Beatles Remasters coming! 09/09/09

[JSngry]

[Dave Garrett]

Has anyone bought a bootleg stereo box without knowing it? I think I did through a third party on Amazon. The covers and printing looked terrible. I told the guy I wanted to return it for a refund and he agreed, but I'm still trying to get my $120 back from him. I sent him an email (my 6th! He's only responded to one before where I also threatened to let Amazon handle it) and told him I'll be filing a claim if he doesn't refund my money. I have confirmation that it was received.

There's been quite a bit of discussion about this at the Hoffman board. Consensus seemed to be that there was a significant chance of winding up with a bootleg if you purchased it from a third-party seller (I may be oversimplifying, as I'll admit to barely skimming some of the Beatles threads before my eyes start to glaze over).

Sounds like the time for screwing around with the seller directly has passed, if you've sent him that many emails. Go directly to Amazon and let them handle it.

[dave9199]

Filed a claim today. Put a copy of the seller's email where he said he'd refund my money.

[skeith]

MacDonald is an amateur and a hack.

'was'

He died some years back.

He was a rock journalist, one of the best in the 70s. I read the Shostakovich back in the 80s when I was just getting interested and found it really helpful. Perhaps he was out of his depth re: the classical world but his book was a nice introduction to a new listener. There's a place for the general introduction alongside the musicological and scholarly.

The Beatles book works because it is more in the area he generally worked in.

Present historic tense. I looked him up on wikipedia before I laid into him. But before that I read his book.

What I am saying Bev is that I don't agree with the view you express (which is a standard view in some quarters, apparently). How did it help to read something so ill-informed and badly argued? It may have felt like it helped, but that is not the same thing. And I never mentioned the classical world. I said he is ignorant of music, ignorant of critical and cultural theory, cannot read the materials on which he pronounces, and does not observe basic scholarly and intellectual standards. Did he really put all this right before tackling the Beatles, or is that too (as I suspect) just more of the same?

I have only read the first two chapters of the McDonald book and I am getting bad vibes. His main point in this intro being that the Beatles wrote good music but bad lyrics, particularly when compared with the great american lyricists of Tin Pan Alley and the like. Really? Yes, some Beatle songs have sappy or stupid lyrics, but so did songs of the some of the great lyricists of the type McDonald mentions and I would put the best Beatle lyrics up against the best of theirs.

[Brad]

I don't really agree about all the most recent comments on this book. I think his analyses of the individual songs are pretty good and also give you some background on them.

[Teasing the Korean]

I have only read the first two chapters of the McDonald book and I am getting bad vibes. His main point in this intro being that the Beatles wrote good music but bad lyrics, particularly when compared with the great american lyricists of Tin Pan Alley and the like. Really? Yes, some Beatle songs have sappy or stupid lyrics, but so did songs of the some of the great lyricists of the type McDonald mentions and I would put the best Beatle lyrics up against the best of theirs.

Like most teen pop in the rock era, the Beatles' lyrics were pretty juvenile up until Rubber Soul or so. That was standard, the usual teen angst stuff. While there were some lame tin pan alley lyrics, most of the good Broadway and Hollywood lyricists - I'm thinking people like Cole Porter, Lorenz Hart, etc. - were light years beyond what was going on in rock/pop, in terms of technique, subtleties, references, rhyme schemes, etc.

Rock/pop lyrics began to get more adventurous with the influence of Dylan and psychedelic drugs. While the imagery and subject matter may have surpassed the earlier generation, most rock/pop lyrics tended to remain pretty sloppy in terms of technique.

[skeith]

I have only read the first two chapters of the McDonald book and I am getting bad vibes. His main point in this intro being that the Beatles wrote good music but bad lyrics, particularly when compared with the great american lyricists of Tin Pan Alley and the like. Really? Yes, some Beatle songs have sappy or stupid lyrics, but so did songs of the some of the great lyricists of the type McDonald mentions and I would put the best Beatle lyrics up against the best of theirs.

Like most teen pop in the rock era, the Beatles' lyrics were pretty juvenile up until Rubber Soul or so. That was standard, the usual teen angst stuff. While there were some lame tin pan alley lyrics, most of the good Broadway and Hollywood lyricists - I'm thinking people like Cole Porter, Lorenz Hart, etc. - were light years beyond what was going on in rock/pop, in terms of technique, subtleties, references, rhyme schemes, etc.

Rock/pop lyrics began to get more adventurous with the influence of Dylan and psychedelic drugs. While the imagery and subject matter may have surpassed the earlier generation, most rock/pop lyrics tended to remain pretty sloppy in terms of technique.

I suppose... but have you heard "My cousin In Milwaukee" by the Gershwins lately?

[A Lark Ascending]

I shouldn't lose too much sleep over the quality of lyrics. Quite a few opera libretti have toe curling lyrics. And those that know about these things proclaim them 'high art' and ensure that the state or private enterprise lavishes vast amounts on getting them out there.

If the music works the lyrics generally (though not always) fade into the background. 'Ticket to Ride' or 'Help' (not to mention 'I am the Walrus') bear endless replaying despite the trite lyrics.

And then there's Jon Anderson and Yes...

Edited February 17, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[Teasing the Korean]

I suppose... but have you heard "My cousin In Milwaukee" by the Gershwins lately?

I have and, respectfully, I think it's a solid lyric from a technical standpoint, and the subject matter is unusual for a pop tune of its time. It's a far cry from a lyric like, say, "If I Fell" or "No Reply," in which the narrator unwittingly becomes involved in bisexual love triangles because incorrect pronouns were used.

I shouldn't lose too much sleep over the quality of lyrics.

For me, a great song has to be solid from both a melodic and lyrical standpoint. So while I can enjoy the teen pop of the early Beatles for what they are, they don't qualify as great songs. Good teen pop records, maybe, but not great songs.

Again, things start to shift around the time of Rubber Soul, and there were still some bumps along the way, not only for the Beatles.

[JSngry]

Teen-pop? You mean along the lines of "Johnny Angel", "Donna", "Da Do Ron Ron", "Surfer Girl", etc?

Not so much in the Lennon/McCartney catalog... "This Boy", definitely (and worstly), and some others, but I think there's as much "young adult" lyrics, especially from AHDN up to RS...which is not the same as "mature adult", I'm just saying...there's an adultness to "When I Get Home" (not the song of a kid who dreams about getting some, but the song of a man who is used to getting some!), "I'm A Loser", "Things We Said Today" that represents the outlook of the early 20s more than it does 15 or 16 or even 17-18.

As for lyrical sophistication strictly within the realm of "songcraft", I think the ability that Lennon/McCartney had to combine lyrical hooks with melodic ones was as good as anybody's. As cheesy as "I Call Your Name" ultimately may be, the title is the hook, and it's uses at the beginning & end of the lyric, with the in-between telling a predictable but perfectly "acceptable" pop song story of missing a loved one, is worthy of any number of "Ain't She Sweet" type Tin Pan Alley craftsmen. the type who made sure the the title was always in caps when it came up on the sheet music . Not a "great song" by any stretch of the imagination, but an awareness of traditional craft is nevertheless being displayed that is anything but accidental or occasional, and anything but "teenage" in aim.

All of which to say, I grew up in world full of "teen pop", and, "Beatlemania" aside, the pre-RS Lennon/McCartney catalog only sometimes intersects with it, and then only in the sense of just passing through rather than actually living there.

Edited February 18, 2010 by JSngry

[Dave James]

And nothing to get hung about, At least it's not America (the band not the country).

[Teasing the Korean]

Teen-pop? You mean along the lines of "Johnny Angel", "Donna", "Da Do Ron Ron", "Surfer Girl", etc?

Exactly, not radically different from my perspective. I respect your opinion, though.

Also, I noted previously that there were plenty of bad tin pan alley lyrics. I was talking about Broadway and Hollywood lyricists, who were light years beyond the teen pop/rock stuff, of which the Beatles were a part. From a technical and a subject matter standpoint, there is nothing great about their early lyrics.

I have not read the book that was being discussed earlier. I suspect that the author was really talking about Broadway and Hollywood lyricists as opposed to strictly tin pan alley lyricists.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Teasing the Korean

[JSngry]

"the teen pop/rock stuff, of which the Beatles were a part."...see I don't buy this...they were there, sure, and they got in it from time to time, sure, but they were a part of that scene like Ellington was part o the "big bnad" scene"...happy to share in the exciting, but ultimately more focused on a somewhat diffiderent game.

"the teen pop/rock stuff, of which the Beatles were a part."...see I don't buy this...they were there, sure, and they got in it from time to time, sure, but they were a part of that scene like Ellington was part o the "big bnad" scene"...happy to share in the exciting, but ultimately more focused on a somewhat diffiderent game.

[Teasing the Korean]

That post was so nice, you had to post it twice!

I get where you're coming from but I'll respectfully disagree.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Teasing the Korean

[A Lark Ascending]

For me, a great song has to be solid from both a melodic and lyrical standpoint. So while I can enjoy the teen pop of the early Beatles for what they are, they don't qualify as great songs. Good teen pop records, maybe, but not great songs.

Again, things start to shift around the time of Rubber Soul, and there were still some bumps along the way, not only for the Beatles.

Well, that's intellectualising it - 'what makes a great song?' Which is fine as it goes.

But I imagine most people react to music - especially popular music - without worrying too much about its greatness (in the sense of whether all of its constituent parts are of equal quality, leading to a perfectly balanced whole). The record gives them a rush and if the lyrics are pretty weak, well so what? 'A Whiter Shade of Pale' - marvellous, evocative record. But what twaddle in the lyrics.

I suspect we all have different tolerances on this. I've never been one for paying much attention to lyrics when first listening to songs (though I suspect that without noticing it I'm probably affected by the sound they make [rather than the sense] as part of the overall musical soundscape). At a later date I might pay them more attention - Joni Mitchell comes to mind as someone whose mid-70s lyrics come centre stage.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[sjarrell]

Sometimes artists get bogged down by proper craft and start producing over-thought crap, right? It's no hard and fast rule, but the really thrilling stuff happens before craft has been figured out, before rules get in the way. I think craft is swell, but instinct, if it's good, wins.

Also: I'm old. But if I was just 17 (you know what I mean) I'd totally identify w/ early Beatles lyrics. As it is, like Bev said, it's sounds I'm responding to.

[Chalupa]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100218/ap_en_mu/eu_britain_abbey_road

[skeith]

I suppose... but have you heard "My cousin In Milwaukee" by the Gershwins lately?

I have and, respectfully, I think it's a solid lyric from a technical standpoint, and the subject matter is unusual for a pop tune of its time. It's a far cry from a lyric like, say, "If I Fell" or "No Reply," in which the narrator unwittingly becomes involved in bisexual love triangles because incorrect pronouns were used.

I shouldn't lose too much sleep over the quality of lyrics.

For me, a great song has to be solid from both a melodic and lyrical standpoint. So while I can enjoy the teen pop of the early Beatles for what they are, they don't qualify as great songs. Good teen pop records, maybe, but not great songs.

Again, things start to shift around the time of Rubber Soul, and there were still some bumps along the way, not only for the Beatles.

I got a cousin in Milwaukee

She's got a voice so squawky

And though she's tall and kind of gawky...

Ok, I'll stop.

Edited February 18, 2010 by skeith

[JSngry]

Well, besides, what standards are we using for "good lyrics"? That of show tune/Tin Pan Alley? That of R&B and/or C&W? Brill Building? I mean, "I'll Cry Instead" could have been an Acuff/Rose song (except for that cleverass bridge...), and is that "teen pop"? I think not.

I'm just saying - I bridle at the notion of all pre-RS Beatlesongs being "teen pop". It just ain't so. There is some of that, but there are also other things going on too.

[skeith]

I think the pre Rubber Soul Beatles music is underrated both from the music and the lyrics.

If you want a dumb Beatles song lyrics - try "Birthday" from the White Album. I cringe.

[A Lark Ascending]

If you want a dumb Beatles song lyrics - try "Birthday" from the White Album. I cringe.

'I Want You (She's So Heavy)'

Maybe they're brilliantly minimalist....

Or what about 'Here Comes the Sun'. Not exactly T.S. Elliot. But the track in total seems to achieve what I assume its intention was...to evoke that feeling of well-being on a bright sunny morning (not the normal provenance of 'art', bright sunny mornings!).

Edit: Thinking about it, that was quite a clever sequence. End side 1 with angst, longing and pain; start side 2 with a bright sunny morning. A good example of where having to pause and turn the LP over has an impact that the continuous CD can't match.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[JSngry]

Edit: Thinking about it, that was quite a clever sequence. End side 1 with angst, longing and pain; start side 2 with a bright sunny morning. A good example of where having to pause and turn the LP over has an impact that the continuous CD can't match.

WORD!!!

[Teasing the Korean]

I hear all of you, but I'm respectfully disagreeing. The Beatles' reputation is solid - They're not going to lose any income because of your beloved Teasing the Korean.

[JSngry]

Anybody ever notice how "Eight Days a week" is pretty much mostly mainly a major-key mirroring of "Things We Said Today"?

Having not read too many of the analytical reference insightful book-y things, I apologize if this is old news.

[danasgoodstuff]

I can hear that in my head, at lest for the A sections of "Things" & "Eight Days', but not so much on paper or for the bridges of same. but then my grasp of harmony is pretty weak so things have got to be pretty darn similar for me to hear or see it. There are lots of small scale examples of them reusing material in their most prolific period, '64-65, which I've noticed while fake booking my way through it. Nonetheless, I think that was the strongest period for songwriting, roughly HDN BFS & Help!, and that after that the recordings may have been more interesting but it wasn't because of better songwriting per se. But then I have fairly conservative tastes in songwriting, to me there's nothing better than an effectively contrasting bridge taking you back to the A section, something they had in spades as long as one wrote the A and the other the B. I think Day In The Life is the last example of that.