Remaster, Rock Star, Remaster....

I’m with Allan Kozinn of the New York Times… the bottom line is that The Beatles should be concentrating on the release of their primary product – that is of course the music catalogue, not some daft Rock Star type game. Then closely followed by the Let It Be’s and Shea Stadiums they are still sitting on for whatever reason. It is actually incredible that there is basically no digitally remastered material available from the world’s premier group; is it not? I don’t care too much for the itunes or mp3 formats. What I want is full on, red blooded CD’s. The Beatles used to lead the world in innovation in many ways. Even the Anthology broke new ground…indeed up until then there was nothing like it from just about any other group. In other words, they continued the good work they’d always done. Ground breaking work on the video end of things whilst on the audio end they made the impossible happen with Free As a Bird and Real Love. As a fan I was proud to know that the boys weren’t just any band who wanted to cash in on their past achievements. They took the hard road, carved a new route, raised the bar and set a new standard for the world simply to gawp at. As it stands, twelve years later, it seems that they have hit some kind of impasse. I don’t get it. Just what might be the problem? In a general sense no one could blame them for not getting into bed with the digital download world at the beginning. It could have been a flash in the pan Beatamax (!) moment, so fair enough. However it has to be said that even the most cautious amongst us have to say that this format is here to stay and in fact IS where we are now. I feel that it is embarrassing for them at this stage. This band should still be leading the pack, breaking new ground and turning it to their advantage. It is not as though they have to create new material to convert. They have a complete catalogue ready to go, so again - what’s the problem? It’s obvious that there is a rights argument and financial reasona behind it all, it is the only argument that makes sense.

Also, whilst we’re on this digital thing, I read somewhere that the remixed catalogue will still retain the original mixes. In other words, those same unbelievably BAD stereo images which are murder to listen to on headphones. In fact, I gave up listening to the boys on headphones until the good folks at Purple Chick came up with their brilliant packages because it was such uncomfortable listening experience. Before that, I had to go to the extraordinary lengths of employing a mixing desk with a PAN control so I could route stuff through it to bring the bass more to centre. It was a terrible decision to release the CD’s with those appalling stereo mixes in 1987! If the idea was somehow to preserve the original work then all of the discs should have been in mono with the exception of the albums that were originally put out in stereo. There is just no value in putting out those stereo mixes again. They were a compromise when they were made in the Sixties, a travesty in the Eighties and by now it is plain stupid to put them out in that condition. The Beatles have an opportunity to put out pristine versions of the best work ever put to tape in a way that just blows the opposition away all over again to genuinely improve and polish this incredible work. As it stands, albeit through speculation, it seems that once again, an opportunity may be lost. When this catalogue goes out again under the “remastered” banner, it might just be the most important thing that has happened to the CD since it’s birth and given that they are in a position to do so, wouldn’t it be great if boys once again pushed the envelope just that little bit further?

PS

Best of luck with the VOTE America!

Warning: Peace and Love

I have mixed feelings with regard to the current Ringo thing. On the one hand I can see what a total nightmare it must be to be followed around with requests for autographs. Especially given that it’s probably been the same for the last forty odd years and as they say (whoever “they” are!) nothing lasts forever. However, I do have to add, that whilst it’s understandable that he may be sick to the back teeth of this tiresome chore, he should realise that for ALL of the time he’s been in the public eye he has lived in a rarefied atmosphere enjoying the fruit of not only his own labours, but the fruit of the fans’ labours too. Yes the Beatles have given their “nervous” systems to a world hungry for anything and everything “Beatles”, but it has been fans that have been the fuel for that car. Without the fans and their massive interest, their mind boggling, eye popping and unquenchable thirst for new products, tickets and pertinently, an autograph, then Ringo might still be drumming down the Cavern on a Sunday night at the charity Beat gigs they put on there these days. It seems to me, and I freely admit I have no idea of what it’s like to be hounded for autographs daily and so I can only guess at how annoying it might be, but surely there are many worse things a person can be saddled with in this life? These are unsteady and difficult days all ‘round. As the credit crunch bites us all squarely in the butt I’m thinking, wait a minute, if all you have to do is sign stuff even if it was ALL day, it doesn’t add up to the smallest percentile of hassle in comparison with what ordinary people have to deal with does it? I mean it’s not like you have stand out in the freezing cold every morning waiting on a bus to take you to work in a place that you’d be happy to never to see again is it? It’s not a difficult job really? Whatever the reason Ringo has decided it SURELY can’t be the one that states he simply cannot be bothered doing it eh? Something else must have happened. I read on the news article the suggestion that maybe there’s been some Ebay activity that’s annoyed him? Perhaps.
It STILL doesn’t help me understand the tone of his request. I was listening to a piece on the BBC’s Radio Four news where they went to ask (some already annoyed) Liverpudlians what they thought of his stroppy tirade (for that is what it is) and I have to say he was roundly savaged by all with the exception of those who work in the Beatle industry (but of course!) who are obviously guarding their connection and giving the man the benefit of the doubt.
Ultimately something has triggered this for Ringo and he obviously feels a strong motivation to make sure everyone understands that he doesn’t want to play the game any more.
Fine – no problem - Peace and Love.
I wonder what the sales of his next album and tour will look like? More to the point perhaps I wonder what the sales of his last album look like?
In summing up here, it may be slightly annoying signing items on a daily basis but there is a reason for those requests. People have a genuine regard for you. You are actually loved and celebrated around the world. However please don’t “warn” us with Peace and Love to politely f*** off with said Peace and Love ringing in our ears!

If you don’t want to do it, then just don’t do it.

No proclamation delivered by video is required. We’ll all get the picture somehow. Peace and Love, Peace and Love and Love Peace.

jimmy or bust?

In these days of pulling a gig at the drop of a hat, it occurred to me that one of the strangest and perhaps one of the dumbest things that happened during The Beatles history was when they put Jimmy Nicol in on drums when the Boys were to tour Scandinavia, Holland, the Far East and Australia in 1964

What were promoters and management thinking?

Why didn't they simply postpone the tour and do it when all four Beats were fighting fit and available?

It would be an automatic reschedule today if it was known that a key member of a group was taken ill. You would have thought that by that time, when The Beatles were the biggest thing in showbiz history, that THE thing to do would be obvious. George brings that very point to the table in the Anthology when he questions why they simply didn’t take the time out. I know what it’s like when what’s referred to as a “dep” comes in for someone who is suddenly ill, can’t make it or whatever, and it’s not pretty. The whole balance of the group changes. The on-stage sign systems which bands rely on are altered in a way which puts that communication at odds with normality. Subtle things like tempo and pace might be unfamiliar and can unsettle even the best bands. I’m sure Jimmy was a pretty competent drummer, but the pressure must’ve been enormous on him too - right? There are scant pieces of information available about the man who would be Ringo but it is generally understood that once his stint was done, he simply disappeared and never really wanted to talk about his time playing with The Beatles. There would have been a golden opportunity during Anthology for a short interview during the segment on that very subject, but no. I wonder - was he asked to make a contribution and just said no? Perhaps he wasn’t asked; which is even stranger! If it was so unimportant then the information would have been left out of the picture altogether, but again no. Why make the reference in such an important film and not use the actual source? In fact the more you think about this, the more bizarre it becomes. Of course, the simple explanation could be that Jimmy’s time in the band scared the pants off of him at the time and he had no wish whatever to make ANY kind of return to it.

Jimmy’s own view?..."The boys were very kind but I felt like an intruder. They accepted me but you can't just go into a group like that -- they have their own atmosphere, their own sense of humour. It's a little clique and outsiders just can't break in."

I wonder how Ringo took that information? Er…sorry to hear you’re not well Ring and you just collapsed and that but er…we’re putting this complete stranger on in your place whilst we cover those gigs that were booked, so er…. Get well soon and we’ll see you when you’re better! Unwittingly it must have sent poor Ringo the message that he was expendable and that they didn’t “love him anymore”. For example, I wonder if they would have replaced say John if he’d had a similar problem? I strongly doubt it – but hey Ringo’s just the drummer right? . . . . .
They should just have postponed.

It's all too much

The Beatles changed the world. We all know that. However, not all that change is necessarily for the better. The old phrase about every silver lining has a cloud comes into its own here. Let me explain. Ok, you’re a musician aiming for the big time in the early Sixties. Your job is to be part of a band, play live gigs, play well and hope that you’re discovered one day. Your job is NOT to write the songs you might record. Your job is NOT to have the first clue about how those songs might be recorded, or how they are musically arranged. Your job is not management. Well, I think a picture is emerging of what you the band member might expect on your magic carpet tide to fame and fortune. There are clear lines cut with regard to how the game works. Then we have the almighty big band of the modern pop era with the boys. Overnight everything has changed in terms of the role an ambitious young musician might have to master. If he wants to be taken seriously, he is going to have to learn to write songs, because it is a learned craft on top of an aptitude in my opinion – no one has a gift from the almighty on that one! Now if you fast forward to this point in time, a young musician will be expected (nay taken for granted) that he is a brilliant writer. If he is not, then he is somehow looked down on. I don’t know what ever happened to the concept of covering a song? Sure it still happens to a degree, but it is scoffed at not only by the industry, but listeners and critics alike. The “oh it’s just a cover” attitude reveals itself very quickly. I believe it still has its place. The Beatles themselves were fine exponents of the cover version, where they exploited the material to make it sound like THEIR version. That same young musician will be expected also to have production skills in their arsenal. Have you noticed that everyone is a “producer” these days? Most new and inexperienced artists have no conception of what production actually is. Experience is the key to it. You can take a song into the studio with an experienced producer and before you know it has become something totally different. Producer of the moment Rick Rubin’s recordings with Johnny Cash are a testament to that which is neat example of covering songs and injecting originality into them. Those songs gained a whole new resonance with that type of treatment. The Beatles are the measurable point where the line between artist and producer, player and engineer really begins to blur. The question has to be asked, does every new credible artist HAVE to be a great writer, a brilliant producer and engineer? I think not. I tend to think that artists who are of that calibre end up in some kind of self imposed alienation. I wonder what The Beatles catalogue might have sounded like without George Martin’s input? He was a very important part of the team and without him, things would be very different across the industry today I think. The problem is that he taught The Beatles well with regard to the art of the studio and before you know it the boys were tentatively taking some sessions with other artists on their own. The cat was out of the bag!
Whilst the Beatles freed the world of the Tin Pan Alley mentality and revolutionised the industry, they also saddled the following generations with the responsibility of becoming uber talented in many fields. It is now not good enough for today’s young artists to just be a good guitarist say; no he has to be a great lyric writer with the ability to write that killer top line melody. He has to fundamentally understand how that record will be constructed in the studio. He has to be able to arrange the song and then direct how for example those harmony groups are nailed down. He has to understand the technology. Further outside the box, he has to be able to understand that he is a product and not just that guitarist who can play a bit. In short he has to be savvy at all levels or his chances diminish. The Beatles showed the world a way; an early clue to the new direction as it were. Not everyone is a Beatle and nor should they be expected to be.

PMC 7067/8

During recent months there seems to have been a bit of a renewed interest in the The Beatles album, given that it is now forty years since its release. On my first listen to the album many moons ago, I found it quite a difficult one. It has to be said though, that I was only nine years old when I did so! Even at that point though, I knew there were some classic songs on there, coupled with some not so classic ones (well, in my nine year old opinion. My grown up opinion has somewhat changed!). As I said, with all the recent interest in it, it begs the question; is the White Album the purest and most honest Beatles album of all? Further, could it possibly be a better album than Pepper?
The White album sounds like a relief to me in some ways. It’s like they were slightly sick of being at the cutting edge the whole time and just wanted to rock out, soak up the zeitgeist and just do what came naturally, rather than make it unique for the sake of it. Although being The Beatles, they still managed to be unique in any case as for them it was a totally natural thing to do with the ridiculous levels of creativity buzzing around that group at any one time. It sounds like a reaction to the previous year of momentous and trailblazing production. That kind of work in the studio must have taken a toll mentally – and so the Indian trip couldn’t have come at a better time one imagines. Space required and much needed no doubt. It gave them the chance to “get it all out” and recharge the Beatle batteries. This is slightly more than apparent from one listen to the excellent Purple Chick deluxe 12 disc set of relevant materials.

What I love about the White album is that there is a sense of the home made about it, and there is great atmosphere in some of the recordings. Martha My Dear certainly doesn’t cut any new ground but it has that log fire burning in the background kind of quality to it and it isn’t a million miles away from one of the directions Mr McCartney would be composing along come the Seventies. I’m thinking You Gave Me The Answer or My Baby’s Request, for example. As I said, The Beatles are also soaking up influences around them with much heavier guitars and less microphone separation apparent in a lot of the songs – think of Yer Blues or Helter Skelter. These are fantastic examples of a band quite obviously enjoying themselves just being a band. The album is simply dotted with classics and in my opinion they are just as revolutionary as Pepper because it’s like the opposite side of the mirror. The band was using Abbey Road to the full with all three of the studios in use at the same time on some occasions. From the sleeve to the content it reeks of class and honesty. However, I am sure there are songs on the album which are not that popular amongst fans. The usual suspects might include Rocky Racoon, Don’t Pass Me By or dare I say it Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (which certainly isn’t one my own favourites – but it has its place nevertheless)
Of course a big talking point has always been Revolution No 9. I think if you look at it as a “song” included on a Beatles album, then it tends to defy that description. However, if you look at it as an experiment or a soundscape like some kind of audio painting, then its relevance is obvious in that it’s another example of the band pushing the barriers. It is also a monument to drug induced over indulgence of course. It is however not unlike some of the Liverpool Soundcape album! Paul was the walrus on that one and has said many times that he was the avant garde one in the band originally. So, in some respects Revolution No9 is an example of Paul kicking the ball and John running with it.

The tension in the band is evident on this record too. For example, Paul is playing more drums than required really and we all know why that was. The seeds of their demise are in evidence on this record but even in the face of that, they still managed to push out tracks which left the opposition standing. A cursory look down the track list makes their genius obvious. In many ways there isn’t a bad track on the album and I disagree with George Martin’s opinion that it would have made a great single album – it’s just a great album – period! If the goal was to make another Pepper or Revolver type album then yes, he’s probably right. They would return to that type of album-making with Abbey Road. Somehow though, that doesn’t seem to be the point of the White Album. I love the honesty of the record and the fact that it’s not wearing any make up, that there is the odd blemish on there and that the production is simpler, although it has to be said that you get the idea that the band were just shattered by the end of the production process.
Although it was stated on Let It Be that it was a “new phase” Beatles album, I believe that it was this album that was the new phase sound. Straight up, go ahead, punch you right on the nose rock n roll. I think pound for pound, dollar for dollar, the White album is an amazing piece of work. It’s cynical, quirky, full of humour, stripped back to basics, honest, musically brilliant. It’s audacious and out on a limb. It’s envelope stretching top of the heap brilliance. For me the White album is genius. Four sides, four guys and one band. It strips away the pomp and pretension of the previous (and wondrous) year to reveal a band very much at odds with itself but still shaking nevertheless and blowing everything else away.

Surely not?

I don’t normally go down this road and quite frankly don’t really want to get into this but I do feel compelled to make a short comment regarding Paul’s ex wife’s plan to write a book! Sky News and other sources report that she is planning to write a book about a famous model who marries “the biggest rock star in the world” with insiders claiming that it will be released as a work of fiction – for which incidentally, I believe she has qualification in abundance.
I mean, come on here!
According to Sky, commentators have said it could help her “side step the court order banning her from discussing her marriage to Paul”. It simply beggars belief that she would want to do anything else but disappear with the divorce booty and live on a very small and tiny island, close the door behind her and hope that the world would forget her. But no! Instead, a good idea would be to write a thinly veiled story about her short and lucrative time with the Beatles bass player! I don’t mean to sound unkind but my hope is that if such a book is planned and subsequently published that it sinks without trace. Unfortunately, in the world we live in, such a book will fly off the shelves at speeds hitherto unmeasured. I was never a fan of the lady from the moment I clapped eyes on her and thought I’d seen it ALL when I watched her live TV appearance on GMTV couch just before the divorce proceedings started in earnest, but this takes it to a new and even frightening level. Paul must be beside himself. She appears to be a loose cannon and worse, a loose cannon with huge funds intent on revenge.
I pretty sure that Paul (like everyone else) is no saint but I’m also pretty sure he just doesn’t deserve the kind of outcome and publicity that his ex wife helped him achieve though I do have faith that most people will see such a publication for it's true value.

Not an ounce of fat on it really!

It’s always good to be back home after a couple of weeks going stir - crazy in the studio which (dear reader) is where I’ve been hiding for the last while. Meeting new musicians when I’m working, I’m always being asked about my Rickenbacker guitar. Oh, you must be a Beatle fan…and following with (alarming regularity)….er.. so what’s your favourite tune? I really hate being asked that because I never know what to say! I seem to go through periods of liking the early stuff and then switching to the later or middle periods without thinking about it. The real answer is that I just love them all really, but it’s on a sliding scale. It does beg the question though, what songs do fans NOT like? I tend to think that they are all kind of classic in their own way. Even the weaker ones - if there is such a thing! I’ve discussed in detail before the boys choices for B sides and how strong they were, so it’s quite difficult to pick one out that I’m not too fond of. “What You’re Doing” for example isn’t a favourite, but even with that there is musical growth in evidence in the drum part…not quite ‘Ticket to Ride’, but leading the way with a drum riff in any case. Chains or From Me To You are good examples of tracks I might fast forward if I’m listening, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like them…I just can’t really be bothered with them sometimes, if you know what I mean? There doesn’t seem to be much of a surprise in them anymore. What I mean by that is that although I’m familiar with every track, some still catch you unawares and sort of take you by surprise, don’t you think? And some tracks have other reasons for forwarding. For example, I can’t really listen to It’s All Too Much because it’s not that great sound wise to my headphone ears.

It is yet another measure of the band being bigger, collectively, than each of the individuals that you can probably find lots of examples of songs you’d avoid listening to. In fact in some cases, for some people even whole albums bite the dust! Whilst I appreciate Yoko for what she is (and isn’t) for example, I find most of her material unappetising. Lots of the material that she recorded with John remains only slightly interesting BECAUSE of John’s involvement. I am not really a big Yoko chap though and some of the same could be levelled at the rest of boys’ solo work. Paul’s work remains pretty strong, but he has had his moments. Strange thing with Paul’s stuff is that I tend not to like it on first hearing and then it slowly infects you until you do like it. But, I didn’t really like Paul’s last album that much and thought that Chaos was his strongest release since Flaming Pie (which is a McCartney classic in my opinion). John’s stuff was up and down. Genius doesn’t cover some of the earlier material he put out though. Plastic Ono Band is flawless and is just raw bottled fire, but Sometime in NY City has moments of raised eyebrows all round. George and Ringo have much more to forward on when listening. Although I have to say a lot of George’s work has got better over the years to my ears. Maybe that just reflects me growing up and understanding the songs a little better? Ringo has only made one pretty good album…although I’m sure many Rich fans would disagree. Again though, sometimes I just want to listen to them in the BBC phase! Isn’t that the great thing with this band? That you CAN do that!

What songs do you never listen to or avoid? I would love to hear what everyone thinks on this.