside of California until Woodstock and the release of their first album in August '69, which was when--after several months of work--the finishing touches were being put on "I Want You".

Ah yeah, thanks, I had never compared the dates. So "I Want You" is definitely not inspired by Santana then !