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

Yeah, for "The Plastic Ono Band", backed with "You know my name"

Originals of "Let it be" have the cat no scratched out on the b-side, so it got to an advanced stage of production.

Yeah, I wish they'd nixed all the talky-talky stuff, and a good bit of the live stuff, from volumes 1 and 2

The live material on 1 includes some of the best (recorded) performances of their career. "Roll Over Beethoven" is the first thing I would play to convince misguided Ringo haters of his brilliance, and the live "Money" has the nastiest guitar of any Beatles recording, live or otherwise.

I wish they'd nixed all the talky-talky stuff, and a good bit of the live stuff, from volumes 1 and 2

The live tracks on Anthology 1 are fantastic. They really trace key moments of their rise - the Palladium, the Swedish tour, the Royal Command Performance, Ed Sullivan.

xp!

Ahhh, maybe I'm wrong. Haven't revisited that stuff in a long time and am probably conflating it with stuff on 2 that seemed superfluous.

There's bound to be people that piss and moan about the Anthology CD's, but I thought it provided a neat summary of what the band got up to behind closed doors in the studio without being unlistenable and/or tedious. Trawling through entire Beatles reels is not something most people have the time or the patience for, and besides, nothing could possibly replace the final products which have all been on the market for 47-55 years now.

The Blackpool set on 2 is good. The Budokan tracks might be on there for more historical purposes.

Yeah, some of the live stuff on 2 is pretty meh, particularly from the Japan shows. They themselves thought their playing on those dates was shit; why include them?

(Also, "A Beginning" was only included because they never finished a third "new" song. And the instrumental "Within You, Without You" took the place of the vetoed-by-George "Carnival Of Light" excerpt.)

xxp

I often think that some Beatle fans won't be satisfied until every single reel of everything they ever recorded is released, which to me is the stupidest idea ever. The Anthology compilations got it right by providing the highlights. The final product is what's important, not every. single. second. of the creation of that product.

The live stuff seemed out-of-place, maybe a live anthology would have been better, going from the Quarrymen tapes through hamburg and cavern to the US and so on..

Of course, these days any review of Beatles live has to mean America only, it seems.

In a TS between listening to all zillion hours of Get Back/Let It Be or throwing on any post-Beatles McCartney record, it's a bit of a no-brainer for me.

In fact, I'd be open to a Paul McCartney outtakes compilation, provided they're songs that haven't been released before (of which there are loads) and not 20 million takes of 'My Love' or whatever.

Tonigjht Back in the USSR souds like the funkiest song ever recorded.

FWIW I do think there are other versions besides the Anthology and releasing every reel of every tape! TBF, to return to the earlier discussion of how much they've scraped the bottom of the barrel, you have to imagine that if the cash-hungry barrel-scrapers were really in charge, we'd have long since seen trumped-up, stand-alone prestige releases of The Rooftop Concert, of the Esher Demos, the two different Glyn Johns Get Back acetates.... I'm not asking for all of that, just a little more than what they could cram into Anthology, especially later on when they're spending so much time in the studio and there's genuinely different arrangements in play, or lots of tracks where it's fascinating to just hear the band playing the basic track without overdubs, etc., etc....

Anthology, at six discs, is a little much for most fans, but ultimately unsatisfying for the hardcore Beatle head who has a sense of what other goodies are in the vaults, or who's heard some of them through bootlegs. Even something one-third as ambitious as Dylan's Bootleg Series would be very well-received IMHO. (It was perfect for me as a teenage enthusiast getting them as Christmas presents, since I was ready to devour everything I could get my hands on.)

I often think that some Beatle fans won't be satisfied until every single reel of everything they ever recorded is released, which to me is the stupidest idea ever. The Anthology compilations got it right by providing the highlights. The final product is what's important, not every. single. second. of the creation of that product.

couldn't disagree w this more. final product is a myth and furthermore if you really like an artist, you like even their shit. people study cultural apocrypha, it's a thing, get over it.

George Harrison struggled to get any material on an album. am i supposed to say, sorry George, id like to listen to "Wonderwall" but it doesn't have The Beatles official logo on it.

Dgi, why?

couldn't disagree w this more. final product is a myth

The final products in question have been on sale for decades - there's no such "myth" there. Releasing every last second of the session tapes would just demystify the process, which is a ridiculous thing to want to do. Besides, everyone and their dog knows the story of The Beatles inside out by now - in terms of trivia, it's a tired, worn subject.

^this

In fact, I'd be open to a Paul McCartney outtakes compilation, provided they're songs that haven't been released before (of which there are loads) and not 20 million takes of 'My Love' or whatever.

― ...so music and chicken have become intertwined (Turrican), Saturday, April 15, 2017 7:41 PM (two hours ago)

i don't think these ideas are really in competition -- a paul mccartney outtakes collection would not be compiled or released by the same ppl who would be working on any beatles releases. (tbh i'm a little surprised there apparently hasn't been a mccartney "anthology" of any sort, but i assume paul doesn't have the time or inclination to dig through his old stuff.)

i doubt that any future beatles outtakes albums would have the same media buzz/impact as the anthologies. they'd basically be releases geared to fans who just enjoy listening to their favorite band goof around in the studio. and really, what's wrong with that? if you're not interested, you can just ignore it. i'm not that interested in any of the "live at the bbc" releases, but i'm not annoyed that they were released -- if people love them, great.

Besides, everyone and their dog knows the story of The Beatles inside out by now - in terms of trivia, it's a tired, worn subject.

This is true. Everyone who has read the first volume of the Lewisohn bio -- and the two subsequent volumes, which are several years away -- knows the story of the Beatles.

Releasing all the session tapes would not demystify anything for those who choose not to listen to them. Possibly. I can't be certain about that.

But only when we hear the session reels for "Spies Like Us" will we be convinced of McCartney's overwhelming genius.

i don't think these ideas are really in competition -- a paul mccartney outtakes collection would not be compiled or released by the same ppl who would be working on any beatles releases. (tbh i'm a little surprised there apparently hasn't been a mccartney "anthology" of any sort, but i assume paul doesn't have the time or inclination to dig through his old stuff.)

Well yeah, I understand that a McCartney outtakes compilation wouldn't be compiled by the same people working on the Beatles stuff, I'm just saying that I would be open to one - the guy has a ton of songs in his archives that haven't seen the light of day, and I'm willing to bet there's some treasures in the archives worth hearing. I'm surprised that nothing like that has seen the light of day, but McCartney is in complete control of his solo recordings and you're right, maybe he doesn't have the time. Certainly not now.

Okay, actually I am of two minds of this. On the one hand have grown weary of the myth of The Beatles, and the mountain of ink spilled over the decades to write about them. Haven't listened to every available bootleg, far from it, haven't even listened to all of Anthology 3, but don't want to deprive others of the right to do so (feel even more so about Dick's Picks, oh wait, I hate The Dead) subscribing to the idea, originally put forward on his borad by none other than fcc, that part of their magic was that the released take was almost always the best. On the other hand still interested to read my copy of Tune In and reread You Never Give Me Your Money, just relistened to Live At The Hollywood Bowl, and am fascinated by the idea of "Esher demos."

But only when we hear the session reels for "Spies Like Us" will we be convinced of McCartney's overwhelming genius.

― Montgomery Burns' Jazz (Tarfumes The Escape Goat), Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:55 PM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

LOL!!

There are ten releases now in the McCartney Archive Collection and I think they've all included outtakes.

Yep, but I'm not buying the albums again in order to get 'em. I'd rather see a dedicated official McCartney rarities/unreleased songs release.

A lot of them are on Spotify! (Not all.)

Which?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-adCDQqO-sU0/VZTtd7cCoVI/AAAAAAAANm4/wMMeQhPqARs/s1600/michigan%2Bdaily%2Bjune%2B13%2B1968.jpg

Archive Editions on Spotify of McCartney, Ram, Venus and Mars, Speed of Sound, McCartney II, Pipes of Peace, and Flowers in the Dirt all include extras.

Fly Me Straight, Fly Me High?

The Moody Blues, Shakey.

Best boot I've heard about is ... Vancouver? Seattle? Something like that. There's a boot of the show, but another of two announcers in a booth giving essentially live play by play commentary, of the band and crowd.

i am listening to the massive 10+ disc Purple Chick White Album boxset i got from Demonoid years and years ago. disc 6 is interesting, it kicks of the sessions outtakes. it starts with an 11 minute edit of the "Revolution" overdub session that usually has Yoko Ono talking over the whole thing. here they have composited a Frankenstein's monster of that early take of "Revolution". this is different than the take that leaked on youtube and was featured on Pitchfork a couple years ago. imo each one is interesting and the White Album was originally going to be very experimental and that John/George/Ringo/Yoko were constantly getting creatively usurped by voices like McCartney and Martin who shut it down. the kind of music concrete proto-punk they would eventually put to vinyl on "Plastic Ono Band" and "Fly".

the next 25 tracks are Paul McCartney playing acoustic guitar, rehearsing "Blackbird" but too stoned to play it all the way through! he has to stop and switch to a new funny voice every 8 bars. tbh it is kind of agonizing to listen to, and it is funny to hear George Martin chiming in and asking when they are going to get a working take. it is a funny document to listen to. towards the end we hear John apologizing to George Martin for Paul's behavior, it's pretty hilarious.

the next disc has this cool jam, this is from White Album studio sessions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf2x2oF_9Q0

in 1969 john wanted to release a plastic ono band single of "you know my name (look up the number)" backed by "what's the new mary jane". he was, mercifully, dissuaded.

paul's funny voice thing is interesting to me. been doing some beatles and solo listening lately cause of these threads and it seems like john and paul both have really clear obvious defensive tics they fall back on that distance themselves from where they are and what they're doing. john's is sort of more outwardly directed, making fun of other people or if he clowns himself it's in a "isn't this thing we're doing so stupid and phony" kind of way. to get armchair psychoanalytic it seems like the whole "ironic detachment to avoid seeming uncool by committing to something" which is interesting cause he is thought of as the more committed, authentic, passionate one. now we'd like to do, 'ark the angels come! of course it's also interlaced with his fondness for absurdity and empty wordplay for its own sake, which i don't think is quite the same thing.

paul OTOH, i mean some of his pastiche is clearly just that he likes dabbling in styles and trying things on (and also just genuinely loves old-timey music/little richard/wilson pickett/etc.). but he also i think finds a security blanket in taking on roles and putting on voices. if the take's going south, lapse into a country drawl and toss in some cutesy ad libs. and it did him in in the end... reminds me of theater kids or improv kids, in college when they're still finding themselves, where you almost can't have a conversation because they're always lapsing into a character or a voice or a pop culture reference. paul as a person remains much harder to penetrate. he's always "on" whether it's singing "honey pie"/"you gave me the answer"/etc. or just, interview-paul rubbing the side of his nose and smilingly relating anecdotes he's told four million times as if they're 100% freshly coming to mind. he interacts with the studio mic like he's dealing with an audience. and somehow all or almost all of his music is part of that, whether it's in a funny voice or not. reminded a bit of ebert on chuck berry, sth like "behind the guy who let it all hang out is a guy who played it all close to the vest."

One of the best things about the Lewisohn book is learning that Paul and John's personalities were essentially formed as we know them back when they were little kids. Paul is always eager to please, John is often a dick.

I liked the part in the BBC doc where Paul and George try and describe the spastic tics John would do under pressure - iirc they're both apologizing for any hurt inflicted by the somewhat offensive parody of a physically disabled person, but at the same time reminiscing with fondness how John's mannerisms could put the group at ease, like he was good at goofing off even when they were playing stadiums, reminding them to not take Beatlemania too seriously

paul as a person remains much harder to penetrate. he's always "on" whether it's singing "honey pie"/"you gave me the answer"/etc. or just, interview-paul rubbing the side of his nose and smilingly relating anecdotes he's told four million times as if they're 100% freshly coming to mind. he interacts with the studio mic like he's dealing with an audience. and somehow all or almost all of his music is part of that

I disagree. Probably going back to the '80s in retrospect but certainly in his recent career, his music strikes me as being very open, clear, honest.

'The End of The End', 'Little Willow', 'Riding to Vanity Fair', 'Early Days', 'Ever Present Past', 'That Was Me' etc. could not be any more open, clear and honest.

It's not that I don't think he ever writes from the heart, or that every one of his recordings buries any kind of honest communication, I just think he has a tendency to be in 'performance' mode kind of continuously. I don't say that as an attack - y'all know I'm a big fan and in the past few days Press To Play, London Town, and the self-titled have all hit my turntable.

If it wasn't a criticism, I'm not sure what point you were making. I understand the criticism of answers you may have heard multiple times to interview questions. I'm not sure how I relate that, though, to some performative tendency you're identifying in his music, whether it's "Honey Pie"/"You Gave Me the Answer" or something else. I'm REALLY unsure how I relate it to any of his music from the last 20 years.

i dunno, i thought doc casino's point was pretty clear -- paul is clearly a guy who feels comfortable inside his role as a performer and probably resembles artists like chuck berry (who kept a clear distance between themselves and their audience) than artists like john (who seemed to want to erase that distance, sometimes at least). pointing out the difference between paul's and john's use of silly voices, clowning at the mike, etc., is an interesting observation i hadn't thought of before. he was also clearly talking about paul's career as a whole, so i don't think it negates his point to argue that paul's music has become more "open, clear, and honest" in the past 20 years.

I don't buy the idea that the lack of personal content in, say, his '70s songwriting is "defensive."

And 20 years is a long time. Longer than the '70s!

surely we can discuss paul's role in the beatles without it being perceived as an attack on the authenticity of his music? in the bbc doc he comes off as the most outspoken, I'm guessing they had a lot more interview footage with him than the others, but he also seems to be putting on an act in a way the others don't - you see paul by a bonfire in the forest, riding a boat etc etc, and ofc this doesn't mean he's not telling the truth or being inauthentic but he's still kinda performing? glad he did, since he's really great at it

I think Fallon's impersonation in this clip is funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_zf6kYvR8k

surprising his mid 90s auto-biog/memoir rarely comes up in these conversations about Macca. it's remarkably frank, almost brutal at times.

37% Frank 63% Brutal

I don't buy the idea that his '70s songwriting lacks personal content.

in the bbc doc he comes off as the most outspoken

Do you mean Anthology? He's definitely the most animated of the three, but the Beatles were rarely, if ever, a source of frustration for him (at least, not until Allen Klein showed up). They certainly were for George, and, to a lesser extent, Ringo.

During the segments where the three are interviewed together, George has this look on his face like, "Ugh, this fucking guy again." Not that they didn't genuinely love each other, but Paul's "performing" persona no doubt got on George's nerves.

John Lennon apparently used to complain that people were more likely to cover Paul McCartney songs than his. Yoko apparently tried to reassure him on one such occasion by saying that John's songs had more depth or some such crap. Horseshit. It's really for several reasons: one is that in his solo career, the more newspaper/journalist/political type of tracks have dated horrendously lyrically or in many cases weren't very good. Secondly, his love songs are mostly great, but lyrically are all "ooh Yoko, ooh Yokoyokoyoko, ooh Yoko, you turn me awn" which is only a comfortable thing to sing if you're actually John Lennon. Thirdly, some of the personal content in tracks like 'Mother' would be inappropriate for anyone else to sing. There's a good reason why only a very small portion of post-1969 Lennon ever gets regularly covered: 'Imagine', 'Jealous Guy', 'Working Class Hero', 'Love', 'Woman', 'Instant Karma!' etc. and that reason is that they're generally more comfortable for others to sing on a lyrical level. Also, we can add to the fact that Lennon's solo discography isn't that large and quite a fair bit of it post-1971 isn't very good.