George Martin / White Album
Phil Miller
My understanding is that George Martin played a big role in the
production on "Sgt. Pepper" and "Abbey Road", but what about the
"White Album"?
The "White Album" in places has a very un-Beatlish sound, and many
tracks lack the ornamentation and manneristic quality found on
either "Pepper" or "Abbey Road".
So do those who have the Books and the inner lights on this topic
feel compelled to enlighten me?
philll
R Clement
>So do those who have the Books and the inner lights on this topic
>feel compelled to enlighten me?
>
>philll
No, we feel compelled to say 'go and buy your own copy of The Book'.
Cheers,
Ross-c
Mitchell F. Balish
:
: My understanding is that George Martin played a big role in the
Right you are! George Martin had considerably less to do with the
way the White Album was put together than he did with some others.
He was not present for a number of sessions, usually replaced by
young Chris Thomas, who went on to produce such groups as the
Pretenders. Anyway, Big George was against the idea of a double
album, instead preferring to take the best of it and work on it
(take a bad song and make it better?). Nonetheless, that album
definitely has, in most places, a certain different feel to it than
their other works. My favorite part is that eerie organ that
appears on several George and John songs. I don't think we ever
heard from that organ again!
In a lot of cases the recordings for the White Album were done
solo, like Blackbird and Julia. So, in short, it wasn't the way
George Martin would have liked it, but musically speaking, I'd say
it's an interesting phase of the Beatles' career. Abbey Road
certainly wouldn't have worked if they tried to record it the same
way.
-Mitch
Phil Miller
: George Martin had considerably less to do with the
: way the White Album was put together than he did with some others.
: He was not present for a number of sessions, usually replaced by
: young Chris Thomas, who went on to produce such groups as the
: Pretenders. Anyway, Big George was against the idea of a double
: album, instead preferring to take the best of it and work on it
And at what point then did the Beatles realize that they were
working on what would become a double album without a concept?
I mean, after Rubber Soul, Revolver, Pepper, and even MMT,
the Beatles when putting their next album together must have
had some concept of the direction that the music would take.
Like weren't they initialy thinking of something that would be
an answer record to Pepper?
Obviously when they decided to make the cover White, it meant they
were telling their audience that they felt the world's reaction
to Pepper was over blown with too much hoopla. The negative tone
of many of the songs on the album also point to the Beatles dissatisfaction
with their roles as leaders of the hippydom "new age" -- "Glass Onion",
"Back in the USSR", "Piggies", "Sexy Sadie", "Yer Blues", etc, all
had a very un-"pepperish" spirit. The lyrics to "Revolution #1" were
changed to nihilize the single version's peaceful politics.
The happy time psychedelia of Pepper was replaced by "bad trip" psychedelia
of most of side 4, and then only to have the freak show ironicaly
end with the soothing "Good Night".
And then there is the view of the White Album being a time capsule
of the history of Western Civilizations music.
So did the Beatles have a gestalt in mind when they realsed the White
Album? And for those who remember when it first came out, wasn't it
a bit of a bum trip? (Predating Altamont by over a year.)
philll
Joseph Brennan
>And at what point then did the Beatles realize that they were
>working on what would become a double album without a concept?
My guess is pretty early. They did a series of demo recordings of
many of the songs over a few days at George's house, and it's pretty
obvious that they're just a random assortment of songs. They then
proceeded to record one thing after another, from May 30 1968 on, and
if you take the first half dozen or whatever, they don't seem to fit
any pattern. One of the first few is Ringo's "Don't pass me by",
which had been kicking around since 1964 (he actually sings the chorus
in a radio interview!), so they seem to have been recording whatever
they had. George Martin has stated that he couldn't figure what they
were up to, recording such a massive amount of material, and that he
urged them repeatedly to cut it down to one LP. GM said he thought
later they were trying to finish out their contractual obligations,
possibly already thinking of recording "solo".
>Obviously when they decided to make the cover White, it meant they
>were telling their audience that they felt the world's reaction
>to Pepper was over blown with too much hoopla.
Maybe. The cover was designed by an outside artist (yes, someone was
paid to design it!). John particularly was very taken by the idea of
plain white and he and Yoko used it later in some of their artwork.
>And then there is the view of the White Album being a time capsule
>of the history of Western Civilizations music.
This was said by people I knew at the time. Or something similar,
that each song was in the style of a particular artiste, and we spent
time trying to identify each song with someone. It had to mean
something, you know, since it was the Beatles. "Look into a glass
onion" indeed.
> And for those who remember when it first came out, wasn't it
>a bit of a bum trip?
No! It was tremendously exciting to have so many new Beatles songs at
once. FM stations played whole sides at a time. Everyone was talking
about the songs. Beatles releases were major events in those days.
Joe Brennan Columbia University in the City of New York
bre...@columbia.edu ("affiliation shown for identification only")
Randolph M. Jones
|> Obviously when they decided to make the cover White, it meant they
|> were telling their audience that they felt the world's reaction
|> to Pepper was over blown with too much hoopla.
I always thought the white cover was kind of a sneer at the public: "As long
as it says `Beatles' on it, you're going to buy it, so we won't put anything
else."
gold...@ide.com
>"And for those who remember when it first came out, wasn't it a bit of a bum
trip?"
I don't remember it that way at all. After the incredible reaction to Sgt.
Pepper, when everyone kept saying how unbelievably brilliant these guys were,
the Beatles wanted to create something less formal. (Just as you say in your
post.) A lot of the songs on the White Album were things they came up with
informally, while they were in India, and they wanted to preserve a more casual feel than in their recent work. I think this is also why they didn't go with
George Martin's idea of a single, more carefully crafted album.
The tunes on the White Album also reflected the individual personalities of John and Paul to a much greater extent as well, since they were beginning to show
the signs of strain that would soon lead to their break up. This is why there's a somewhat schizoid character to this album, as opposed to the highly unified
"feel" to Sgt. Pepper and MMT.
I do remember being very disappointed that they didn't include the single
version of Revolution on the White Album at the time.
Bruce
Phil Miller
: The tunes on the White Album also reflected the individual personalities of John and Paul to a much greater extent as well, since they were beginning to show
: the signs of strain that would lead to their break up. This is why there's a somewhat schizoid character to this album, as opposed to the highly unified
: "feel" to Sgt. Pepper and MMT.
Yes, and the emergence of those individual personalities in the songs
on the White Album also meant that no longer would the individual
sacrifice himself in any way for the sake of the "grand project".
But what is really fascinating is the *resentment* shown by some of the
individual songs (and the cover) against their past roles as counter-
culture figureheads -- almost as if the burden of creating another "grand
project" or new direction with a celebratory and harmonious 60's mentality
had become too much of a strain.
And in doing so, the Beatles must have consciously known they were
destroying some of the "magic" they had created.
(A magic they would a year later decide was worth keeping as their legacy
with the much more cohesive and harmonious Abbey Road lp.)
: I do remember being very disappointed that they didn't include the single
: version of Revolution on the White Album at the time.
Or how's about "Hey Jude" instead of "Revolution #9"?
philll
Phil Miller
: In article <24gcou$d...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> mil...@sc.hp.com (Phil Miller) writes:
: >And then there is the view of the White Album being a time capsule
: >of the history of Western Civilizations music.
: This was said by people I knew at the time. Or something similar,
: that each song was in the style of a particular artiste, and we spent
: time trying to identify each song with someone. It had to mean
: something, you know, since it was the Beatles. "Look into a glass
: onion" indeed.
Doesn't this mean that in certain ways the White Album was misunderstood
by the Beatles' fans upon it's release? I mean, with the frankness
of "Glass Onion" staring them in their faces, there was still the
search for the "grand meaning".
Or in other words, didn't people sense that with the White Album the
Beatles were more interested in making music that would please themselves
rather than pleasing or spiritually guiding their audience?
philll
Brian Harvey
>Doesn't this mean that in certain ways the White Album was misunderstood
>by the Beatles' fans upon it's release? I mean, with the frankness
>of "Glass Onion" staring them in their faces, there was still the
>search for the "grand meaning".
Actually, I think "Glass Onion" is about the *least* frank song they ever
did! I mean, for example, everyone knows, and the Beatles have agreed, about
several meanings of songs: Julia is (in part) about John's mother, Sexy
Sadie is about the Maharishi, Hey Jude was Paul's message to Julian, etc etc.
Of course there is a difference between looking for meaning and looking
for M*E*A*N*I*N*G -- I don't think there's much of the latter even in
Sgt Pepper! So when John says "stop looking for meaning, there isn't any"
I can appreciate that he doesn't want to be everyone's guru, but that doesn't
mean we can't try to figure out what they were doing in their songs.
It's a question of perspective. For example, the idea that the white album
has a Grand Concept in which each song represents the style of some other
artist seems really stretched to me, but there's no doubt that Back In The
USSR has a lot to do with the Beach Boys!
P.S. I agree about how exciting the album was when it came out. My own
semi-grand concept at the time (as I've mentioned before) was that they
arranged the songs easy-to-hard, because I started liking side 1 the best
but ended up liking side 4 the best (except for R9, I confess).
P.P.S. And I don't agree with whoever said the white cover was a sign of
contempt. If so, they wouldn't have included the photos and the poster.
John Howells
Indeed! I remember one radio station playing it in its entirety, over
and over again in a 24 hour period. They played nothing else.
Yes, a new Beatles album was a major musical event. I can't think of
anything similar today.
The White Album - their best album.
--
John Howells
how...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
pa...@tethys.ph.albany.edu
>
>So did the Beatles have a gestalt in mind when they realsed the White
>Album? And for those who remember when it first came out, wasn't it
>a bit of a bum trip? (Predating Altamont by over a year.)
>
>
>philll
Bum trip ? Not at all. I remember very well how impressed I was by the
wealth of musical material on the album. And it happened in 68, when
most of the rock music hardly ventured beyond 3-chords scheme. Add to
it complex arrangements on White album and sense of humor (so rare
in rock music) ... No, I certainly remember it as a major event.
-Pawel.
John Howells
<P.P.S. And I don't agree with whoever said the white cover was a sign of
<contempt. If so, they wouldn't have included the photos and the poster.
I thought the white cover was meant to convey simplicity. Rock albums
were becoming so elaborate (the Stones "Satanic Majesties" cover being
the ultimate in excessive gaudiness) that it was time to go to the
opposite extreme and come out with a cover that presented virtually
nothing. In a shopful of psychedelic album covers a pure white one
stood out among the rest.
--
John Howells
how...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
Bruce Dumes
I'll never forget the first time I heard the White Album. My brother and
I ran down to the store as soon as we heard it was released, and we
listened to the whole thing in one sitting. We were completely
mesmerized.
Speaking of "bum trips", the album, while not a concept album, is put
together in such a way that it resembles a travel experience sans
baggage. (nudge nudge wink wink say no more :-) You are shot out of a
cannon with Back In The USSR, drift through fields of glass onions,
the guitar weeps. Revolution No.9 is a collage of thoughts, memories,
snapshots, paranoia, and is the peak of the experience. And then it's
time to say Good Night.
I could go on, but I think you all get what I mean.
It is certainly not Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road, but they weren't trying
to make another Sgt. Pepper. The White Album really expresses where
they were at at that point in time -- for all the good and bad that
may represent.
Bruce
--
Bruce Dumes | "What happened to that crispy bacon
b...@sw.stratus.com | we had before the war, eh?"
Stratus Computer, Inc. |
Phil Miller
: I'll never forget the first time I heard the White Album. My brother and
: I ran down to the store as soon as we heard it was released, and we
: listened to the whole thing in one sitting. We were completely
: mesmerized.
Most of the "old timers" in this group appear to be in agreement that
the White Album was viewed very positively upon its 1968 release.
The apperant rejection of the "feel good" quality of Sgt. Pepper
(as manifested on the White Album) seems to have been outweighed for listeners
by the stunning eclecticness, adventerousness, emotiveness, and innovativeness
of the music.
I personally didn't buy (or for the most part hear) most of the
Beatles albums untill about 1973/74. The White Album was the most
expensive (and least "hit-packed) lp, so it was the last one I scrapped
my teenage nickles to purchase. My first reaction was that what was very
good was the best music I'd ever heard, and that what was "bad" would
after a few more plays become as in catagory #1.
But today when I reconsider the Beatles, while I find the White Album
to still be in places their musical high point for me ("Dear Prudence",
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "I Will" "Julia", and most of the last
two sides) I also find that it is the only Beatle album that has
moments of stark coldness with regards to how the listener will feel.
And to juxtapose the funniest songs along side the cold songs only
makes the coldness stand out even more.
: Speaking of "bum trips", the album, while not a concept album, is put
: together in such a way that it resembles a travel experience sans
: baggage. (nudge nudge wink wink say no more :-) You are shot out of a
Another question: Is the White Album by and large a "psychedelic" album?
In some parts there is no question that it is, but it is a less intent
and manneristic psychedelia than the Beatles had previously used in 1966/67.
The psychedelic elements of the White Album seemed to come naturally
(meditation as opposed to LSD?), and their consciousness sensitizing
qualities often appear in stark contrast to the rawness of the arrangements.
The airplane engines and meatllic sounding lead guitar of "Back in the USSR"
are a good example of this as they turn a Chuck Berry/Beach Boys parody
into something that jostles the mind on multiple levels -- still powerful
stuff even today.
Of course, Revolution #9 was John's avant garde psychedelia, which was
quite blatant (for those who can hear it as more than just noise!).
But what of "Sexy Sadie"? What is that? Doo Woop psychedelia turned
inside out? And of all the far out sounds on the White Album, is
there anything more far out than Ringo's "Don't Pass Me By" --
psychedelic country indeed!
: It is certainly not Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road, but they weren't trying
: to make another Sgt. Pepper. The White Album really expresses where
: they were at at that point in time -- for all the good and bad that
: may represent.
But what *was* that point they were at in relation to how they felt
about their fans, their responsibility as icons, and their past
legacy?
My point is not that the music of the White Album suffered, but
rather that it may have been the only Beatle album that the Beatles
really made music they wanted to make without giving a damn about
what anybody thought of it.
The only agenda of the White Album was that to satisfy the Beatles
personal artistic and emotional needs and not those of their fans or
their contemparies or those who looked to them for cultural leadership.
It was a signpost for the "Me Decade".
philll
Phil Miller
: Yes, a new Beatles album was a major musical event. I can't think of
: anything similar today.
The only things that's come close since then has been the reissue of
the albums on cd. 1/2 ;-)
Actually while I'm not a big fan of the way the earlier Beatle albums
sound on cd, the White Album on cd is a true blessing. No longer do
"Julia", "Long, Long, Long", and "Goodnight" sound scrunched.
Even the Absolute Sound high-end audio magazine prefered the sound of
the White Album cds to the original lps. And they don't like cd
technology in general.
(There was a reason they gave for the cds sounding better, but I forgot.
Anybody with a back issue from around 87/88 care to look it up?)
Now if only they could squeeze all 90+ minutes onto one cd,
or better yet, make the mono mix available on cd.
philll
R Clement
>P.P.S. And I don't agree with whoever said the white cover was a sign of
>contempt. If so, they wouldn't have included the photos and the poster.
I agree with evaluations I've seen written about the white cover, in that
Rubber Soul was standard sixties, Revolver had a more complex cover, Sgt.
Pepper's more so, Magical Mystery tour, well I haven't seen a copy of the
original E.P. packaging, but it looks like a Sgt. Pepper wannabe in the
pictures I've seen and the CD. When a path like that is starting to run dry,
what could be more of a statement than to just put nothing at all on the cover?
What could have more surprise value? Sort of like the synth sound on IWY(SSH),
after it builds up and up, there's nothing to do but cut it off suddenly.
Cheers,
Ross-c
edward s. chen
>In article <24gm0p$q...@agate.berkeley.edu> b...@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>>P.P.S. And I don't agree with whoever said the white cover was a sign of
>>contempt. If so, they wouldn't have included the photos and the poster.
>
>I agree with evaluations I've seen written about the white cover, in that
>Rubber Soul was standard sixties, Revolver had a more complex cover, Sgt.
>Pepper's more so, Magical Mystery tour, well I haven't seen a copy of the
>original E.P. packaging, but it looks like a Sgt. Pepper wannabe in the
>pictures I've seen and the CD. When a path like that is starting to run dry,
>what could be more of a statement than to just put nothing at all on the
>cover?
Of course, what everyone is forgetting in this discussion is that the
white cover was not part of the original thoughts on the LP. During
the time frame that the Beatles were recording demo's at George's home,
the concept for the album cover was tentatively a collage of images
covering the boys career to that point.
That idea did eventually get used - but not on the front cover.
Incidentally, someone mentioned World Party. Not only is the lead
singer a Beatlemania-perfect double of John Lennon, but a big fan also.
One of their CD booklet's is a perfect homage to the cut-'n-paste
version of the White Album poster which appeared in the "The Beatles"
CD.
<ESC>
--
Q: What would you personally like to see the new administration bring in?
A: More Wine!
-- John Lennon, 1963
Joe Ahmann
: .>FM stations played whole sides at a time. Everyone was talking
: >about the songs. Beatles releases were major events in those days.
: mesmerized.
: Speaking of "bum trips", the album, while not a concept album, is put
: together in such a way that it resembles a travel experience sans
: baggage. (nudge nudge wink wink say no more :-) You are shot out of a
: cannon with Back In The USSR, drift through fields of glass onions,
: the guitar weeps. Revolution No.9 is a collage of thoughts, memories,
: snapshots, paranoia, and is the peak of the experience. And then it's
: time to say Good Night.
: It is certainly not Sgt. Pepper or Abbey Road, but they weren't trying
: to make another Sgt. Pepper. The White Album really expresses where
: they were at at that point in time -- for all the good and bad that
: may represent.
For an album with no obvious theme to it, the white album does convey
certain messages that would lead us to believe the Fabs weren't having
.s much fun with their lives as was portrayed in their previous albums.
I hear them saying things like "I'm lonely" and "I'm so tired" and in
Sexy Sadie:<the Maharishi made a fool out of us>. They seemed IMHO to
be saying the druggie, wild lifestyle isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Maybe they regarded much of their lifesyles as a "bum trip".
There is a feeling of maturity, politically and morally, i.e.: Piggies,
Bungalow Bill, Revolution, Happiness is a Warm Gun, even Rocky Raccoon
all tempered with a bit of well-placed humor. And in I Will, Paul is
proposin' to his sweety. Life is real, guys, it's time to grow up.
I can understand how you would have been mesmerized by all this. I simply
would have been confused if I had been lucky enough to buy it when it came
out. Now that I do own the album I find both or either CD emotionally
exhausting so it would be very hard to listen to both back to back as they
apparently intended. It would also be hard for me to have either of them
on in the background while otherwise occupied. These songs are "Music To
Be Listened To" as much as was Sgt. Pepper's.
I'd better stop before it gets too deep in here :)
Loralee Ahmann
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ahmann ahm...@fs.com
Fourth Shift Corp. (612) 851-1427
JIT Enterprise Systems
R Clement
>Incidentally, someone mentioned World Party. Not only is the lead
>singer a Beatlemania-perfect double of John Lennon, but a big fan also.
>One of their CD booklet's is a perfect homage to the cut-'n-paste
>version of the White Album poster which appeared in the "The Beatles"
>CD.
In the latest version of _The Beatles Book_ there is a picture of a Beatles
Soundalike band. One of them is a *stunning* double of John. In fact, when I
first looked at the picture (not having read the text) I though "who are
these strange looking guys with John?"
Haven't heard them though.
Cheers,
Ross-c
saki
>
>>And at what point then did the Beatles realize that they were
>>working on what would become a double album without a concept?
>
>My guess is pretty early. They did a series of demo recordings of
>many of the songs over a few days at George's house, and it's pretty
>obvious that they're just a random assortment of songs. They then
>proceeded to record one thing after another, from May 30 1968 on, and
>if you take the first half dozen or whatever, they don't seem to fit
>any pattern. One of the first few is Ringo's "Don't pass me by",
>which had been kicking around since 1964 (he actually sings the chorus
>in a radio interview!), so they seem to have been recording whatever
>they had.
A very minor correction. Paul sings a bit of "Don't Pass Me By"
on a 1964 BBC radio show, behind Ringo's explanation to the
announcer about why he doesn't write songs. Ringo mentioned
that Paul was heliping him out with the lyrics.
>>Obviously when they decided to make the cover White, it meant they
>>were telling their audience that they felt the world's reaction
>>to Pepper was over blown with too much hoopla.
>
>Maybe. The cover was designed by an outside artist (yes, someone was
>paid to design it!). John particularly was very taken by the idea of
>plain white and he and Yoko used it later in some of their artwork.
Richard Hamilton was the artist suggested to John and Paul by
Robert Fraser, a London art gallery owner who had previously
recommended Peter Blake as designer for the "Sgt. Pepper"
LP cover (Fraser's batting average was impressive!) Hamilton
had done a collage about the Rolling Stones' drug trial, and
this impressed McCartney enough to suggest that Hamilton do
something similar for the album later to become "The Beatles"
Instead, Hamilton suggested the starkness of a pure white
LP cover, with the name of the album embossed, and numbered
in the manner of collector's lithographic series. Note that
the collage idea resurfaced in the inner poster which was
included with the original White Album package.
I can guarantee you that there was no intent by the Beatles
in using the white, "designless" theme as an insult or affront
to their audience. It was a statement of simplicity all by itelf---
an anti-design, if you like, which stood out in contrast to other
LP designs of the time (including thew Beatles' own past covers),
eshewing intricate psychedelic and convoluted colors.
>It was tremendously exciting to have so many new Beatles songs at
>once. FM stations played whole sides at a time. Everyone was talking
>about the songs. Beatles releases were major events in those days.
This was certainly the case with "Sgt. Pepper" too. My local
station obtained a copy of "Sgt. Pepper" a week before its
intended release, and despite clear documentation asking the
station to observe the embargo on the product till its actual
release date of 1 June 1967, they played it anyway, without
breaks or announcements, at midnight one night. They did the
same for the White Album. It was a startling experience to
hear such works come forth from the radio uninterrupted and
coherent in their entirety.
--
"This is pure madness," said one middle-aged woman. "There is nothing
spectacular about the Beatles anyway. I am worried for my daughter,
who might go crazy about them."______________________________________
saki (dm...@math.ucla.edu)
saki
Design is a funny thing. I recall being invited to a friend's
art opening (it was actually his M.F.A. final project) where
enormous canvases were hung in the gallery. All of them stark
white. Or so it seemed. Instead of the experience of this fellow's
artistic ability, I feared I had been invited to participate in
some kind of unsettling joke, instead. Then I walked up close to
the "paintings" and discovered that each of them had one or two
incredibly faint pastel pencil-thin lines painted on the surface,
which you couldn't see from a distance. Well, at least that was
a statement of sorts. :-)
Remember too that the White Album wasn't entirely bereft of
design. The embossed (raised lettering) title (too bad it's
now screened in light grey---not the same sensation at all)
cast shadows on the white surface in different ways, depending
on how you held the LP, and the individuality of the numbered
edition essentially gave you a bit of "original" artwork all
your own.
Of course there was the music inside it, too; that was rather
nice as well. :-)
Stephen Carter
: In the latest version of _The Beatles Book_ there is a picture of a Beatles
: Soundalike band. One of them is a *stunning* double of John. In fact, when I
: first looked at the picture (not having read the text) I though "who are
: these strange looking guys with John?"
Agreed. My reaction as well!
----
Stephen Carter, Systems & Operations Manager, Computing Services,
University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QJ, UK : S.D.C...@sussex.ac.uk
"Nothing is Beatle Proof!"
Stephen Carter
: Richard Hamilton was the artist suggested to John and Paul by
: Robert Fraser, a London art gallery owner who had previously
: recommended Peter Blake as designer for the "Sgt. Pepper"
: LP cover (Fraser's batting average was impressive!) Hamilton
: had done a collage about the Rolling Stones' drug trial, and
: this impressed McCartney enough to suggest that Hamilton do
: something similar for the album later to become "The Beatles"
: Instead, Hamilton suggested the starkness of a pure white
: LP cover, with the name of the album embossed, and numbered
: in the manner of collector's lithographic series. Note that
: the collage idea resurfaced in the inner poster which was
: included with the original White Album package.
Interestingly (IMHO) the ORIGINAL of the collage still exists and was
dislpayed at the 'Art of The Beatles' exhibition in Liverpool in 1984.
Robert L Ryder
>Soundalike band. One of them is a *stunning* double of John. In fact, when I
>first looked at the picture (not having read the text) I though "who are
>these strange looking guys with John?"
>
>Haven't heard them though.
>
I don't have the book, so is it the group called "1964"? They've played around
here alot!! They are incredibly good too! I've heard them in concert and
cannot tell them apart from the real Beatles. I almost thought that
they were playing Beatles' CD's behind stage and lipping it! I just got
into the Beatles a couple years ago, so I have only seen the boys in
concert films, but these guys mannerisms, equipment, and movements on
stage (especially the guy playing John with the wide stance and head
held high singing down his nose into the mic with occasional head tilts)
is all perfect. Don't know too much more about them except they must
have done a LOT of film study to get that good.
Rob R.
Phil Miller
: I can understand how you would have been mesmerized by all this. I simply
: would have been confused if I had been lucky enough to buy it when it came
: out. Now that I do own the album I find both or either CD emotionally
: exhausting so it would be very hard to listen to both back to back as they
: apparently intended.
Yes, the White Album is mesmerizing, confusing, and exhausting.
But it works -- spectacularly. There may be no better example of the
Beatles' untouchable legacy as the greatest recording artists of all
time than the fact that no other artist could come close to capturing
the magnificent sweep of the White Album.
It strikes me as amusing when other artists say they done their "Pepper"
and now they will do their "White Album". There may be Pepper facsimilies
with respect to an artist's ability at creating a unique atmoshere for
forty-five minutes of music, but no group has followed such a work up
with an about-face into an all encompassing sprawl which reveals a
seemingly bottomless pit for imagination, innovation, and eclecticism.
And, like the poster, I also find it difficult to listen to the entire White
Album in one sitting.
philll
Amund Hunstad
>
>Obviously when they decided to make the cover White, it meant they
>were telling their audience that they felt the world's reaction
>to Pepper was over blown with too much hoopla. The negative tone
>of many of the songs on the album also point to the Beatles dissatisfaction
>with their roles as leaders of the hippydom "new age" -- "Glass Onion",
>"Back in the USSR", "Piggies", "Sexy Sadie", "Yer Blues", etc, all
>had a very un-"pepperish" spirit. The lyrics to "Revolution #1" were
>changed to nihilize the single version's peaceful politics.
>The happy time psychedelia of Pepper was replaced by "bad trip" psychedelia
>of most of side 4, and then only to have the freak show ironicaly
>end with the soothing "Good Night".
I do not agree that it is obvious that the white cover were to tell the audience
what you are claiming. It is not obvious that the cover were to tell any message
at all. These are only your way of interpreting it, but the interpretation is certainly interesting. Still, I do believe that it is important to distinguish between personal
views/interpretations and facts.
The same can be said of the interpretations of the songs.
Surely, what you are saying might be correct, but much else could also be correct.
I believe (that's my belief, and no fact) that good art conveys several possible
meanings and interpretations.
amund
R Clement
>R Clement (ros...@scs.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: In the latest version of _The Beatles Book_ there is a picture of a Beatles
>: Soundalike band. One of them is a *stunning* double of John. In fact, when I
>: first looked at the picture (not having read the text) I though "who are
>: these strange looking guys with John?"
>
>Agreed. My reaction as well!
I've lost the article I should be following up, but I've scanned the picture
of "Cavern" (not 1964), and uploaded it to cs.uwp.edu:/incoming/pictures/
cavern.tiff.
Unfortunately, I'm not a graphics person and had some trouble making it.
Now, when I tried to convert it to a gif file using "imconv", there's
apparantly something wrong with the tiff file, and it won't convert. I can
display it as a tiff (though I can't rotate it so that up is up).
Please could someone more familiar with graphic files fix this up. The
others of you who can handle tiff can view a (lower contrast) picture of John's
"double".
Cheers,
Ross-c
R Clement
>I've lost the article I should be following up, but I've scanned the picture
>of "Cavern" (not 1964), and uploaded it to cs.uwp.edu:/incoming/pictures/
>cavern.tiff.
Ooops! Make that cs.uwp.edu:/incoming/pictures/beatles/cavern.tiff
Cheers,
Ross-c
Dean Wittke
: Cheers,
: Ross-c
It's now in cs.uwp.edu:/incoming/pictures/beatles as a jpg thanks to
xv 3.0. it's also rotated correctly, and the size reduced from
1004387 to 128949.
Thanks for the scan!