Stream a Little Dream

When I started playing guitar and joining bands it was pretty much the same route to follow if you were looking to make it (whatever that means!) You would learn to play, join a band hit the road and hope you’d be discovered, somehow. A lot like the story as told by Paul in the song Take It Away. Well, pretty soon you discover that ain’t gonna happen brother! You realise that making it is relative to what you consider success is. The Beatles success to a large extent was obscene. Let’s face it. With their type of success I’m surprised they stayed even remotely sane and as George quiped, they gave their nervous systems in the process! As I’ve said previously, the Beatles had a blank canvas to paint on and their success was perhaps slightly easier for them as they kicked down all the closed doors they found….like let’s turn up the bass (on paperback writer), let's have all night sessions (like on Pepper)….let's use this instrument, that orchestra ….in some respects the guys ended up kinda doing what they liked, whenever they liked and with that came creative freedom and therefore a certain ease and opportunity in which to break new ground. It was an evolution from eager and hungry school boys to lean athletes…well musically and professionally speaking anyway!….I wonder though if a band like the Beatles would have, or indeed could have broken through given the kind of constraints and pressure there are on bands, (nay, products) today? How many times have you said, there’ll never be another Beatles? Have you ever wondered why? How would they have cut through I wonder?
Today, the quality of your written product is not the point. Potential isn’t something that’s taken into the equation. No, today, bands have to be their own self contained label, production and management team waiting to be cherry picked by big companies. Bands have to work their own fan base through social networking sites. They have to be au fait with the My Space generation. They need to be able to communicate and fully understand the internet and its social integration with their demographic. To be able to understand who’s going to buy their tee shirts because one thing is for sure, no one is going to buy your music are they? No, it will be stolen. It’s just a fact of modern musical life. So, where the emphasis was once on the quality of your song writing its value is now less, because as a commodity, there is no real value in it on its own. Sure, as one part of a “whole”, it has some value but not like it was in the Beatles day. There are tens of thousands of bands out there all vying for success. Most of them won’t succeed. Sure, there was a lot of competition in the Beatles day too, but nowhere near as much as now. I’m sure that the Beatles would be worthy by any measurable standards here today and way beyond tomorrow, but I’m also sure that they couldn’t have made it in the same way. In some respects it’s partly because of the Beatles huge success and massive cultural impact, that bands don’t have the same kind of chances. There are still some huge acts out there, but none that cut the ice with such precision as the Beatles. Forty years up the line, the band is still under the microscope to an unnatural degree, such was their impact. Few, if any from today will be on the same slide. Which one of the Beatles would have nurtured their my space site searching for friends, uploading photographs and answering the mail I wonder? Which one of them would have said, lets just give the music away and concentrate on t shirt design? Would they have had the gigging opportunities that they did in order to develop as a live act? I’m not sure a place like Hamburg’s scene exists for a band anymore. Today, if that kind of place did exist, they would probably use a hard drive full of stolen files to fill an eight hour all-nighter – cheaper that way right?
I’m not saying that the band wouldn’t have made it, because I think they would have. Cream as they say, floats to the top. But, it’s doubtful if they’d have made it in the same way with the same sort of impact because the business is so over subscribed and is so much less important to what was its core audience – the record buying public.
The music industry to a large extent is in deep, deep trouble…well for now anyway, until it recovers and finds a new business model to adopt. To a large extent it only has itself to blame. In this day and age, most people see music as some kind of free commodity with little or no value, somehow only put here to entertain people for a few minutes at a time with no remuneration for the artists who trust me, still put their life, and soul into the creation process. Watch for example how the music business reacts to a new feature soon to be, if not already available on the Real Player – a function that allows the user to record the streams they listen to! All this going on whilst, kids in bedrooms up and down the country begin the journey of learning to play, (maybe) joining a band, learning how to record on a computer, (maybe) hitting the road and opening up a my space site, developing their websites, opening an online shop, designing their t-shirt, nurturing their fan base, understanding their demographic, meeting with their legal team and hoping to be discovered.

Rock 'n' Roll Music

Much like the moment in John Lennon’s life when he saw Elvis for the first time and thought “that’s a good job!”, the same could be said for me when I first saw The Beatles. As a youngster I was amazed that you could get paid to play a guitar and sing - in fact if truth to tell, I'm still pretty amazed you can get paid for it! Of course, it could be just my working class background coming into play because it didn’t seem to me to be a real job of work. However as I have subsequently found out, it is a real job of work and a challenging and at times difficult one at that. It is one of those jobs all too easily misread as glamorous and perhaps only for the work shy. With cries of “get a proper job” still reeling in my ears, I realised that even John had that problem. I had not the faintest idea at the beginning that I would still be playing the guitar and singing all these years up the line and for that I am truly thankful. It has definitely been a journey. Without trying to sound like some tortured and pretentious artist, there is almost a “calling” with music. It’s something you just can’t get out of your hair. It can and has got me out of my bed in the middle of the night to write something down before it’s forgotten – and that’s something Mrs Beatcomber appreciates a lot I can tell you! They are the times when I’ve asked myself, why do I still do this? ‘Cos you know, I’d kinda rather be sleeping right now…and then my head drifts to The Beatles. I have to say, they have never let me down in terms of inspiration. My Beatle discovery not only provided me with brilliant music to listen to over a lifetime, which is amazing enough, but they also unwittingly offered a route that I would follow in my career. Much as Elvis, Gene Vincent, Carl Perkins and Little Richard did for them. I was never involved in the music game to get famous though - I just wanted to write and record. I wanted to learn the craft of production and even to this day I look at how they did things with genuine amazement. I have a million tracks at my disposal and they had a mere four! Astonishing!
Isn’t it amazing that listening to something as inconsequential as a “band” at a certain period in your development can have such a profound effect on your life? I can say, hand on heart, that The Beatles are directly responsible for the route I followed - straight into the music industry. And with that, all of the great people I have met and the great experiences I have had.
One minute you are listening to She Loves You with your tennis racquet and hairbrush and the next you are on stage at the Cavern Club, Rickenbacker in hand, rocking your head off in front of 500 people squeezed ever so tightly together right in front of you! Those are memories I just wouldn’t be without. Being involved in music hasn’t been easy and, as I said, there have been lots of time where I have considered knocking it on the head…but one listen to The Beatles and the stubborn creative little fellow that lives in my soul dictates that I should carry on no matter what.

How have the Beatles influenced your decisions?

1973

There can be no doubt that the Beatles were diluted in the years following their break up. The sum of the four parts being stronger that the individuals as the cliche goes.

However, taking the best of the solo releases from the year 1973, it is possible to suggest that The Beatles would have released some of their strongest work. I think it may have been John who suggested that if we all can’t get over the split, then we could take a track from him, a track from Paul etc etc…So, going down that road we get a tantalising insight into what the band may have considered to be album worthy. In fact using this approach, it allows fans to second guess what may have been released in terms of new Beatle product throughout the Seventies, but for now 1973 seems to be a particularly strong year. Just for talking sake, The Beatles could easily have released two strong albums, taken in the James Bond theme and had a string of hit singles. No different in fact to when they were a functioning band really.

Look at these candidates as an example and they’re in no particular order:

My Love
Band on the Run
Jet
Bluebird
Let me Roll It
No Words
1985
Mind games
Out of the Blue
Tight A$
Intuition
One Day at a Time
Give Me Love (give Me Peace on earth)
Photograph
You’re Sixteen
Living In The Material World
I’m the Greatest
Oh My My
Try Some Buy Some
Live and Let Die

That gives out the following ratio: Paul with 8 songs, 6 John songs and 6 between George and Ringo. This seems to me to be similar to what you’d expect from them as the band and in fact it’s quite a strong show from George and Ringo.

Of course what that list doesn’t really do, is to demonstrate how they would have been inspired and cajoled by each other in the studio environment. Whilst I’m sure there was a competitive streak between them as solo artists, I’m sure there would have been that added dimension of “The Beatles” acting like a fifth member. In other words, there probably would have been other tracks which would only have been written if the chemistry of the “Beatles” was present. The 1973 output would have been no surprise to people at the time. I think it would have been a case of business as usual for the record buying public. With the quality of product as listed above, it’s likely that their sales would have been through the roof and it would have been another vintage year for them. I think the band would have scored big time with Live and Let Die, which is a monument to song writing, recording and production in any case. Apart from the Bond theme, in terms of potential singles, Give Me Love (Give Me Peace on Earth), My Love, Mind Games, You’re Sixteen seem like a particularly strong set for the year to me. B sides could easily have been made from the rest of the tracks from the solo albums.
I think what this demonstrates is that by 1973 the guys had recovered somewhat from the impact of the break up and begun to claw their way back to a commercial and pop footing. Now, that doesn’t negate their previous releases in anyway whatsoever, but it has to be said that some of their releases previous to this year were pretty personal and not put together with a Beatle ethic in mind.
So, just for fun, I’d love to hear your suggestions as to how the 1970’s would have panned out for Beatles albums using the solo albums as a guide. Could the Beatles have kept the momentum of their Sixties output going throughout the Seventies? Would they have found and broken yet more new ground? Or, was it better that they ceased to be when they did? Would they have left the 1970’s with their reputation as the greatest band of all time intact?


What do you think?

Elvis, Johnny and Mickey

As I wondered through the supermarket yesterday filling up the trolley with the usual essentials, I noticed a rack of t shirts. One had Elvis with some irrelevant nonsense written on it- “Heartbreak Hotel”… and right next to it, one with our Johnny on it with the immortal words “Working Class Hero”, all next to a t-shirt of Mickey Mouse! I’m thinking who would wear such a garment with such a proclamation on it? It's just plain not cool. I almost heaved my cookies when I looked at this total crass use of image and the company Johnny Rhythm was keeping. somehow my heart sank a little. Now, I don't particularly mind Elvis...but somehow the Mickey one said something to me.... It brought to mind a question…who gets permission for these gross product and more importantly perhaps, do they get permission to use such an image?
I appreciate that Yoko Ono has had a tough job walking the line between keeping John’s presence current, making money and keeping the fans happy with new releases. However, apart from the excellent Anthology CD box set from several years ago, I think she has totally failed. She has succeeded though in turning him into nothing more than some kind of corporate brand on the scale of Mr Walter Disney! I just wonder what the man himself would make of some of the nonsense that is available!! That t-shirt with its Working Class Hero slogan sums it up. The myth of that phrase is just gross. John Lennon was no working class hero. Fans and scholars know this. It’s an insult to Joe Public that is thrust upon them. Say it enough times and perhaps people will believe it right? John Lennon was a great man, but a flawed genius and he certainly wasn't some kind of Saint. I believe history yet to unfold and perhaps not in this generation will see that he had a forward thinking and clever mind. Forget all that Imagine no countries idealism stuff. Think about the untaught, raw musical genius he actually was. That’s where his true image lies. John was as sharp as a tack at all levels and his ripostes were legendary. However this was a person, NOT a product or a brand name to sell anything else but his own self generated music and art. Sure buy the records, the books and drawings and stuff, but perhaps not the baby clothes eh? We don't want Elvis Lennon now do we? It's one step away from canned McBeatle breath folks!

A Lucky Face

Why did the Beatles become so big? Why was their music so amazing?
Well, they had a blank canvas for a start. When I say that, I mean that pop music hadn’t quite entered the modern age yet. The Beatles form the line where this boundary is crossed I believe. They came to perfect the art of what became known as the three minute pop song. Not an ounce of fat on any of them. By enlarge, small but perfectly formed pieces of work to which the world of music could merely gasp and listen to in awe. This is a catalogue of work which is unlikely to be matched for sheer ingenuity and for the scale of it’s effect on the world both musically and culturally.
The Beatles were also lucky with their timing.
In 1962, Britain was waiting for something to lift the gloom of post war austerity, to turn the black and white world of the newsreeles into a blaze of Sixties colour. Then these funny Liverpudlian guys with really long hair turn up. I wasn’t around then unfortunately, but relatives have tried to impress upon me the significance of their hair and their overall look initially. It seems like a trivial detail now. It's difficult to imagine a hairstyle having that much significance. There was no one else like them. Then there’s the music. It’s perhaps not the most original thing ever heard at the beginning, but there’s something about it. Something about the way they crowd around a microphone stand. The harmonies. John Lennon's "leather tonsils". It’s just, well…plain different.

They were lucky too when they went to America. The US was still dealing with Jack Kennedy’s demise and they must've been a ray of pure sunshine upon arrival; a really big deal, with their funny accents and nice suits (and that!). They seem to be so different. Again, don’t underestimate the hair. It grabbed the world’s attention and gave them that thirty second platform to impress. So, they had unwittingly got the timing of their arrival just right. Then you have to look at who they accidentally hook up with after they’d been knocked back from every record company up and down the land.
They’ve got George Martin in their corner to tidy up their compositions, adding and subtracting as they went. Today, it’s likely that a producer of his stature would be in on co- writing credits for a band in their position. Again, they were lucky meeting him. They found someone who could give them ideas for free in a sense. This is an educated musical mind, working way above their level. However, they too, no doubt would have come up with ideas because of their lack of musical knowledge. So again, in finding Mr Martin, it’s another lucky break for them. It is a marriage made in heaven. It is hard to imagine for example that Yesterday or She’s Leaving Home would have been in the same league but for his contribution. I don’t just mean string sections here. I’m talking about the bare bones of the song, the structure and arrangement. As producer, George would have had a big say in how Parlophone’s products were presented and I can imagine that once an idea was around, he would have been right on top of it to make the best of it. That coupled with the fact that the boys were eager to make the best product possible surely make a recipe for success? George Martin’s contribution is simply enormous to the band. It’s like he was a silent member of the group. Didn’t quite have the hair for it though! The band not only benefited from him directing their songs, but they learned directly from him, and how! The sheer speed of their development is breathtaking. A friend mentioned to me the other day, that it’s almost impossible to equate the band that played Love Me Do with the one who created the regal majesty of A Day In The Life just five short years later. It’s a quantum leap in song writing. It does defy description in some ways. Their work rate is simply terrifying. The Lewisohn books illustrate this only too well. It is day after day after day and they make it count just about every time. And, all of this happening against a background of a world on the cusp of change in every way and a new generation, sick to the back teeth of the old order.
Yip, The Beatles were in the right place every single time they needed to be and their music changed as often as their hairstyles. Probably one of the reasons why there is unlikely to be another Beatles is because the canvas isn’t blank any more and the genie is out of the bottle.

Supposing, supposing

Have you ever noticed the fact that whenever there was an opportunity for the surviving Beatles to get together, there was always something in the way?
Up until 1980 it seems that all members of the band were resolute about not being seen together post break up. However, following John’s “thing” this was a more regular occurrence. We do know that there were guest appearances on each other’s albums and tracks. George’s All Those Years Ago, where the Threetles made their forced debut due to the sad events surrounding the song. Then there’s the Ringo album of 1973. The whole band appeared on that album, but NOT together on the same track. That would have been a reunion wouldn’t it and that just wouldn’t do!
What do you think?
It is almost as if a further decision had been made. Is it possible that they came to some kind of business agreement to not reunite in any kind of form? Or at least not to be seen to be reunited, just to keep the game bubbling over and keep the fans hoping for the aforementioned Holy Grail? It’s not as though they didn’t communicate with each other during the post break up period at all is it?
Or perhaps it was simply just bad blood, pain, loathing and familiarity having bred a terrible contempt?
It’s well documented about John and Paul getting together in New York during the late Seventies or during the infamous Lost Weekend period. You would see Ringo and Paul together in the Broad Street film? You would see George and Ringo together on TV shows like (here in the UK) the Michael Aspel Show or the wonderful Carl Perkins and Friends special. This is a good example of what I mean. It’s quite obvious that Paul was a big Carl Perkins fan as Carl’s guest appearance on Tug Of War with the song Get It underlines, not to mention their 1993 get together as witnessed on the video My Old Friend released in 1998. It does beg the question why didn’t Paul play on the Carl Perkins and Friends show? Was it because Paul and George had some insurmountable problem with each other or was it to perpetuate the “Beatles will never get together again” myth?...Well that is until the Anthology project where they could then milk it for all it was worth? Even recently at the Anfield concert to celebrate the Liverpool City of Culture event, there seemed to be an undercurrent of something not quite right between Ringo and Paul. All those, “that was never on the cards”, and “that’s just not going to happen” type comments seem to illustrate what appears to be an ongoing problem. It has been said that Ringo’s nose was put out of joint because he didn’t get the nod from Paul to join him onstage at the Live 8 concert? To be honest who could blame him? It was the biggest concert for years and Paul was, shall we say, VERY represented at the event (to use some badly written England). Why didn’t Ringo play that show with Paul I wonder? It’s not like they hadn’t played together over the years is it? At the Concert for George there didn’t seem to be any problem about them getting together. It seems to me that it is a bit of a prickly place inside the Beatles world. That said, how often have we seen Paul and Yoko together or Yoko and the lovely Olivia together recently? Quite often I’d say and further, it seems a lot more than it used to be. Who would have thought that? The best example of this is the recent Larry King special on the Love spectacular where uniquely, they were all seen together in the one place at the same time. I just wonder if they’d have joined forces like this if John and George were around?
Whilst I don’t dispute the “family” element of relationships between the band members and the “deep regard” they have all had for each other, I’m not convinced that all is that well. I’ve always felt it to be quite sad that somehow, they couldn’t all just be in the same room showing a united front in public during the time when we had all four, post split. This does seem to illustrate the strength of bad feeling that ran deep in Camp Beatle not only following the split but indeed right to this day. As I think I’ve said before, join a band – it’s the best place to lose your mates.

just a b side eh?

Something that always impressed me about the Beatles was the quality of their B-sides. I liked their value for money approach which after the Please Please Me included not repeating themselves elsewhere or taking the easier option of putting out an album track. There always seemed to be a strong product identity; albums were albums and singles were singles. Quality was high resulting in the plain fact that most of their B sides would have been a lot of other bands A sides. One of the great B’s was She’s A Woman. This is a top tune and a major part of their live set which is a testament to the strength of the work. I’m trying to imagine the bands of today having that kind of ethic – putting a so called b side into the live set! Ho hum! Most groups today might use acoustic versions of their hit songs, or worse, an instrumental version of the main track. Other offences include the use of the extended remix and in most cases it is just self indulgent rubbish full of its own self importance. That kind of easy way out attitude just doesn’t cut it for me. It’s short changing the buyer. The Beatles didn’t do that. There was always a strong tune on the flip. Don’t Let Me Down, Revolution, Yes It Is, Things We Said Today – all somehow B-sides? You know the phrase “B-Side” somehow gives the impression that it’s not as good. This tells you how strong their singles were when tunes like these were relegated to the less important side. Today, we live in an era where the single means nothing. In their day, the single was just that, it was a SINGLE product with two unique tracks on board. Then, somehow the single became a leader for the album from which it came – in other words – merely an advert for the album. Using it as a device, a hook to make you buy. Now of course, in this world of the download you can just buy the track you like and ignore the B-side. I’ve said it before, there is something lost about that kind of consumption. The Beatles sold singles and albums by the truck load BECAUSE of the strong song writing and originality of product. Who wouldn’t bet on some of those B sides becoming hits in their own right due to the download phenomenon? A single wasn’t just bought as a collectable, never to be opened or played. You know, it’s the “Oh, I don’t need to play this anyway, ‘cos I’ve got it on the main album anyway” attitude, which begs the question – WHY buy it? If only Mr McCartney’s people had thought how it used to be done in the Beatles period during the Press To Play campagn. That was the time which ended my need to buy all of the formats. One of the singles (“Press” I think?) had NINE different versions available. Unfair to the loyal collector(like me) that. Shelling out left, right and centre for basically the same tracks again and again. More like RIP OFF I’d say now.
So, candidate for the best EVER b side? What do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts – feel free to drop me a line on the subject.
My own favourite? Surely it must go to I am The Walrus! How that song ever got be a b side is inexplicable to me.
What was that about the quality of Beatles B sides?

Take some time

consider this....if the Beatles had taken strategic breaks throughout their career, would it have extended the life of the band? Most bands these days do so. In fact, George brought this very point up during Anthology interviews. Or perhaps does the ‘die young stay pretty' argument hold more water by keeping them burning in the memory lamps as being at the top of their game?

It is hard to stay in a band. It is the best way to lose your mates. It is like a marriage. It can be a painful set of relationships to maintain. The political manoeuvring inside a band like the Beatles must have been totally draining. The sheer hassle of creating new works can drain the energy of everyone around it, from the epicentre outward. Norman Smith famously quit as full time engineer as the bickering between John and Paul during the Rubber Soul session became more of a regular occurrence. George Martin was no different, during the torturous sessions of 1968 and '69. Closer to the band though, witness George during the Let It Be film. It's quite easy to understand Paul directing George in order to draw out what might be good for the song. Paul quite easily slipped into the producer's chair and I believe did so more often than not. After all, he is a talented producer as well. However, there is a fine fine line between producing and being seen to be bossy, overbearing and dominant. It gets peoples' backs up and raises their hackles. Now if you've already got a bit of beef with how someone works and then they start telling you what to do, the results can be catastrophic for that relationship. George obviously couldn't stand the sight of Paul during this time and their personal and working relationship was on the verge of breakdown. I know they overcame their differences later in life, but their relationship was probably never the same. Paul must have become quite reticent to offer an opinion thereafter, in case it might be construed that he was trying to take over. So, fundamentally, things had changed. Would an extended holiday following the dark, horribly dark Thirty Days sessions at Twickenham been of benefit? I think so. Time is a great healer as they say. I doubt that the building animosity of those sessions would have been relevant to them after say, six months; a year apart. I believe those particular sessions to be the straw that broke the camel's back, directly accelerating the final break up. And there were earlier signs of the relentless juggernaut pounding forward. Witness when Ringo was getting his tonsils out and the totally BIZARRE episode when Jimmy Nicol was put in on drums. What were they thinking? It may be easy to say, especially in retrospect, but perhaps the tour should have been postponed! A break should have been put in place, thereby ensuring that Ringo (who was after all SICK) was given time to recover. It would have eased the pressure on the band, and Mr Nicol in particular. The poor man was not only asked to fill Ringo's shoes - a hard enough task in itself - but step in to do filming, press conferences and interviews for goodness sake!! He had to become a Beatle for this short period! I think that was an amazing decision to have made. They were the biggest band in the world,. Their reputation would have been intact had they postponed the tour. Sure the fans would have been disappointed, but it is not like they would have organised Beatle record burning sessions on that basis! Surely, no one came out on top there, not least of all Jimmy, who quickly scurried under the nearest rock for cover and was basically never heard of again!

I think an extended break would have been great for the band and would most probably have extended their creative life and preserved their personal relationships. Would Paul and George have fallen out in such a spectacular way? Perhaps a more important question arises if you consider that John only went to America following the complete breakdown of the band. So, could a break have changed his course? Is it possible that he would have remained in the UK to continue working with them? If he did there is a possibility that he may still be alive today. There is chit chat going around that John wanted to get the band back together in the mid Seventies. I'm sure Paul would've done that in a heartbeat. George may have been a slightly tougher nut to crack as he probably still hadn't got over the years of what he might have considered to be "George bashing" from Paul. He had also given John short shrift as the legal case for partnership dissolution came to its conclusion. This was recently discussed by May Pang who witnessed John's 'no show' at the crucial meeting! Maybe, just maybe, he was giving it that final extra thought before the legal end of the world's greatest band was made absolute.

All of the petty arguments, all of the pressures, misconceptions, backstabbing, perceived slights and so on which brought the Beatles to their knees and to breaking point in 1969/70 may have been alleviated with some proper breaks during the turbulent years of the mid Sixties. As a result, the band might have gone on for years, still producing further classics. Imagine the Beatles album that could have been released in 1973 for example. Arguably, it may have been their best album to date by that point, given some of the absolute classics from that year, with all four releasing strong product. One senses a bit of a creative recovery following the trauma of break-up and subsequent divorce. More importantly though, the personal costs to the boys themselves may have been drastically reduced, which in turn would've allowed the band to continue.