I hope that they will release them all in 96/24 bit audio...not expecting it though. Love the way BOTR sounds....I'm guessing they might do it for the remasters at least.

Hey Kapoo...or anyone... The 'everybody put their socks up' line... Who's line was it first?..Harry or Lennon?

No you nailed it Kapoo. Very similar. BTW, I'm a huge Nilsson fan too...unfortunately my knowledge is pretty superficial so I won't be able to help your thread much...but i am loving the fact that it's here...keep it up!!

One thing I've noticed on Anthology, is when Paul is talking about the harmonies being off at the end of the Beatles touring days, George starts to really bristle. I can only imagine the loads of criticism that George had to take from our dear Paul over the years. Paul is a seriously driven individual, and people like that will become mini-tyrants to achieve their goals. Especially when fed the massive approval and incentive of the entire world waiting for your next work. Thank God Paul was like that for our sakes, but pity poor George for taking the brunt of it.

whobeatle:

Yeah I love XTC, just superb. I prefer the second half of their career, when their records became more layered and produced, from Skylarking onward. I guess Partridge has some sort of physical or emotional problem that prevents him from working now. Moudling doesn't want to reunite with him either sadly. I think they rivaled the Beatles briefly , but their songs were a little too complex maybe, to be commercial Yes I agree Lennon and McCartney are superior to Harrison as songwriters in the sense that,, they were more prolific, particularly McCartney. I think McCartney releases a lot of so so songs.. But I buy them anyway because I like everything he does, or The WHO or Dylan or the Kinks or Brian Wilson. None of them ever do anything as good as what they did years ago, but I still like their work better than anybody elses. Usually. Mostly I come to these forums looking for news on upcoming releases or information on unreleased material. Occasionally I get sucked into a thread. I try and stay out of the mythology of Lennon the martyr or McCartney the "real" genius of the Beatles, I Just think they made records that I enjoy more than anyone else in history. I dont know how many kids Ringo has or What McCartneys kids do for a living, or Dhani Harrisons new album. I dont care about that, I just care about the great music the Beatles made and some of the great solo music they made. I still believe Harrison is given some short shrift, here and in general I think when he wanted to be, he had his moments every bit as brilliant as Lennon or McCartney, I'm glad McCartney has taken a lot of time and care on his Chaos and MAF albums, and on Flaming Pie, I think his solo albums turn out better when he has good people and takes his time. Ironically in the Beatles they worked very quickly, but perhaps as a solo in his late sixties, he is better off polishing the work more carefully I think its important to remember Harrison didin't want to write hit songs and be a public recording artist all the time, if he had so desired, I am sure he could have knocked off another half a dozen albums and written another half dozen hits, I think he had to be in the mood much like Lennon later in his life.. I think its a mistake to think, just because Harrison didint release more work, that he couldnt have. Apparently there are hundreds of songs in his archives. Even Lennon as it turns out...all the claims of how he didint write songs for five years before double fantasy is not true..it turns out he had at least two dozen songs from his so called retirement period. I would say though, hands down McCartney is the most commercial Beatle at least through around 1990 or so. But when Lennon was in the mood he could craft an Instant Karma or Starting over in two days or less. Same With Harrison, when he felt like it.. I think Harrison after all his success as a Beatle and a solo, felt less driven to keep proving it again. Brainwashed is a heck of an album, very very strong, except for a few weak vocals done after his cancer surgeries. Even so very poignant,

I've been thinking about this subject for the last month...why most artists careers seem to be unable to sustain the brilliance of youth. I think one of the reasons is that it becomes harder to distinguish your great work from your good work. And how many astounding permutations can they build off of their talents...at some point they're running up against physical limitations as to what their voice can support (I don't mean age I mean potential). And yes, as you've pointed out, there is the fact that they grow comfortable in what they've achieved...less to prove. The aspect I enjoy so much about the Beatles (and XTC) is the clear focus and intent of most of their songs. Contemporary songs are very seldom this way. In the Beatles, the subjects were clearly defined and illustrated. For example; "Lucy in the Sky.." you can picture yourself in a boat on a river because they paint a complete beautiful musical kaleidescope for you to see. It's why I think Yellow Submarine is an amazing song...it takes you to an alternate universe...escapism is part of why I listen. "Eleanor Rigby" takes me to meet someone and I feel that I've actually met her. "Penny Lane"...been there but I've never been there. "Mr. Bellamy" is a great example of this on MAF. Paul has taken a picture in his mind and illustrated it for us all to see (although some people around here saw some weird sh**...doesn't matter, they saw something). Too often I feel that songs are just about a diffuse feeling...sometimes that's okay, but it's the difference between the Beatles and the rest of the world. George did a wonderful job of it with "Piggies", "Savoy Truffle" and almost all of his Beatles work as well. Paul's most successful works are almost always ones that really paint a picture... Oh and whobeatle, you did get me to bust out ATMP and Brainwashed for a few deep listenings last week when you started your spirited defense of Mr. Harrison, thanks! Still spinning ATMP on the way to work as a matter of fact. Glad to meet another XTC fan.

Oh and melody.... Nobody has even come close to Paul McCartney...the greatest melodic talent of the century! Lennon's behind him. Paul Simon is a not so close third.

whobeatle...based on your tastes I would highly recommend the band XTC to you if you're not hip to them. They had 2 songwriters, 1 of whom is an absolute genius. Mind you, he's no Lennon/McCartney but (all together now) no shame in that, nobody is. I guess Nonesuch would probably be a great album to start with if you're starting out...took me quite a few spins to get into the singers voice, but the lyrics are impossibly good and the melodies and variety and vision are stellar as well. This thread must be very frustrating for you as passionate as you are, but you've taken it all in stride and handled it well IMO. I think that the point I differ on with you is that I believe that it is the scope and volume of Lennon/McCartney's songwriting that are a testament to their superiority. Almost every serious writer has a great song or two in them...this is why there are so many one-hit-wonders. To write classic after classic and hit after hit after hit while constantly evolving and pushing the envelope of pop music is what distinguishes John & Paul from all others. Some of Paul's lyrics may be a bit daft, but look at all the approaches he takes and how many experiments turned into gold. Many of his lyrics are deceptively simple and harder to appreciate but he really takes a back seat to very few in this regard...just try it and you'll see. And of course, Lennon's gift of wordplay and imagination are otherworldly, emotive and unique. Harrison is more of a confessional type songwriter, whereas Paul is more of a painter...evoking myriad scenes of everyday life with a few brilliant strokes...a lot harder to master.

Good points all whobeatle..but George still wasn't the equal songwriting wise of Lennon/McCartney...

As usual I agree with you michelley...I said that Lennon was a more unique talent...just an opinion, but I find John's songs are a little more unconventional...much like their respective personalities.

John Lennon was one talented MoFo...I can't tell who was a better songwriter, Paul was a better musician, but a case could be made for either of them when it comes to talent. I think John was a bit more of a unique natural talent..but I think part of the reason he dropped out of the Beatles is that he felt that he had been bested by Paul McCartney. I think that in the contest of wills that was the Beatles, Paul wore Lennon down with his tenacity. Paul was just more driven, focused and he never stopped reaching and learning.