Thursday, July 9, 2009

Quadruple fantasy

Let's play along with David L. Ulin's "The Beatles, 1970–1975," in the Believer's 2009 music issue (just out—get yours here or at your favorite store...be forewarned, these sell out!):

The Beatles are the fascination that lingers. I’ve been listening to them since August 1968, when my parents gave me Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band for my seventh birthday, the original Capitol Records pressing with the souvenir cutouts, the paper mustache, the epaulettes. It takes a certain type of fan to obsess about such things, and once upon a time that’s who I was. Obsessive enough to track down every recording John ever played on, every song he and Paul wrote for Cilla Black or Peter & Gordon, every Teddy Boy bootleg: Hamburg, The Decca Sessions, This Is the Savage Young Beatles, with its garish yellow cover, the band clustered in their leathers, looking not quite dangerous enough to be a street gang, not quite polished enough to be the pop phenomenon they became.

This is one version of the fantasy Beatles, the early Beatles, the tough-guy rock-and-rollers, the amphetamine-eating wild boys who played eight hours a night in the Star Club, John with a toilet seat around his neck. This is the prehistory, vague and filmy, glimpsed in black-and-white photographs and fragmentary sound clips: the chime of a guitar, three seconds of harmony that seem almost familiar, prescient, like a sign of times to come. We almost feel as if we know them, as if these are the kids in high school who went on to sign a record deal. They appear to be accessible to us on human terms; as John told Jann Wenner in 1970, “We were just a band who made it very, very big, that’s all.”

Of course, the Beatles have never been accessible to us on human terms, at least not in America; they were famous from the moment we met them, Beatlemania 1964. Still, those early images and bootlegs suggest an alternate history, a way we might remake them as our own.

The Beatles don’t have to be the band that took the world by storm. Or maybe they are, but didn’t fall apart; maybe Abbey Road or Let It Be—depending on your dissolution myth—doesn’t have to be the final word. This is the other version of the fantasy Beatles, equally shadowy and indistinct. What if they had stayed together and made records until John decided to become a househusband in 1975? It’s not entirely out of the question: by the mid-1970s, John and Paul had come to an accommodation. They were together the night Lorne Michaels jokingly offered the Beatles three thousand dollars to appear on Saturday Night Live; it’s said they considered showing up at NBC. A few years earlier, on March 31, 1974, they even reunited for an evening in a Los Angeles recording studio, along with Stevie Wonder, Harry Nilsson, Jesse Ed Davis, and Bobby Keys; the resulting booze- and coke-addled session, featuring standards like “Cupid” and “Stand By Me,” is available on a bootleg called A Toot and a Snore in ’74. It isn’t much to listen to, except for when those harmonies kick in. Here we have the nature of pop stardom—to be a mirror for the audience’s desire.

So why not play a game of let’s imagine? If the Beatles hadn’t broken up, what would their 1970s albums have sounded like?

You'll have to get the issue to read the rest of the piece, but in the meantime: How would you assemble your fantasy-team splintered–Fab Four albums?


Read entire post

Friday, June 19, 2009

You Say it's Your Birthday (Or Was Yesterday)?; or, How the Beatles May or May Not Have Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll

Again showing our contrarian streak, we thought we'd differentiate ourselves from everyone who wished "Sir" "James" Paul McCartney (jus' Paul to us) a happy birthday yesterday — which, true enough, was his actual date of birth, but isn't it always nice to get something the day after too? (Or is that Christmas?)

[MORE]

Sorry for the miss, Paul — but you and we are like an old married couple, and one of us is bound to blank on an anniversary once in a while.

Beatleheads may celebrate Paul's lifespan and selfishly luxuriate in his giftings over at 30 Days Out, which has agglomerated an amazing list of McCartney song covers from the likes of Foo Fighters, Wilson Pickett, the Ron Eschete Ensemble, Elvis Presley, the Heptones, and Daffy Duck (?!). What other artist could unite in common celebration such a motley crew (a band also represented on the covers list)? In the words of English theologian Robert South (1634-1716), “If there be any truer measure of a man than by what he does, it must be by what he gives.”

Less importantly, you can read my modest weigh-in on Elijah Wald's How the Beatles Destroyed Rock ’n’ Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music at Bookforum. Retract your fangs, gang: Wald counts himself a fan of the Fabs, especially their early, rootsy work. The problems lie elsewhere ...


Read entire post

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Hmmm...


Read entire post

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

"Hullabaloo Salute to RUBBER SOUL"

A medley of Beatles medleys at Bedazzled.


Read entire post

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

"How the Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll"...

...is the provocative title of a new book spied by Ed this morning via the Very Short List. The book's not out yet, so I'll quote VSL as to its premise: "When the Beatles became 'purely a recording group,' author Elijah Wald writes, 'they pointed toward a future in which there need be no unifying styles . . . bands can play what they like . . . and we can choose what to listen to in the privacy of our clubs, our homes, or, finally, our heads. Whether that was liberating or limiting is a matter of opinion and perception, but the whole idea of popular music had changed.'

Well. Interesting idea, and true as far as it goes. But given that the music business is a BUSINESS, I suspect the real reason behind such shifts isn't artist-driven, but commercial. The biz changed when it was discovered that offering more product, each with a smaller audience (and some overlapping), made you more money than one big unifying product. You have the studios, the mixing equipment, the presses--every minute you own them, they lose value. The more you keep them occupied, the less they cost to carry. And this diversification allows you to play margin games like 2 for 5 each instead of 1 for 7...

We've seen it happen in books (paperbacks), magazines (niching), TV (cable), even radio (AM, FM, sat, digital). No reason music should be any different. To the degree that movies aren't like this, has to do with how you must consume them--in a theater, with others, like a dance hall--but the DVDization of the studios' backlists is creating the same model there.

And just to stick up for our guys, who the hell ever danced to a Bob Dylan song? If you're gonna put a start date somewhere, why not with him? Unless taking on The Beatles near the annual celebration of Sgt. Pepper would get the book more attention, which is the key when you have a fantastically crowded marketplace--which brings me back to where I started.

The really interesting question is, given our hopelessly fragmented mediaculture, what would happen if an album of the stature of Sgt. Pepper was released today? I've heard OK Computer mentioned in the same breath...and you know what? I have it, and have listened to it once. I have too much to listen to already. One of the unintended side effects of this model is less attachment to any one artist/group--which weakens one's affection in general. Fans of The New Yorker will read at least one magazine every week; fans of magazines may not. When fandom is based on love of the FORM--being a "music geek" or a "comic geek"--I suspect the businesses are trading a current, temporary increase in profits (the obsession of one cohort) for long-term stability (a durable place in the culture). And that's how a media company becomes GM.


Read entire post

Friday, May 29, 2009

The hardest button


Provenance, anyone?


Read entire post

Sunday, May 10, 2009

First bass


Summer reading for Dullbloggers? Stuart Sutcliffe: A Retrospective is available at Book Soup in L.A.


Read entire post

Thursday, April 30, 2009

Michael Caine

One of the few people as cool as The Beatles (is that heresy?) talks to New York about the Sixties, with a brief mention of our guys. An interesting nugget: "The sixties wasn’t drugs, you see. What ended the sixties was drugs."


Read entire post

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Eric Idle's comments at George's ceremony

Just in case anybody missed it, here are Eric Idle's one-liner freckled remarks at the ceremony last week unveiling George's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.


Read entire post

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Happy Passover, Tatellehs and Mommellahs

Kosher Butchers?

And oy, what a mitzvah to be reminded of this! (Thanks to Mickey Trester for the link.)


Read entire post

Friday, April 3, 2009

In Remembrance of George McIndoe (? - ?)


Written in November 2002, cut from the "Magic Circles" discography:

The Star-Club material has been reshuffled and reissued in a variety of forms over the years, none odder than that of 1962 Live at Star Club in Hamburg, issued in 2000 on the Walters label. Two dozen of the Star-Club songs (including most of the finest, and in the best available sound) are packaged with a booklet of notes authored by someone calling himself Gary Michael Walters — [MORE] — an individual whose bona fides are never offered, but for whom the label is presumably named. The first hint something might be a bit, er, off is that the Beatles’ name is printed just once on the outer box, in tiny lettering. Clearly Walters means to trade on the Star-Club legend without incurring the legal wrath of the Beatles’ protectors.

Go inside the box, and you find a little dream world. In his notes, Walters tells of one George McIndoe, “a vagabond child of the sixties” whose travels took him to early ‘60s Hamburg just in time to listen to, meet, and become a close ally of the Beatles. Those of cynical bent might wonder why there are no pictures of McIndoe then or now, or direct quotes from the man himself; or why, although he supposedly took many pictures of the Beatles with “his trusty Leika camera,” the booklet reproduces none of them — only a few of the more familiar Hamburg shots by Jurgen Vollmer and Astrid Kirchherr.

Walters goes on to claim that it was McIndoe, not the legendary King Size Taylor or the more recently-rumored Adrian Barber, who hit “Record” on these performances. This bold bit of invention is then filled out by Walters’ interview with a fellow named Tom Larkin. Larkin counts himself an intimate of the mysterious McIndoe, claiming the latter told him of the existence of these recordings in 1993. Larkin didn’t elect to release them until 1997, when he met our modest chronicler Gary Michael Walters, whom he knew “would treat these historic tapes with the respect they deserved.” (On the basis of what? Who is he?) The fictitious McIndoe saga and Larkin revelations are followed by a set of song lyrics — some accurate, some clearly transcribed by an auditor for whom English is not the first, or any, language. (The opening stanza of Tommy Roe’s “Sheila” looks like this: “She’s little, she’s my own Sheila/ You’re the only tailed/ It’s so long just to just make you my own/ How can I send the love this while.”)

It is all most bizarre. “I’m sure this will be an exciting project,” Larkin is quoted in regard to the history-making Star-Club release. Indeed it was — back in 1977, when it actually happened. Gary Michael Walters, whoever he is or is not, has managed to construct a fantasy in a box and market it through major outlets. This incomprehensible item with its whole-cloth rewrite of history is available at Amazon.com this very moment, accompanied by several customer reviews — only one of which points out the bogus nature of the whole enterprise. Only one? Walters may already have succeeded at writing himself into Beatle history.

You don’t know whether to say “Whatta noive” or “More power to you.” Either way, what do we have here but more mything in action?

Postscript, 2009: This item is still listed at Amazon, now long out of print but easily obtainable. And a couple more reviewers take care to puncture the Walters-McIndoe-Larkin ruse, with one clever Dick suggesting “George McIndoe” as a take-off from “John Doe.” (Any anagramologists out there willing to take a crack at these names?)

“’Ere’s to you, Georgie.”


Read entire post

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Tell Me What You See






Read entire post

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Change your head


Probably more enterprising net-cruisers than I already know the British website Sleeveface, which since early 2006 has been making a small, pleasant fuss on the Internet, and latterly in the British press. (According to Wiki, the concept originated, according to the BBC, in Cardiff, Wales, according to a guy who lives in Cardiff.)

Anyway, click on over: Beatles entries are surprisingly few (in fact, precisely zero — not many big faces and shoulders on their LP jackets), but there are a couple of solo Ringos, a handful of John & Yokos, and a ton of others you'll want to download, print out, and send round as birthday cards.


Read entire post

Monday, March 16, 2009

Live and Let Pooh







This just begs for a funny caption

The following was spotted recently in the liner notes of Peter, Paul & Mary's LP See What Tomorrow Brings, released December 1965, simultaneous with Rubber Soul. The notes spend needless time defending PP&M for not being "hip" like Dylan, or "electric" like the Beatles; and then assuring us it doesn't matter cause they do their own thing anyway. Right on. You get to this:

Their message is the same as that of any artist through the centuries, a sermon of truth and beauty in the context of their times. And the fact that PP&M can appreciate the Rolling Stones or even the Beatles is added proof that PP&M are in touch with their times.

The Beatles, incidentally, call them Pizza, Pooh and Magpie. "Let's face it," Peter said one day, throwing his hands into the air as if he had a gun in his back. "Their magic is bigger than our magic." Maybe so, but it doesn't really make any difference. PP&M aren't failing at being the Beatles, they're succeeding at being PP&M. Every album they've cut so far has hit the top of the charts and this album is going to do the same. Whatever magic the Beatles have, it hasn't detracted from the magic of PP&M.


"Pizza, Pooh and Magpie"? That's gotta be John. Peter is no less lovable for his objective assessment of relative magics.

P.S. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Yarrow some years ago, at a church gymnasium in New Jersey, long story, and he was every bit the superannuated folkie, every bit the non-phony.


Read entire post

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Ringo singing at a party?


Help me, Dullbloggers, you're my only hope...I was speaking to someone last week who was at a party in the Seventies with Ringo Starr which devolved into a singalong. I seem to recall there being a Beatleg out there with Ringo, George, and a bunch of partygoers warbling "Yellow Submarine." Does anybody else remember that as well? I thought the track was on Artifacts III, but I looked on Bootlegzone and didn't see it. Did I dream it?

At this same event, I was introduced to Peter Fonda who said he knew what it's like to be dead looked just like he did in "Easy Rider." (No, I wasn't drinking, the guy just looks great.) When he heard I was working on a comic novel based on Lennon and The Beatles, he smiled and said, "Don't forget about George Harrison." The wry way he said it made me want to grab his lapels. "All right, Fonda--we're not leaving until you tell me everything." Nearly every time I've talked to somebody who knew an historical figure--Charlie Parker, for example, or John Belushi--they've told me things a million times more interesting (and insightful) than the official version. But not wanting to imperil my wife's career, I simply nodded and said I'd do my best.


Read entire post

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

"Revolution 1" In The Head

If only you were here to tell us ...

Mike asked what I thought of the “Revolution 1” Take 20 RM1, so called, that's been burning up Beatleland. I was going to respond with a quick, glib shrug of the shoulders. Then I started listening and got dug in on the thing, and modestly thought a separate post was warranted. These are my findings.

[MORE]

I’ve been loving and chewing on this piece of mystery meat since the weekend, and at first assumed it was genuine. Why not: remember the stripped-down masters of those four Sgt. Pepper songs that appeared almost a year ago? Those were just as crisply digitized, just as thrillingly intimate in their four-track nudity, and no one has credibly claimed they are not genuine. So I figured it was more than plausible that this equally real-sounding outtake came from the same place.

The question of fakery, frankly, didn’t occur to me — until today when Professor Ben and Policeman Mike weighed in. And they got me wondering, doubting and wondering. So I’ve spent the last couple of hours listening again, through headphones, to a FLAC (lossless, uncompressed) version of this “discovered” Take 20 RM1, and reviewing Disc 2 of From Kinfauns to Chaos, which contains Yoko’s personal recording (with her own unwelcome audio commentary) of the Beatles’ studio session of June 4, 1968, in which the Take 18 of May 30 was overdubbed and mixed to create Take 20 — supposedly the very recording we now have before us.

This is only the second time I’ve ever listened to the Kinfauns disc. In the early going, Tracks 1, 2, and 8 are the most instructive to hear, with the most substantial excerpts from the uncut, undubbed “Revolution 1.” Annoyingly, Yoko is talking over the top of the music, whispering into her cassette recorder as mixing and discussion is heard in the background. (In some passages, the Beatles are heard attempting vocal, guitar, or organ overdubs, or jamming — often hitting on a theme that resembles “Watching Rainbows” from the Get Back sessions). But tuning out Yoko’s talk, we can hear enough of the original Take 20 to make some fair surmises.

The studio chatter at top and bottom is definitely genuine, and to my knowledge has not been bootlegged before.

Near the end of the “new” RM1 (about 9:40), Yoko mutters, “Maybe — it’s not that”— followed by what sounds like a “dirty” George Harrison saying, “It is that!” This is on the Kinfauns disc and is therefore genuine. “It is that” and the whole “suite” of audio muck, static, mumbling, radio song and Yoko maunder from the end of “Revolution 9” is there — my guess is she and John recorded this at home and brought it in, fully intending to add it to the track. But this stuff has never come out except in the Kinfauns low-tech, chat-cluttered, off-line, monitor-mix version. Where did the “fakers” get hold of what sounds like the pristine original?

Lewisohn records that John took away “a rough mono remix” of take 20 at the end of the day, which the EW.com report linked by Ed speculates might be the source of the leak. But what we’re hearing is too digital and fine to have come from that long-ago source, which would have been fairly low-fi to begin with.

I’d never realized that the low rhythmic mutter under Yoko near the close of “Revolution 9” is John muttering, “gonna be all right.”

Many of the sounds — John’s increasingly frenzied series of Right’s, and his grunting, “stabbing” sounds — are likewise familiar from “9,” but here they are stripped down and isolated — could ProTools have removed so much of the audio mess? I don’t know enough about ProTools to know, but I've heard other products of that editing system and there is almost always the faintest “ghost” of the suppressed tracks lurking in the background. None of that here.

My own largest doubts centered around the most prominent and consistent of the aural additions: the air-raid siren effect, probably from guitar feedback, repeated at intervals; and what’s been identified as a Beach Boys-styled “mama-dada” vocal refrain in the long freak-out ending. Though he does mention “plenty of feedback” on the original Take 18, Lewisohn (in The Beatles Recording Sessions) says nothing about the siren effect or backing vocals being added later, despite their seeming too deliberate and unusual to have gone unnoted. And Mike is right, the voices don’t sound exactly like the Beatle falsettos we know. They could quite easily have been dubbed on by fakers with some ability as musical mimics. It’s been known to happen.

So towards the end of Kinfauns to Chaos, I was pretty much decided that, while there were some genuinely novel noise nuggets rolling around here, the whole was probably faked by persons unidentified, using known bits, unknown bits, and self-recorded hugger-mugger to make a Beatley stew of plausible ’68 flavor. But the thing is great to listen to, and tantalizing even in its pseudoness: clearly much of it is authentic, and authentically unheard — why would the fakers phony up something real? Just couldn’t keep their grimy mitts off the past? (I know the feeling.)

But then I hit Track 17 of Kinfauns. And within minutes was convinced that the Take 20 RM1 we are now hearing is the genuine article.

Exhibit A. In amongst a lot of talk and laughter between the Beatles, Martin, and their engineers, a blast of that air-raid siren blares through — not once but twice, each time for several sustained seconds. It’s an effect we recall from “Revolution 9,” where it was used just once, and it sounds like it could have been drawn, by the Beatles or by the fakers, from this source. But apparently it is being replayed here on June 4 in appraisal for inclusion as an aspect of the aural tapestry. Yoko seems to think so: right after the second blast, she whispers, “John made a beautiful, uh, loop … and he’s throwing that in to ‘Revolution.’”

But then, I heard something that literally made me jump in my seat. I felt like Indiana Jones discovering — something.

Right after the second siren, John, George Martin and a few others are talking in studio code about how to mix the track. One of the engineers says to John, “So listen, you don’t want these voices flanged [given a phased, wavering sound] always, up here?”

And John replies, “Yeah, the new—just the ones that go—[in falsetto] ‘Mommy-Daddy, Mommy-Daddy.’"

“Right,” the engineer says, “they come in towards the end anyway.”

So there you go.

This stretch of conference overlaps into Kinfauns Track 18, in which we hear John’s “Take your knickers off” and all the start-up talk and slate announcement heading into RM1. The song begins again, Yoko resumes her blab, the siren whines in and out as a new, deliberate effect (!), and Yoko shuts off her tape recorder at 2:22. End of disc. We’ll never know if what was heard in Abbey Road that night is what we’re hearing now, but I would guess it is.

Now people, if everything we hear on the Kinfauns disc is true, and yet the new RM1 is still a phony, then the fan-created outfake has definitely entered its next generation and we should all be careful: geeks with ProTools could make CIA tape-doctors look like poltroons. (Only, what if the Yoko tape is itself a fake — misinformation seeded a decade ago to fool us into accepting this new fake as the real deal? Diabolical!)

False or true, there is enough reality in this RM1 to make a categorical “fake” conclusion insupportable. Either way, the thing is exciting: Lewisohn calls the original “Revolution 1” “riveting,” and if nothing else this recording fulfills that description, far more than the rather dreary, foreshortened White Album version we know. At least until it is debunked by McCartney, Starr, Martin, Lewisohn, or some other unassailable authority, we have before us, as a newfound object, a Beatle mystery close to the magnitude of “The Candle Burns” and other primitive fake jobs.

Except that unlike “Candle,” I’m convinced this one’s for real.

P.S. “they sound like their on xanax” says Charley Rogulewski.


Read entire post

Monday, February 23, 2009

10-minute "Revolution"

Dullblog scout Eric brought this find to our attention—from EW's Popwatch:

Over the past couple of days, Beatles fanatics have been chattering about an amazing outtake that recently leaked onto the Internet. The 10-minute-plus recording of "Revolution" (embedded below) offers a fascinating look at the wildly ambitious plans the band originally had for the song, eventually included in much shorter form on The White Album. "As someone who's heard, I'd say, 99.8 percent of the Beatles music that has leaked onto bootleg, this is really interesting," says Richie Unterberger, author of the book The Unreleased Beatles....

(Listen below...I'm getting the chills....??!)


Read entire post

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

It happened in Toronto

"When is a shaky, under-rehearsed performance even better than a polished, high-octane explosion by an artist who is beyond iconic? When it's September 13, 1969, and John Lennon finds himself in the unenviable position of having to follow Little Richard at the Toronto Peace Festival." [MORE]" Big-time rock & roll fan John Lennon had been invited simply to host the show, but then at almost literally the last minute he decided to play it, and rounded up a few heavy friends — Eric Clapton, Klaus Voorman, future Yes drummer Alan White and Yoko Ono — to play as the Plastic Ono Band. Only thing was, that upset the billing – now Little Richard would have to play before Lennon. His gloriously massive ego wounded, Richard had to scorch the earth before the bounteously bearded Beatle, who had copped so much from Little Richard (among others) and gained copious honors, power, riches, fame, and the love of women in the process." —Read all of "The Lennons V. Little Richard in Toronto, '69" by Michael Azerrad

(From Thomas B.)


Read entire post

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

But who knows where or when


Reach into cyberspace and you'd swear you have a magnet hand: things just fly into your palm. Like this great shot of two of our best boys in full gorgeous sweat. It just came to me off a Spanish website and bears the legend, Lennon e McCartney em seus melhores momentos. I've never seen the picture before and cannot place its provenance. I therefore pose a puzzle: can anyone devise a plausible guess, from the minimal evidence, as to when, where, and what occasion in the midst of which this was taken? Look at the hair length, the clothing styles, those unfamiliar guitars ... Is it Abbey Road, a club, or some unrecorded elsewhere? Who's the cat in the shades half-hidden in the rear? My guess is circa 1965, but beyond that, I'm flammisched.

Imagine the truth — but imagine it well!


Read entire post

Sunday, February 8, 2009

9:57 p.m. | Ladies and Gentlemen, The Beatle! Paul McCartney performs “I Saw Her Standing There” with Dave Grohl.

Jon: Glad Paul is doing “I Saw Her Standing There” - I was afraid he’d be dour.
Dave: He was always the “Clean Up After a Legendary Rap Performance” Beatle.
Jon: Many legendary nights with Rakim in the late 80s. But Dave Grohl: what does he signify? He’s Zelig. His career is one long episode of “Punk’d.” No one on the corner has swagger like Paul.


NYT liveblogs the Grammies


Read entire post

Friday, January 30, 2009

Killing Joke

Did anybody else see McCartney on The Colbert Report Wednesday night? It was a pretaped interview, and it was...uncomfortable. At least, I thought so -- what do you think?



Why so prickly, Sir Paul? Where's that sense of humor? And why is the editing so choppy? At first it seemed so disjointed I thought maybe it was a spoof interview -- either they were matching answers with different questions (as they sometimes do on these humorous TV programs), or perhaps -- given the constant cuts from close-up to close-up -- Colbert had never really interviewed him at all. But there were moments when McCartney was clearly answering the question asked. And -- aside from the smile he flashed at the end -- he seemed really unhappy to be there.

Not until the end does it become clear that this appearance is part of the publicity push for his new "The Fireman" album. I've been perplexed by this whole thing, because wasn't the original point of recording as "The Fireman" to keep it on the down-low? I remember when the first Fireman album was released, 15 years ago (egad!). I was a young teen and a new Beatlemaniac, and somehow I found out about it -- probably from Rolling Stone. I had seen it listed on the "coming soon" board at The Wall, the music store in our local shopping mall. So as soon as it was released I got a ride to the mall and went looking for The Fireman. I couldn't find it -- I had no idea what category to look under -- so I had to ask the clerk at the counter for help. He was, let's say, a college student, which to me, at 13, was about as cool as it gets. I figured, since he worked in The Wall and everything, he must know all about important things like Paul McCartney side projects. But when I told him what I was looking for, he shook his head. "Never heard of it." "But it was listed on your 'coming soon' board last month!" I insisted. So he looked it up and led me to the section where it would be, and when he found it on the rack he exclaimed, "Fuck me! We do have it." I felt very grown up, I must say, being casually cursed at by someone who worked at The Wall, and spending my hard-earned babysitting money on this obscure CD.

So that was a formative experience. It made a bigger impression on me than the music, honestly, which I seldom play (and then usually as background music for studying). But the point is, the album was hardly advertised, and it was difficult to find out that Paul was involved, and it had a minimalist album cover and a really long name that was difficult to remember past "Strawberries." It seemed to be going out of its way not to be noticed. So I didn't know what to make of it when I started seeing ads on television for the follow-up album. Is Macca plugging this album vigorously against his will (I would say "against his better judgment," but I'm pretty sure he lost that long ago)? Does that explain his impatience with Colbert's questioning? Or is he just defensive because he's not familiar with Colbert's shtick but he has a vague sense he's the butt of a joke? The "Ebony and Ivory" duet is pretty good, but on the whole I think I'd rather see Colbert talk to Ringo.


Read entire post

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Run it up your mast



George Harrison on Eric Idle's Rutland Weekend Television.

(Via VSL)


Read entire post

Middle eight

The Beatles’ music was always wonderful, but at a certain point it became something more than entertainment; at what point did you know that the work you were doing was important?
It’s difficult to discuss this without sounding immodest, but I think I started to feel it around the time of “Eleanor Rigby.” Prior to that, I thought the music was very good, and I realized we were in a different league when we wrote “From Me To You,” because it had a middle eight in it and went somewhere we hadn’t been before, but you used the word “important.” For me, “Eleanor Rigby” was the start of that.

LA Weekly


Read entire post

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Mete the Beatls





Read entire post

Monday, January 5, 2009

Every little thing

"Some weeks ago, NRK - Norwegian Broadcasting - signed a deal with music rights holder organisation TONO in Norway. The new deal gives NRK right to publish podcasts of all previously broadcasted radio- and tv-programs that contains less then 70% music. Podcast containing music may be up for four weeks, while our podcast without music stay up on our server forever. One result of this deal, is that we now can publish 'Vår daglige Beatles' - 'Our Daily Beatles' in English - as a podcast..." [MORE] "In this series from 2001, journalists Finn Tokvam og Bård Ose tells the story of every single Beatles tracks ever made, chronologically. Each episode contains a 3 minute story about each track (sadly for our international visitors - in Norwegian) and the actual Beatles tune. This is - as far as we know - the first time you can download the Beatles’ music legally. Neither iTunes nor Amazon have The Beatles in their music stores."

Last ned alt av “The Beatles” - og historien om hver enkelt låt

BoingBoing


Read entire post