Remastered 50th Anniversary White Album?
-
-
Nancy R wrote:
It's a great article on the song and the band....how cohesive they were when...as Ringo put it...locked in a room and could play together and be a band again. The title of the article? Misleading and very condescending!
-
oobu24 wrote:
From the Chicago Tribune today...an article about the White Album & which songs should have been kept & which were duds...according to the author & George Martin.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/ct-ae-beatles-white-album-review-1118-story.html
His writing about the album is all over the place...some made up stuff and some factual here and there. I don't completely disagree with the single album idea. There were enough excellent songs to make the perfect album. I don't even disagree with his selections...except why only 12 songs? By then, albums had 14 songs. I would probably never leave off "Glass Onion" or "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La Da." I could live with that as a single album. I made my own out of the two albums.....still two albums but with some songs removed. I don't need to ever hear the Honey Pie songs...both of them...or Revolution 9. I could do without Ringo's contribution and his (vocal on) Good Night. With the songs the writer of the article included, there are enough good ones to make a second....later album...and still leave off the ones I mentioned..IMO. For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. (I'm not so sure that when George Martin made his comment he was referring to the finished product. I've read that he made the statement going by the titles and some reading of the lyrics only. He didn't know what ideas they had for melody or how the finished songs would sound. Knowing that could have made a difference in what he said. He has been quoted saying that. ) I may try and make the album the writer suggested and see how I like it. Not sure about "Sexie Sady," however. I might choose "....Bungalo Bill" or instead...or "Savoy Truffle" instead. Regardless....it's one of the ten best albums of all time per Rolling Stone and deserves to be....the shear variety it has is brilliant.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
..... For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. ...
This take (take 44) is just BEAUTIFUL!
-
The Beatles, Bob Dylan and classic rock in the digital era
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
Nancy R wrote:
It's a great article on the song and the band....how cohesive they were when...as Ringo put it...locked in a room and could play together and be a band again. The title of the article? Misleading and very condescending!
True that!
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
oobu24 wrote:
From the Chicago Tribune today...an article about the White Album & which songs should have been kept & which were duds...according to the author & George Martin.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/ct-ae-beatles-white-album-review-1118-story.html
His writing about the album is all over the place...some made up stuff and some factual here and there. I don't completely disagree with the single album idea. There were enough excellent songs to make the perfect album. I don't even disagree with his selections...except why only 12 songs? By then, albums had 14 songs. I would probably never leave off "Glass Onion" or "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La Da." I could live with that as a single album. I made my own out of the two albums.....still two albums but with some songs removed. I don't need to ever hear the Honey Pie songs...both of them...or Revolution 9. I could do without Ringo's contribution and his (vocal on) Good Night. With the songs the writer of the article included, there are enough good ones to make a second....later album...and still leave off the ones I mentioned..IMO. For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. (I'm not so sure that when George Martin made his comment he was referring to the finished product. I've read that he made the statement going by the titles and some reading of the lyrics only. He didn't know what ideas they had for melody or how the finished songs would sound. Knowing that could have made a difference in what he said. He has been quoted saying that. ) I may try and make the album the writer suggested and see how I like it. Not sure about "Sexie Sady," however. I might choose "....Bungalo Bill" or instead...or "Savoy Truffle" instead. Regardless....it's one of the ten best albums of all time per Rolling Stone and deserves to be....the shear variety it has is brilliant.
I agree with you! Why does he call Martha My Dear a dud?! And to leave off I Will would be a crime! I also love Savoy Truffle and Birthday.
-
The Re-Issue Of The Beatles' 'White Album' Reveals The Importance Of Preparation
-
oobu24 wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
..... For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. ...
This take (take 44) is just BEAUTIFUL!
Yes it is! Love it. I also like the idea of "Good Night" being sung by all 4 Beatles...(take 10 with guitar part from take 5). Not sure what went into the thinking on that one. The heavy orchestration and choir strikes me as the wrong production. Since it was John's song...although one he could not get away with singing; it had to be done by Ringo....I'm surprised he didn't fight more for the less lavish production. And surprised Martin, himself, didn't go with a simpler version, more in keeping with the album.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
oobu24 wrote:
From the Chicago Tribune today...an article about the White Album & which songs should have been kept & which were duds...according to the author & George Martin.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/ct-ae-beatles-white-album-review-1118-story.html
His writing about the album is all over the place...some made up stuff and some factual here and there. I don't completely disagree with the single album idea. There were enough excellent songs to make the perfect album. I don't even disagree with his selections...except why only 12 songs? By then, albums had 14 songs. I would probably never leave off "Glass Onion" or "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La Da." I could live with that as a single album. I made my own out of the two albums.....still two albums but with some songs removed. I don't need to ever hear the Honey Pie songs...both of them...or Revolution 9. I could do without Ringo's contribution and his (vocal on) Good Night. With the songs the writer of the article included, there are enough good ones to make a second....later album...and still leave off the ones I mentioned..IMO. For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. (I'm not so sure that when George Martin made his comment he was referring to the finished product. I've read that he made the statement going by the titles and some reading of the lyrics only. He didn't know what ideas they had for melody or how the finished songs would sound. Knowing that could have made a difference in what he said. He has been quoted saying that. ) I may try and make the album the writer suggested and see how I like it. Not sure about "Sexie Sady," however. I might choose "....Bungalo Bill" or instead...or "Savoy Truffle" instead. Regardless....it's one of the ten best albums of all time per Rolling Stone and deserves to be....the shear variety it has is brilliant.
Also, the writer's suggestion for the perfect album has seven songs by John, three by Paul and two by George. Not sure Paul whould have gone along with that. But then if I stick in "Glass Onion" and "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" that would give John eight songs to four for Paul. That would not have worked either...for Paul.!!!
And how can I leave out "Mother Nature's Son" and "I Will?" -
There is also the take that the double album.... rather than it be released as a single album... allowed The Beatles to get away further from the poor record deal they were signed up with. I think it was treated as two records, and allowed them to double up on their contractual responsibilities.... on a shite deal... get closer to finalising that poor deal... two records in one...so it was a win.... I might be wrong, but I did read that... Nicholas Schaffner... and right or wrong on that, this is still my second favorite album! I love it! Double album every time.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
oobu24 wrote:
From the Chicago Tribune today...an article about the White Album & which songs should have been kept & which were duds...according to the author & George Martin.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/ct-ae-beatles-white-album-review-1118-story.html
His writing about the album is all over the place...some made up stuff and some factual here and there. I don't completely disagree with the single album idea. There were enough excellent songs to make the perfect album. I don't even disagree with his selections...except why only 12 songs? By then, albums had 14 songs. I would probably never leave off "Glass Onion" or "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La Da." I could live with that as a single album. I made my own out of the two albums.....still two albums but with some songs removed. I don't need to ever hear the Honey Pie songs...both of them...or Revolution 9. I could do without Ringo's contribution and his (vocal on) Good Night. With the songs the writer of the article included, there are enough good ones to make a second....later album...and still leave off the ones I mentioned..IMO. For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. (I'm not so sure that when George Martin made his comment he was referring to the finished product. I've read that he made the statement going by the titles and some reading of the lyrics only. He didn't know what ideas they had for melody or how the finished songs would sound. Knowing that could have made a difference in what he said. He has been quoted saying that. ) I may try and make the album the writer suggested and see how I like it. Not sure about "Sexie Sady," however. I might choose "....Bungalo Bill" or instead...or "Savoy Truffle" instead. Regardless....it's one of the ten best albums of all time per Rolling Stone and deserves to be....the shear variety it has is brilliant.
Also, the writer's suggestion for the perfect album has seven songs by John, three by Paul and two by George. Not sure Paul whould have gone along with that. But then if I stick in "Glass Onion" and "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" that would give John eight songs to four for Paul. That would not have worked either...for Paul.!!!
And how can I leave out "Mother Nature's Son" and "I Will?" Correct.... my earlier point....Paul, just three songs!.... the dude that wrote that article was a stupid git. ... the balanced Beatles album as a 'single album' would have as many from Paul as John, two from George, one from Ringo.... Long, Long, Long..... almost the most underrated song of the Beatles catalogue.
-
toris wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
oobu24 wrote:
From the Chicago Tribune today...an article about the White Album & which songs should have been kept & which were duds...according to the author & George Martin.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/music/ct-ae-beatles-white-album-review-1118-story.html
His writing about the album is all over the place...some made up stuff and some factual here and there. I don't completely disagree with the single album idea. There were enough excellent songs to make the perfect album. I don't even disagree with his selections...except why only 12 songs? By then, albums had 14 songs. I would probably never leave off "Glass Onion" or "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La Da." I could live with that as a single album. I made my own out of the two albums.....still two albums but with some songs removed. I don't need to ever hear the Honey Pie songs...both of them...or Revolution 9. I could do without Ringo's contribution and his (vocal on) Good Night. With the songs the writer of the article included, there are enough good ones to make a second....later album...and still leave off the ones I mentioned..IMO. For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. (I'm not so sure that when George Martin made his comment he was referring to the finished product. I've read that he made the statement going by the titles and some reading of the lyrics only. He didn't know what ideas they had for melody or how the finished songs would sound. Knowing that could have made a difference in what he said. He has been quoted saying that. ) I may try and make the album the writer suggested and see how I like it. Not sure about "Sexie Sady," however. I might choose "....Bungalo Bill" or instead...or "Savoy Truffle" instead. Regardless....it's one of the ten best albums of all time per Rolling Stone and deserves to be....the shear variety it has is brilliant.
Also, the writer's suggestion for the perfect album has seven songs by John, three by Paul and two by George. Not sure Paul whould have gone along with that. But then if I stick in "Glass Onion" and "Ob La Di, Ob La Da" that would give John eight songs to four for Paul. That would not have worked either...for Paul.!!!
And how can I leave out "Mother Nature's Son" and "I Will?" Correct.... my earlier point....Paul, just three songs!.... the dude that wrote that article was a stupid git. ... the balanced Beatles album as a 'single album' would have as many from Paul as John, two from George, one from Ringo.... Long, Long, Long..... almost the most underrated song of the Beatles catalogue.
"Long. Long, Long" sounds so great, it would fit nicely on any contemporary music station....beautifly timeless!! Thank you George!!!
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
oobu24 wrote:
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
..... For me, however, hearing George's "Long, Long, Long" remixed is more than worth the price of the whole shebang. Love that song. It could be the perfect ending song on the album as the writer placed it. ...
This take (take 44) is just BEAUTIFUL!
Yes it is! Love it. I also like the idea of "Good Night" being sung by all 4 Beatles...(take 10 with guitar part from take 5). Not sure what went into the thinking on that one. The heavy orchestration and choir strikes me as the wrong production. Since it was John's song...although one he could not get away with singing; it had to be done by Ringo....I'm surprised he didn't fight more for the less lavish production. And surprised Martin, himself, didn't go with a simpler version, more in keeping with the album.
Exactly!
-
toris wrote:
There is also the take that the double album.... rather than it be released as a single album... allowed The Beatles to get away further from the poor record deal they were signed up with. I think it was treated as two records, and allowed them to double up on their contractual responsibilities.... on a shite deal... get closer to finalising that poor deal... two records in one...so it was a win.... I might be wrong, but I did read that... Nicholas Schaffner... and right or wrong on that, this is still my second favorite album! I love it! Double album every time.
I've never heard or read any of them say it was made a double to fulfill their contract. As George put it they had so many songs from their trip to India that what do you do with them all? You have to put them out to make way for new songs. They realized early on in recording it that it was going to be a double. The albums Hey Jude (in America), and the Blue and Red albums were put out in the 70's to fulfill the 1966 contract and ran for ten years, when the record companies realized there would be no more new Beatles albums after Let It Be. Their manager Klein also renegotiated their contract for better terms with EMI and Capitol, but that was after the White Album was already released. That is what I recall reading about it.
-
beatlesfanrandy wrote:
toris wrote:
There is also the take that the double album.... rather than it be released as a single album... allowed The Beatles to get away further from the poor record deal they were signed up with. I think it was treated as two records, and allowed them to double up on their contractual responsibilities.... on a shite deal... get closer to finalising that poor deal... two records in one...so it was a win.... I might be wrong, but I did read that... Nicholas Schaffner... and right or wrong on that, this is still my second favorite album! I love it! Double album every time.
I've never heard or read any of them say it was made a double to fulfill their contract. As George put it they had so many songs from their trip to India that what do you do with them all? You have to put them out to make way for new songs. They realized early on in recording it that it was going to be a double. The albums Hey Jude (in America), and the Blue and Red albums were put out in the 70's to fulfill the 1966 contract and ran for ten years, when the record companies realized there would be no more new Beatles albums after Let It Be. Their manager Klein also renegotiated their contract for better terms with EMI and Capitol, but that was after the White Album was already released. That is what I recall reading about it.
Me too.
-
I'd never heard it either.... The other day, I just happened to be re-reading re-reading re-reading re-reading that book The Beatles Forever (the first book I ever read on The Beatles) and Nicholas Schaffer wrote "One reason why (it was a double album) is that they were eager to free themselves from the contractual obligations of Epstein's 1967 deal with EMI. After The Beatles' two LP's, they would have only one left to deliver".
I don't profess to know either way.... but I am just wrapt it was a double-album!
-
toris wrote:
I'd never heard it either.... The other day, I just happened to be re-reading re-reading re-reading re-reading that book The Beatles Forever (the first book I ever read on The Beatles) and Nicholas Schaffer wrote "One reason why (it was a double album) is that they were eager to free themselves from the contractual obligations of Epstein's 1967 deal with EMI. After The Beatles' two LP's, they would have only one left to deliver".
I don't profess to know either way.... but I am just wrapt it was a double-album!
That was also the first book I ever read about the Beatles....wonderful book; great insight. Sadly, Schaffer has passed on....AID's, I believe it was. The book has a special place on my bookshelves of books on the group.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
toris wrote:
I'd never heard it either.... The other day, I just happened to be re-reading re-reading re-reading re-reading that book The Beatles Forever (the first book I ever read on The Beatles) and Nicholas Schaffer wrote "One reason why (it was a double album) is that they were eager to free themselves from the contractual obligations of Epstein's 1967 deal with EMI. After The Beatles' two LP's, they would have only one left to deliver".
I don't profess to know either way.... but I am just wrapt it was a double-album!
That was also the first book I ever read about the Beatles....wonderful book; great insight. Sadly, Schaffer has passed on....AID's, I believe it was. The book has a special place on my bookshelves of books on the group.
I also got that book when it came out (In 1977 when I was 22) and actually wrote to Nicholas (and he wrote back!) Someone is selling it for over $99 on Amazon!
Yes, sadly, he died of an AIDS related illness at the age of 38.
-
Beatles4Ever&Ever wrote:
toris wrote:
I'd never heard it either.... The other day, I just happened to be re-reading re-reading re-reading re-reading that book The Beatles Forever (the first book I ever read on The Beatles) and Nicholas Schaffer wrote "One reason why (it was a double album) is that they were eager to free themselves from the contractual obligations of Epstein's 1967 deal with EMI. After The Beatles' two LP's, they would have only one left to deliver".
I don't profess to know either way.... but I am just wrapt it was a double-album!
That was also the first book I ever read about the Beatles....wonderful book; great insight. Sadly, Schaffer has passed on....AID's, I believe it was. The book has a special place on my bookshelves of books on the group.
Schaffner's The Beatles Forever is also one of my favorite books about the group. Very sad he passed so young.
