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

Helpful posts, thanks!

Does Yoko really care that much about Paul not getting avant-garde credit though?

I assume the major issue going back ages is that it just isn't very good or memorable or interesting. The name "Carnival of Light" has probably gone a long way in making it sound transcendently cool and mind-blowing. If it was called "Collage Tape" or "[untitled mix for event]" I can't imagine the fan interest would be QUITE as great.

I doubt she would really care or worry about Paul stealing the avant-garde spotlight. I've always had the sneaking suspicion that Carnival ventures much more into the "this is not even Revolution 9 quality, this is laughable" territory.

Does Yoko really care that much about Paul not getting avant-garde credit though?

Hard to say. The irony is that Paul knew, or at least knew about, Yoko before she and John met, and he may have suggested to John that he check out her art show. Since John's image in the Beatles is, to a degree, tied to him as "the avant-garde one," I wouldn't be too surprised if Yoko continued trying to maintain that perception. Not that she'd be holding the track back out of malice towards Paul or anything, but the release of a long-lost avant-garde Beatles track largely arranged and guided by Paul that predates "Revolution 9" by over a year would obviously get a lot of attention, and would no doubt result in innumerable think pieces about, "Wait, Was Paul Really The Avant-Garde One?" Also, Yoko had significant input into "Revolution 9," so a release of an earlier not-entirely-dissimilar track would show that the Beatles had been into the "avant-garde" prior to her and John's relationship, which flies in the face of several narratives about the Beatles and her impact on their work.

But it's less about Yoko not wanting Paul to be associated with the avant-garde and more about Paul wanting to firmly establish that HE was The Avant-Garde One, effectively nudging Yoko out of the picture in that regard. Paul's indifference towards "Revolution 9" has been presented as everything from "eek, it's scary! Our fans will hate it!" to "It's ok, but we can do something along those lines better," all of which comes from his jealousy of John and Yoko's relationship, and maybe of Yoko's work itself. That is, instead of Paul being the one to lead the other Beatles to various avant-garde artists and approaches, John brought in a real-life long-established avant-garde musician who could handily usurp Paul's authority in that area.

And maybe the Get Back project was, to some degree, Paul's way of saying, "I'm going to lead us in this back-to-basics rock 'n' roll approach that Yoko can't challenge me on." "Back to our roots" also meant "back before John and Yoko met." Of course, as it happened, the highlight of those sessions was the Yoko + feedback segment.

And then, if the critical reception after hearing it is more naysaying "this is not even Revolution 9 quality, this is laughable" that's not good.

I mean, if someone is going to frame it that way (as "not even Revolution 9 quality"), their opinion wouldn't be worth much. I know Mark Lewisohn says he didn't think much of it but a) I'm not very interested in his judgment as a music critic and b) how many times did he even hear it? Once?

This isn't to build Carnival of Light up – I very much doubt it's as fully realised as Revolution 9 – but surely by this point Apple and the remaining Beatles and widows are aware that releases from the archives are a matter of historical interest, not of impressing rock critics.

Why George Harrison vetoed it for Anthology does interest me - whether it was just his opinion of its quality, or something else more interpersonal. I'm rewatching the Anthology doc at the moment and it is kind of hilarious how offhand his stance is through much of the interviews.

The irony is that Paul knew, or at least knew about, Yoko before she and John met, and he may have suggested to John that he check out her art show. Since John's image in the Beatles is, to a degree, tied to him as "the avant-garde one," I wouldn't be too surprised if Yoko continued trying to maintain that perception. ...the release of a long-lost avant-garde Beatles track largely arranged and guided by Paul that predates "Revolution 9" by over a year would obviously get a lot of attention, and would no doubt result in innumerable think pieces about, "Wait, Was Paul Really The Avant-Garde One?"

the thing is that most beatles obsessives (that is, people who listen to and like Revolution #9 and know what Carnival of Light is) already know this

I would assume the Anthology veto would have also had to do with the track's length. The CDs were pretty well maxed out, right? I guess they could've made it a B-side to Real Love.

the thing is that most beatles obsessives (that is, people who listen to and like Revolution #9 and know what Carnival of Light is) already know this


Certainly many Beatle obsessives know that, but “Beatle obsessives” covers maybe 15% (and that’s probably overstating it) of Beatles fans. Anecdotally, I’ve mentioned Paul’s interest in Ayler, Stockhausen, and AMM to several Beatle obsessive friends over the years (who also love those artists), all of whom had no idea, and some of whom thought I made it up.

iirc, a shortened/edited “Carnival” was proposed for Anthology 2 due to space restrictions (similarly, the decidedly-less-than-27-minutes “Helter Skelter” on Anthology 3). Hell, even “Christmas Time Is Here Again” was edited on whatever CD single it appeared on.

xp

I'm rewatching the Anthology doc at the moment and it is kind of hilarious how offhand his stance is through much of the interviews.

He didn’t really want to do the Anthology, but didn’t have much choice after his business manager screwed him out of millions and left him on the verge of bankruptcy (and he was the replacement for Allen Klein).

He seems hot-and-cold in Anthology; he’s positively beaming when talking about their early years, but after Revolver he talks about each record like it’s a chore. And I posted this elsewhere, but in the interviews where they’re all sitting around a table, as soon as Paul puts on his media-friendly persona, George gets this look on his face like, “Ugh, this fucking guy again…”

Confirmed then

I really hope you all like it…. X https://t.co/atcIg51nq9

— Giles Martin (@mashupmartin) August 28, 2022

It’s all going a bit immersive too…. pic.twitter.com/TnJuNXUoLu

— Giles Martin (@mashupmartin) August 28, 2022

yoko kremlinology itt is wild. given that i spent years meticulously compiling my own personal compilation of covers of every single beatles original released on a beatles record between 1962 and 1970, i'm kind of in the deep end of the pool when it comes to beatles fandom, but i genuinely can't imagine anybody involved with the creation of "carnival of light" giving that much thought to the piece. failure of imagination on my part, perhaps.

Has this been shared before? It's fab.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPiplYL897o

Nice

This has turned into today's rabbit-hole, just watched them do all of Pepper, but they're absolutely taking the piss with this one, amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ_TC-IU5d4

I like these guys, I appreciate their commitment to recreating the recordings as closely as possible.

I wish bands were scared of playing "Revolution #9" live.

These guys do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dCT4xPbWns

weren't scared.

Me neither

On the Analogues, torn between it's highly impressive at one level- but also what is the point?

I think the point comes across as the joy of playing the tunes to a crowd, with the added interest involved in picking the song's layers apart and figuring out how to render them, which is a thing that middle-aged musicians of a certain stripe often like to do.

And sure, that's niche and trainspotter-y and they have an eye for all the nuances, but I think the giveaway is that they're not dressing like them, affecting Liverpudlian accents, or using all the same instruments (apart from the strings/brass or Mellotron obv)

makes for a good live show? not a whole lot of appeal to watching on youtube beyond it being a little interesting to see how they manage to pull it off

using all the same instruments

i think they do actually make a point of being very accurate with their instruments

*shrugs* Well, I'd go see them do the middle period era live

I have enjoyed various busking Beatles tribute acts in NYC such as Street the Beat and more recently The Meetles (I think I missed my train listening to them play Macca’s “1985”) and maybe The Apple Scruffs as well, but not sure if I have the sitzfleisch for this type of thing. I did go to see Björn Again twice, but that’s a horse of a different color.

Ha, just came across this a second ago for some reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6TkQAh2wc

Tribute bands are kind of a fascinating phenomenon (distinction probably needs to be made between 'tribute act' and 'impersonator') particularly when they build up their own fanbase. There are myriad Beatles tribute bands who have; I'd add the Musical Box (the Gabriel-era Genesis band) in there too. I imagine these tribute acts to Stone Roses et al that I always encounter when I travel to the UK have their own followings. Would be interesting to read a book or at least a long piece that delves into the motivations of the bands, their fans, the care they take to recreate an experience, and some academic hoodoo about why this exemplifies 21st century malaise or something.

I would totally read that (I mostly intensely dislike these bands)

there's a big variety to the approaches these bands take, from slavish recreation (musical box, lots of beatles bands) to genre merging (Dred Zepplin, for instance; the Bay Area has birthed a lot of these). Stone Temple Peruvians is one I just encountered.

It’s not academic, but Steven Kurutz's Like A Rolling Stone: The Strange Life of A Tribute Band was entertaining, IIRC. It talks about tribute acts generally (i.e., acts where band members are inhabiting specific people like Mick Jagger, rather than simply covering the songs) and the author travels with two acts specifically. Goes into the day to day of it: what happens when one's Paul wants to be a George? If one's best Keith Richards (in terms of instrumental skill) doesn’t look the part? How does a tribute act remain “authentic” but still set themselves apart from the dozen other tributes doing the same act?

I'm interested in tribute bands who 'make' it enough to have a hit single in their own right - even if Björn Again and No Way Sis are the only examples coming to mind rn - because both times it relied on riding the crest of a big wave but also not actually covering the bands they're a tribute to

Now I want to start a tribute band called the Rolling Clones

O and as soon as I think that I see that it's been done, never mind

Dread Zeppelin was sorta their own thing, more than a tribute band I guess. They took it into Dr Demento territory. I remember being really stoned and hearing them for the first time. I don’t recall what song it was, but as it built up to the expected guitar solo there was a tuba instead. I hurt from laughing so hard.

A lot of Elvis tributes go out if their way to explain that they are not trying to be Elvis, as they could never etc.

Still, they go round the audience giving out silky scarves etc again...

new trailer up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd5WSqOJF7M

Taxman, too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdTzOUUZ8Vg

never thought of Taxman as a case for "more cowbell" tbh.

New mix seems adequate, and kind of pointless. There's a little more space around the instruments, but nothing as dramatic as the dust-removal of the 2018 white album mix, and it sounds a little glitchy at points in the left channel.

the stereo situation in the new mix is not hard-panned so yeah imo there's a point

sounds good if not revelatory

the stereo situation in the new mix is not hard-panned so yeah imo there's a point

Definitely sounds like a case of doing a "modern" stereo mix rather than the super-wide hard-panned mixes that were thrown together in the '60s. I never went back to the original stereo mixes after I got the mono mixes partly because the stereo mixes always sounded like they had gaping holes in the spread. It seemed to dilute and thin out everything. Not the case here, though I wish they backed off a bit on the compression and smoothed out the top end and upper mids.

just an aside but weirdly the most pointless beatles stereo remix so far is the one i like the most (abbey road)

I never went back to the original stereo mixes after I got the mono mixes partly because the stereo mixes always sounded like they had gaping holes in the spread.

This. I haven't listened to any stereo Beatles (with the exception of The Beatles' Second Album) since I got the mono CD box in 2009. I will say, though, that one -- possibly the only -- advantage to the 1966 "Taxman" stereo mix is that it's easier to hear whatever the fuck Paul's doing on bass in the bridge. It's flat-out bizarre.

I thought the same thing.

Been listening to these jokers for 40 years, and there are still new moments where Paul's bass just makes me smile and go wtf.

OMG still don’t know what is going on there

More details from RS: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/the-beatles-revolver-unheard-archives-sheffield-1234587264/

Especially excited to hear these Yellow Submarine songwriting tapes:

“Yellow Submarine” (Songwriting Work Tapes 1 & 2)
Brace yourself: Everything we thought we knew about “Yellow Submarine” is wrong. The whole world agrees on the standard origin story — a Paul ditty whipped up fast as an Uncle Ringo kiddie chant, something John grimly tolerated. But don’t be shocked if you catch yourself shedding a tear hearing John sing it. The chorus was Paul, but the verses started out as John in his sad confessional mode, with folkie guitar picking. He sings, “In the place where I was born/No one cared, no one cared/And the name that I was born/No one cared, no one cared.” The demo, on his home tape recorder, is a heart-wrenching childhood memory ballad, halfway between “Julia” and “Strawberry Fields Forever.”

“I had no idea until I started going through the outtakes,” Martin says. “This was a Lennon-McCartney thing. I said to Paul, ‘I always thought this was a song that you wrote and gave to Ringo and that John was like, ‘Oh, bloody “Yellow Submarine.”‘ Not at all. That’s like a Woody Guthrie song. But it’s beautiful in a way, where you realize that there’s so much depth behind it.” But still, what a drag to imagine a world without the Ringo version. “When you listen to the outtakes, even knowing the beauty of that John version, you know why Ringo ended up singing it,” Martin says. “And it was acutely, let’s face it, the right decision to make.”

I’ve just been to a playback of @thebeatles Revolver, which has been remixed and remastered by Giles Martin. And let me tell you, it sounds incredible.

Taxman slaps; Here There and Everywhere is a silken daydream; Tomorrow Never Knows sounds more audacious than ever. 🧵 [1/6]

— Mark Savage (@mrdiscopop) September 7, 2022