Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 3/21/2025 6:30 pm | #21 |
Is there anything more depressing than hearing The Beatles' "I Want To Hold Your Hand" in an Uber ad?
Less depressing than downright blood-boiling? This marks the first time, that I'm aware of, since the Nike debacle with "Revolution" where we've seen such blasphemy. I suppose I took it for granted that original Beatle recordings were off the table to advertisers? Who made this decision? It had to come from Apple, which suggets that it got the OK from all of the principals: McCartney, Starr, Yoko and Olivia Harrison. Why would any of them change their mind now? For fucking Uber??? What's the inflation rate on Paul's hair dye these days?
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 4/01/2025 7:50 pm | #22 |
I'm not the only one pointing out the obvious about the casting of this Beatles confab, which is the really striking lack of resemblence between any of them. Barry Keoghan comes off the best as Ringo, and besides he's a pretty good enough actor to manage. I've only seen Harris Dickinson in two things (Triangle of Sadness, Babygirl) and was not impressed with either, and certainly didn't see any of Lennon's joy or edge. Plus, the dork looks more like PJ Proby anyway, which is about as bootleg Lennon as it gets.
I actually think that Paul Mescal makes a more favorable Lennon.
But he was given McCartney instead.
And poor Joseph Quinn....I just don't know what to say. Harrison has a famously long, broad-cheeked face. It's like they're still trying to cast hobbits or something.
You could argue that I'm being a stickler, but why shouldn't I be? Sure there have already been planty of poorly-cast roles as Beatles before. Of course it helps if you have quality actors with established resumes, like Jared Harris and Aiden Quinn.
The problem is that, outside of Keoghan and Mescal, there's not enough faith that the others are strong enough to pull it off.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 4/05/2025 9:00 pm | #23 |
Rob Sheffield is a miserable sod who's slithered his way into a bonafide position of music critic authority. He's kinda like Xers' Robert Christgau, if you will, terminally pissy, flagrantly arrogant, pinching the 'tude from Lester Bangs and the bitch from Dave Marsh but with none of their working-class grace. And, for whatever reason, much like Christgau people still take him seriously.
That will sound like a lot of inside-ball for those who aren't into rock music journalism, and many don't understand the inspiration of a truly fluent music writer because, in fact, they happen to be so rare. Instead, we get poseurs who get in the industry strictly for the T-shirts and to sell the promos for their rent. A recent article on Paste had a writer trying to describe their ultimate love for The Beatles by counting how many Beatles T-shirts they've owned. How many Beatles T-shirts have I owned? Fuck if I know. Certainly a few. Maybe a dozen ever? Because I don't measure my love of music through how much I shop at the fucking mall? Anyway, Rob Sheffield has a lot of shirts but I would hope he at least can appreciate the pimply hyperbole of some dead grotty Ts like a halfway educated Beatle fan.
My parasocial relationship with Sheffield is indeed complicated. He pretty much usurped the Rolling Stone Record Guide from 2004 (exactly the kind of honey that gets me stuck in trees), and I alternated a lot, but there was hate. Sometimes rage. Dude disses "Helter Skelter" like he's somebody's mom. But despite his shallow and shiny piss and snot, sometimes Sheffield turns a phrase so well that I have to even admit that I agree with him. On some things.
Sheffield has a new piece in Rolling Stone, somewhat on the newly announced "cinematic event", that has some moments worth highlighting. I felt I needed to point out my begrudgement. And I'll try to skip over all of his irritatingly corny lyrical allusions.
It’s a shame that Margaret Qualley doesn’t get to play Paul, since she’d be perfect for the role — but at least this means somebody can make a Stones movie where she plays Mick.
I'm not highlighting this because I agree, but as an example of why I can simultaneously hate and admire where he's coming from here. If biopics are as inevitable as these studios seem to think, then I would like to see Qualley crop her hair to play Suzi Quatro perhaps. I think Emma Mackey has Pat Benatar on lock.
And this also addresses a dilemma from my prior post, which is....who should play Paul? As I said, I think Mescal is closer to Lennon's grin and angular face. Surely there's a dough-cheek sad-eyed Scots-Irish fellow who could master that, and I've been trying, but failing, to think of a specific young working actor at the moment. My biggest problem with all of the casting is in the eyes. None of them match up....except I think Mescal is passible for Lennon. Even Keoghan is too beady for Ringo's opulent puppies.
The eternal problem is casting — it’s tough to make a movie about a rock star because no mere movie star is charismatic enough to play the role.
Well, yes. This is exactly why documentaries on these charismatic stars are more satisfying, because they show exactly what these fascinating performers are famous for. The problem is that audiences now feel entitled to "the dirt", we need orgies and drug montages which these talented intelligent people were far too discreet to document. But you're never going to understand the likes of James Brown, Elvis Presley or Bob Dylan unless you watch them do their thing. Like Leonard Cohen said of Janis Joplin, "that sweet little sound". Maybe audiences should start asking themselves why documentaries are not enough? Why do they need to turn everybody's lives into grand soaps like Dallas or Dynasty? (For those under 40, Kardashians and Vanderpumps.) Maybe part of the problem is that film may never be quite as intimate as music, on a very visceral level.
Mendes is a mystery in himself, since so far he hasn’t been known for music moments in his films...
Let's be honest here. I would say that time has proven that Mendes' one great film, American Beauty, has been proven as a fluke through his subsequent work, if even that film seems to have now fallen out of favor. (I don't necessarily agree with the revisionism, but that check was cashed a long time ago.)
Or Ringo doing basically anything at all.
Oh, thanks, Rob, for not mentioning the great comedy Magic Christian with Ringo. Probably the kind of film Sheffield only appreciates ironically.
Midas Man, the Brian Epstein film, bombed earlier this year;
Hm. Honestly had no idea.
We should probably also mention the Seventies flop Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Yes you should, because this picture should be the scarecrow in Mendes' backlot. I'm not worried about Sam going full Xanadu with The Beatles (Julie Taymor's Across The Universe already made that generational mistake), but it's necessary to be vigilant of the primal impulse here which is that you are essentially glomming onto a phenomenon much more profound and precious than IP. No doubt there were studio heads in the '70s (they weren't all New Hollywood) saying, "Hey, it's Sgt Pepper on the poster, what could possibly go wrong?" And this is my fear, as it has been with so many of these glomming projects, people just want proximity, just a whiff. Did I not express the fury in my belly that goddamn Uber is using "I Want To Hold Your Hand" now?!?!? I bet they do. I bet they all do. They want it so clutched they can squeeze that magic out of a velvet hand like a lizard on a window.....sorry, that's Rob's schtick. All I'm saying is that I hope this project is more pure than a cynical and consumerist next-gen fashion show, which is exactly what the awful Sgt Pepper film represents.
But my favorite movie about the Beatles has to be Two of Us
And this is where I have to come in for a hug, because it's true. That's the film from which the above picture shows Lennon (Jared Harris) and McCartney (Aidan Quinn) in a quasi-fictitious hang at the Dakota in 1976. Despite being a cheap made-for-TV film (for VH1, no less), it probably is the best film about The Beatles that probably could be made.
The Beatles remain the world’s favorite story, getting more beloved every year. Their friend Derek Taylor called them “the 20th century’s greatest romance,” but as it turns out, the 20th century was just the beginning. You couldn’t dream up any idea for a movie as ridiculous as this one — two teenage nowhere boys find each other in a nowhere town, grow up together, inspire each other to write songs, bring out each other’s genius. They pick up a couple of kindred spirits in their town, start a rock & roll group. Together, they make the world fall madly in love, permanently in love, like it’s never fallen in love with anything else.
This is Sheffield shilling for his book, Dreaming The Beatles: The Love Story of One Band and the Whole World, which is fine because it (here comes the begrudge) really is a pretty good book. Even when it's wrong.
And I appreciate that Sheffield ends this piece by eviscerating the need for any such glomming:
But nobody has ever needed to sell the Beatles to any new generation, because the music and the story refuse to fade into the past, which is also why there’s no “still” about it. The lads share a bond that anyone can hear in their music, which is why they’ve come to symbolize the whole idea of friendship (the ultimate “us against the world” story) as well as the idea of friendship ending (the ultimate “breaking up” story)
The Beatles are the greatest 20th Century Myth.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 4/05/2025 10:15 pm | #24 |
I was just about to brag I've never owned any Beatles t-shirts, which would then make me superior to you by approximately 8, but then I remembered I owned a John Lennon Imagine sweat shirt, and so should probably keep my mouth shut.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 4/05/2025 10:26 pm | #25 |
I would love it if they could just try and make a Beatles pic that isn't obviously going to be shit, right out of the gate. I'll admit it's probably really difficult to ever make a truly satisfying Beatles film, but it's possible, and I at least want them to try and make one where I can hold out some hope that it won't be trash.
A movie from the perspective of John's Aunt Mimi would be have possibilities. Or a film about their Hamburg days by Mike Leigh. Or fucking something.
Like I guess the four movie is....a thing....but that just means four movies I very likely will never watch.
Well, maybe the Ringo Starr one.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 4/10/2025 12:49 am | #26 |
I guess Pete Best hasn't been retired this whole time?
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 4/10/2025 1:06 am | #27 |
crumbsroom wrote:
I would love it if they could just try and make a Beatles pic that isn't obviously going to be shit, right out of the gate. I'll admit it's probably really difficult to ever make a truly satisfying Beatles film, but it's possible, and I at least want them to try and make one where I can hold out some hope that it won't be trash.
A movie from the perspective of John's Aunt Mimi would be have possibilities. Or a film about their Hamburg days by Mike Leigh. Or fucking something.
Like I guess the four movie is....a thing....but that just means four movies I very likely will never watch.
Well, maybe the Ringo Starr one.
The question is what's the point? The film mentioned above, Two of Us, is a pretty ingenious microcosm: John and Paul getting together at the Dakota just as the Wings tour is taking off, as Lennon is settling into his unannounced retirement, where the two men share marijuana and memories, and eventual resentments and frustrations, looking at each other like a mirror of their careers at that moment. That's a great dramatic arc and narrative thread.
The old film Backbeat did the Hamburg route, and, although I thought Ian Hart was a bit too scrawny, this is another good script, lays out the tension between the band and Sutcliffe, between their frustrated divergent ambitions.
So what will be the respective arcs of these four new Beatle films? I mean, we already know the tale. What's fresh about any of this? A: the grotty shirts!!! Which isn't fresh at all, but it is new on the shelf.
What was the point of A Complete Unknown? What was revealed, asks the little neighbor boy? No Direction Home had a more comprehensive character arc. I'm Not There had more dramatic depths.
The biopic formula is a dead horse. Now we can have four apocalyptic horses.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 4/10/2025 1:23 am | #28 |
Here's a couple of micro-examples of would-be interesting Beatle films.
Like Saturday Night, a real-time steady-cam feature of the Abbey Road studio during the February 10 orchestral recording for "A Day in the Life".
That one day in their Hollywood Hills mansion tripping with the Byrds and Peter Fonda while private helicopters try to get pictures.
The concert in Manilla which turned into an escape from hell.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 5/21/2025 11:10 pm | #29 |
I don't want to get all depressed, just because yet another Beatles master recording (this time Magical Mystery Tour) is being used by yet another techbro working-class eroding gig-humper billionaire corporation (AirBnB). And worse, it sounds like Apple gave them a new mix for the privilege. The utter silence among Beatles fans online, variations of "times change" and "no one really cares anymore". Or the more insulting excuse that this is somehow the only way the next generations will get to know The Beatles....the one band who has proven most fertile at rejuvenating youthful interest without the crutch of glib advertisements all of these years already.
"Everybody knows the good guys lost", I guess.
No, instead, I'll think I'll just do the more boring thing, and run down the catalogue, and who knows maybe I'll happen to say something novel that hundreds of others have missed.
Just a note on these labels: I'm not going to get too deep into the bootlegs here, but I'll give a special shoutout for the Purple Chick series, still the gold standard of Beatles curation even though they haven't been updated since the '00s. It was their excellent needle-drop vinyl rips, made available online for free trade, which reportedly inspired Apple Records that they might want to upgrade the quality of their initial CD run for the 2009 box set. In addition, Purple Chick also amended deluxe editions of all of the available Beatles recordings from the best available sources at the time. There was also interesting curation from labels like Lazy Tortoise focusing on interviews and more marginalia. Nowadays, the best upgrades and newer releases seem to come mostly from someone called misterclaudel.
There were some bootlegs showing up in the '80s under the name The Quarrymen, the classic original skiffle group - the humble acorn, if you will - but these were all very misleading. There is, in fact, somewhat miraculously, an actual audio recording of The Quarrymen, recorded on the day of the fateful consumation between John Lennon and Paul McCartney at the Woolton village church fete - the "Crowning of the Rose Queen", on July 6th 1957, where Lennon's Quarryman skiffle ensemble played out of the bed of a lorry truck. Some two minutes of ambient music, playing "Putting on the Style" and Elvis' "Baby Let's Play House". Unremarkable ruckus under normal circumstances, except that Lennon's nasal razor is clearly evident. But for any real practical purposes, this is merely a snapshot of the seed bearing the conception of the Lennon/McCartney union, as Paul was in attendence, met John, and their bright young lungs would flower elsewhere.
The only real "Quarrymen" recordings would be the shellac novelty disc which they would record a year later, now with George Harrison and a couple of others. Probably the most priceless piece of plastic in existence, this single cheap record which was passed about and played to death did eventually get posteritized and cleaned up for partial inclusion on the Beatles Anthology set. "That'll Be The Day" establishes the Buddy Holly foundation, mixing skiffle, rockabilly and pop sensibility. The B-side is a more intriguing original, "In Spite of All the Danger", a more C&W ballad, the first official Beatle original recording, and the only official "McCartney/Harrison" composition. These recordings show less a feel for rock and roll, and certainly not blues, and something closer to the Texan Buddy Holly or the Kentucky Everly Brothers or the Tennessee Carl Perkins. But it's worth noting that Appalachian hillbilly music shares displaced Scotch-Irish roots with Liverpool, a northern port which also saw Ulster run-off.
But these "Quarrymen" bootlegs were different. They were basically taken from two home recordings made in the McCartney home in spring/summer 1960. By this time, the boys were playing under the name Johnny and the Moondogs. The first of these tapes is attributed to April 1960, and it's not an exceptional rehearsal recording, sounding like something any young teenage band would find familiar. It's actually pretty dreadful for a good 15 minutes, "inauspicious" doesn't quite cut it, with just anonymous 12-bar jamming and poor Stu Sutcliffe's bass plodding along monotonously, slightly flat. When you read stories about how their first manager, Allan Williams, "took pity" on the boys by letting them rehearse at his Jacaranda Coffee Bar, it starts to make sense.
McCartney then pulls out his wild card, "Cayenne", a moody minor-chord tune which could either be an evocative Western theme or a surf-rock B-side. Paul shows some pretty remarkable guitar playing for his not-yet 20 years of age. This was also selected for the Anthology set, but the full version, at twice the length, is impressive enough for release. This may have elevated the mood somewhat, even though they continue through more generic 12-bar vamping, but perhaps out of boredom, we start to hear more spirited vocalizing, especially from Paul, and this sometimes gets quite fun. (It would be an interesting task for the Peter Jackson A.I. filters to try to clarify these outbursts and in-jokes.) After a while, they actually settle into something like a competent, though sluggish, blues, "Well Darling", probably improvised, but convincing enough. They continue through another improvised number (appropriately titled "I Don't Know" on boot), but it's clear that they, at least for the moment, got their rocks off.
By the time of the second rehearsal tape, attributed to June 1960, the band were playing around town under variations of The Silver Beatles (Silver Beetles, Silver Beats, etc, which were likely more due to the indifference of the people printing the bills than the band's own indecision), and this tape is more structured to perhaps represent a proper set. There's still (far too much in fact) a lot of generic 12-bar jamming, which I guess was practical time-filler, for people to mingle, get drinks, go to the bathroom, whatever. But the material is a lot more interesting. Two originals stand out, "One After 909" and "Hello Little Girl:, the latter a harmonized mesh of Holly/Everlys which was such a rich vein for early Lennon/McCartney. Lennon takes Carl Perkins' "Matchbox" while McCartney handles Gene Vincent's "Wildcat" and Ray Charles' "Hallelujah I Love Her So" (although Paul most likely learned it from the Eddie Cochrane version). And maybe to push back a little against the narrative of these "savage young" Beatles having to mold themselves in a more pop direction, at the respective behest of Brian Epstein or George Martin, it's worth considering their choices of ballads here. McCartney shines doing the Les Paul/Mary Ford "The World is Waiting on a Sunrise" (he has elswhere said that the Paul/Ford "How High the Moon" was also regularly performed), which suggests to me that this element of the Beatle DNA, this kind of "supper club" pop music was something that Lennon and McCartney always had in their itinerary. Similarly, what seems to be the original "I Will Always Be in Love With You" has the distinct Lennon sweetness. Even the sole Elvis cover here, "That's When Your Heartaches Begin", is a softy. There's a couple of other apparent originals - "Some Days", "You Must Write Everyday", and the hilarious doo-wop parody "You'll Be Mine" (also selected for Anthology), but then the official Paul McCartney mission statement, "I'll Follow the Sun", appearing here nearly as finished as it would appear years later. But it does feel as if Paul is squeezing it in there, as is his wont.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 5/23/2025 10:41 pm | #30 |
Those immature tapes from 1960 were prior to the band's multiple soujourns to Hamburg, Germany, where, we're told, they cut their teeth with cheap speed, beer bottles and loose whores. Unfortunately, we have no available account of these wild filthy nights.
Just about one year later, from the last and most coherent of their rehearsal tapes, in June 1961, we get the next available audio evidence, in the form of a backing gig for their friend and ex-pat Tony Sheridan. This represents one of the only Beatles-related recordings which I do not have in any vinyl form whatsoever. Just never bothered. I had opportunities. Plenty of cheap variations over the years. And as we know, most of these were heavily padded with tracks with no Beatles at all, rather the mysterious "Beat Brothers". But it's fun to hear from these Anglo-Saxon-philes who talk about these tapes in superlative terms, due to the "superior German engineering". Sure, Klaus. But, yeah, if you want, Paul's bass does sound fuller and richer than any of the early Parlophone records. But it's pretty clear that the band saw this as a paid gig, and, although they were at this point much more polished and professional, there's little indication that they brought much more enthusiasm to the proceedings than the paychecks would warrant. In terms of material, the items of note are the instrumental "Cry For a Shadow", which is the only "Lennon/Harrison" credit, and "Ain't She Sweet", where Lennon is given the lead vocal. The latter really only serves to challenge the myth that Paul was the only Beatle who would indulge in "granny" music. "Ain't She Sweet" and "My Bonnie" would be re-released during the first burst of Beatlemania, and these recordings have been tossed around on all kinds of releases since then. Some collecters will tell you to track down the original Polydor In the Beginning or even get tizzy over the rare Very Together. Whatever. Hey. it sounds like they had a good time. Too bad no one thought to pay for a half hour of this superb German studio time to let the lads do a standard set list.
(Just to note: most of these Tony Sheridan/Beatles collections also use the recording of "Sweet Georgia Brown", which was actually recorded nearly a year later, in May 1962, but does include Ringo sitting in on drums, about three months before he was actually given the the gig to join the band, making this the first official recording of the Fab Four as we know them. Again, perfunctory is the polite word.)
.....
Back in Li'uh'poo, and now under the guidance of Mr. Brian Epstein, The Beatles record their first audition session with Decca Records. The date was fraught however, legend speaks of Lennon having a massive hangover and in a foul temper. Noticeably, his vocal presence is more muted than normal, barely rousing a bark for "Money", and not quite attaining his glowing purr on "To Know Her Is To Love Her" . Instead, it's up to Paul, always eager to please, and he gamely enthuses through "Like Dreamers Do" (an underrated original), "Besame Mucho" (befitting his suave drama) and "Searchin'" (a rousing rocker), and indulging a bit in the soap bubbles of "Till There Was You" and "September in the Rain", as well as "Love of the Loved" (a more generously forgotten original). George also is primed to chime in with "Sheik of Araby", "Three Cool Cats" and Buddy Holly's "Cryin' Waitin' Hopin'". Unfortunately, the only other original, "Hello Little Girl", is badly served with a too bombastic arrangement.
But this session's bad reputation, given all of the elements of its rejection as well as its association with a small proliferation of poorly-produced budget-label releases through the '80s, doesn't mean that it's such a terrible performance. In fact, there's little reason to understand why Decca rejected them. Probably what was missing was a savvy producer, like a George Martin, who simply had the ingenuity to fathom and appreciate the soft, rich clay which was presenting itself. All of the ingredients are evident here, no matter how tenuous the performance may seem. But karma is king, and Decca is not located at Abbey Road, so these things just had to be.
There's been recent talk about a 2nd-generation tape from this session being found at a Canadian record store. I suppose it could be an upgrade in sound quality, although these tapes, as they are now available, are not in poor quality.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 5/26/2025 10:39 pm | #31 |
Of the tapes that are in need of an upgrade, the earliest BBC appearances should probably be prioritized. At the time, it was not the custom for the British Broadcasting Corporation to hold onto every second of airtime in posterity, and radio equipment did not usually feature such luxuries as output jacks, so these early performances were captured by the curious or enthusiastic amateurs who had to hold the microphone to the speaker. And, obviously, they had to have the serendipity to do so for a relatively unknown northern port beat band. Actually, by this point in 1962, The Beatles were the preeminent force in the local 'Mersey Beat' scene, so they had accumulated a steady fan base, and their first performance for the BBC, a March 8th edition of "Teenagers Turn - Here We Go" recorded in Manchester, is the first evidence of their providential sway.
Even despite the fidelity issue, Lennon's version of Chuck Berry's "Memphis Tennessee" is notably livelier than the more tepid performance for Decca. A real jewel, though, is their rendition of Roy Orbison's "Dream Baby", which incidently would be their only attempt to cover Roy Orbison, who was a prominent influence. This makes a natural fit, and there would be a few of these early Beatles sounds which seem so familiar even in their obscurity.
"Please Mister Postman", the final song in this initial performance, is where the familiarity starts to recede into revelation. John Waters once claimed that the reason why he hated The Beatles was because they had put all of the girl groups out of work, which is pure glib but also suggests profundity. The Beatles managed to sublimate the masculine power of rock and roll by steeping it in the teenage pathos of Carole King and Ellie Greenwich. It's the same alchemy of sweet and sweat that drives what we only peripherally associate with The Beatles as "soul" music. But they were doing it, mixing this masculine vulnerability, not really sexual (like Elvis) but the yearning for romantic love, insistent and ecstatic. This version of "Please Mister Postman" hasn't been officially released, but the concluding feminine response is unmistakable, a swelling swoon, the first breath of Beatlemania.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 5/29/2025 4:50 pm | #32 |
The Beatles' second appearance on BBC radio, again for the Teenager's Turn - He We Go program, in June 1962 featured another performance of "Besame Mucho", George's take on a Joe Brown single then hot on the charts "A Picture of You", and Lennon's brand new composition "Ask Me Why". By this point, "Besame Mucho", which was a long-time standard in their setlist, was performed without a great deal of variation. Because of the weak fidelity of this recording - another direct from the radio speaker - this performance is less preferable to the Decca audition or the later version recorded for their EMI audition. "A Picture of You" is fairly weak stuff, but this is the only available version of the band performing it.
"Ask Me Why" is more significant. It is, by this time, the most sophisticated piece of songwriting yet from the Lennon/McCartney duo on record. A pleasant, if maybe a little corny, pop ballad, it features the duo's increasing taste for unorthodox chord choices and structural shifts, as well as some deftly clever key changes. One could call it deceptively sophisticated, as none of these unusual innovations sound deliberately impressive, but this is an early example for why more savvy musical listeners (like George Martin) would start taking note of their unique creative talent. Lennon's vocal (here less polished than in future recordings) is emotive and sincere, expertly balancing his tenor and alto ranges.
The Beatles would take this tune into EMI around this time, along with three other tracks, for less of an "audition" as such than a meet-and-greet with producer George Martin. "Besame Mucho", again, was tackled, and once again the band's confidence in this well-rehearsed number, especially McCartney's swagger, is in peak form, making this their best version of the song. (I would also add that any of these versions of "Besame Mucho" represents Pete Best's very best drumming.) In contrast to Lennon's "Ask Me Why", McCartney also brought in his original, "P.S. I Love You", perhaps as a competition for a poppy and pleasant "supper club" offering. Unfortunately, however poppy and pleasant "P.S." certainly is, it is also certainly much less impressive as a song than "Ask Me Why". Regardless, neither of these songs' performances for this audition have survived*.
(* One discrepancy: in the early '80s, a dying engineer named John Barrett was given several tasks - to finally catalogue the entirety of surviving master tapes of the Beatles in the EMI vaults, to select interesting performances from these tapes for a Sessions archival release, and to guide the writer Mark Lewisohn, who was writing The Beatles Recording Sessions, though these tapes and any available studio documentation on them. Barrett had, at this time, selected this audition version of "Besame Mucho", and it is included among Barrett's work tapes. It is odd, then, that Lewisohn would claim in his book that there were no surviving tapes of the audition. It's odder still that when this recording was released on Anthology along with "Love Me Do", it was claimed that George Martin happened to find acetates of these in his closet. But "Besame Mucho" is clearly not from acetate, as it is identical to the tape Barrett copied directly off of an EMI master tape. Also, more recently, it has been claimed by the late Geoff Emerick's family that they have a complete copy of the audition tape, possibly even the original master, suggesting that Emerick himself (then a pretty low-level tape operator) had taken it home with him. You see, it's this kind of bullshit that makes me wonder about how many of the so-called destroyed Beatles tapes are actually stuffed away somewhere, maybe from people who knew they would make a pretty good future investment.)
"Love Me Do", a genuine co-composition from John and Paul, seems to be the priority on this session, perhaps already having been selected as their optimal first single. It is a remarkably facile effort, even if admirably so, long considered the "nursery"-level Beatle song, sing-songy simple, almost irritably catchy, and nearly lowest-common-denominator-calculated to break through on the charts. No risk, little frills, think of the children. In the Beatles' musical alphabet, you need to have an 'A', after all. I've seen some people refer to this song as "bluesy". It's about as gritty as white bread. There are three versions of this song from these 1962 Abbey Road sessions, due in part to George Martin's fussy concern over the drumming. I honestly can't tell much of a difference between them. The one with a light tambourine tap became the single.
Martin, frankly, did not care at all for Pete Best's skills. In the interim, the rest of the Beatles may have used this fact as an excuse to dismiss the drummer, who was a bit more straight-edged in his recreations than the others, and who had been more difficult with Epstein's re-imaging of the group. Also, there was that unsubstantiated rumor that long-time loyal "roadie" Neil Aspinall (his actual value to the band was much more integral than that term suggests) may have been having an affair with Pete Best's mother. (A less substantiated rumor than that has a pregnancy involved.) In any case, Ringo Starr was clearly the superior drummer, both technically, spiritually and chemically, as a sympathetic and solid support for their energy. Starr could fuse with Lennon's rhythm guitar into something much more propulsive than the band could manage without him. In spite of this, George Martin still had a session drummer sit in on "Love Me Do", even if it made little difference. He wouldn't repeat the mistake.
Also in this interim, between the EMI audition, the replacement of Best with Ringo, and the start of proper recording at Abbey Road, The Beatles found some other recording opportunities at the Cavern Club. By this time, enough noise was being made around the 'Mersey Beat' that some curious cameras from Granada TV rolled up at the Cavern to catch a lunchtime show. The footage of this has been well-worn in documentaries as the definitive look at The Beatles in their Cavern Club environs. Audio of this performance was also recorded, a cover of Ritchie Barrett's "Some Other Guy". Perhaps it was due to Starr's new arrival behind the kit, but even in questionable fidelity, this marks the heaviest rock sound yet recorded by the group. Or perhaps this simply shows a side of the band, the Hamburg side, which they were still holding in reserve while trying to push a softer pop sound at the time. Either way, "Some Other Guy" is one of those alternate classics of the early Beatles. The Granada crew also caught a brief minute of "Kansas City". (More rumors, that Brian Epstein had made an acetate of this day's "Some Other Guy" to sell cheap copies in his Liverpool record store is a longstanding myth - I'm skeptical, because not even the most beat-up worn out copy of one of these supposedly sold discs has ever turned up over the years.)
Also at the Cavern, at an unknown date around this time, The Beatles also used a portable tape machine to lay down some demos of their own, including two more candidates for straight-rockers. "I Saw Her Standing There" is simply the first truly classic rock and roll original in the Lennon/McCartney catalogue. Here, this performance is a little more tentative, with ill-advised harmonica throughout - they would use handclaps instead for the record. Older than that, "One After 909", which Lennon was still determined to pursue, was captured in two takes. The second take (released on boot on Beatles Not For Sale) is arguably the very best version of the early group's attempts at the number, and better suited than the ill-fated studio attempt a few months ater. Most interestingly perhaps is McCartney's instrumental "Catswalk" (later renamed "Catcall"), a jaunty, jazzy number, again, with distinctively unorthodox chords and key shifts, and whether it's either Paul or George (it hasn't been clearly ascertained), some fine guitar work.
Back at Abbey Road, the band settled on "P.S. I Love You" as the b-side to their first single, perhaps doubling down on the tone of simplicity (if not vapidity). George Martin's lack of confidence in Lennon/McCartney's songwriting is less comprehensible than his concerns over the drummer, but he still brought in a song-for-hire, "How Do You Do It" for them to cover. They politely obliged. It's usually described as the band playing the song with little enthusiasm as a way to disqualify it, but, I dunno, I just think it's kind of a shitty song, and makes even "P.S. I Love You" sound a little less like stuffy middle-brow pop by comparison. Either way, the take was discarded. (When the outtake collection Sessions was considered in the early '80s, engineer Geoff Emerick would make this song even worse with some awful edits, trying to make the ending even more cutesy. Unfortunately, this mix would end up on Anthology anyway, leaving the pure John Barrett version on bootleg the go-to.)
"Ask Me Why" would eventually make it onto The Beatles' second single, which was fronted by another, indeed much more significant original from Lennon. Allegedly, "Please Please Me" had originally been more in the vein of Roy Orbison, a slow and blusey plightful paeon. And one can see the Orbison influence, in the chords' operatic ascent to the chorus, echoing "Running Scared". The Anthology would claim to include a demo version of the song with this arrangement, but, alas, that version is not particularly different from the released version. But by the time it was put down on tape, "Please Please Me" can be considered the first convincing burst of The Beatles' explosive form of pop-rock. Aided greatly by Ringo's thunderous drums, finally unleashed here after the soft light pop of the previous single, John and Paul's urgent, exclamatory vocals finally tear out into orgasmic peals, feeling as if they were always destined to. All of the Beatles', and Lennon/McCartney's, potential seems to have finally coalesced into a truly original sound and style combing their harmonic intuitive ingenuity, their almost feminine longing, their pure vibrant exuberence. "Please Please Me" is like the cork popping out of the bottle. And their brilliance would only grow more effervescent from here.
On a much more peripheral note, I don't want to get too in the weeds on the more arcane material, but I will mention one item, which is the earliest surviving Beatles interview for radio, originally broadcast on Sunday Spin shortly after the initial release of "Love Me Do/P.S. I Love You". That single was only a modest success - rumors abound!, it has been frequently suggested that Brian Epstein had purchased several superfluous copies of the single in order to fluff its chart success, and Epstein could have easily made such a purchase through his record store inventory. But nonetheless, even at this young point in their career, you can already hear the lovable moptops in their charm and humor months before truly becoming the "toppermost of the poppermost".
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 6/14/2025 3:48 pm | #33 |
It must be well-known by now that these tapes, which first surfaced in the late '70s in several permutations on quasi-legal labels, are not actually representative of the long sweaty nights in the Hamburg Reeperbahn's seedy clubs where the angry, hungry Beatles mercilessly honed their chops in 1960-61. Most of the initial batch of releases were deceptive about these "first" recordings, either to mislead one into believing this was a taste of what George Harrison has nostalgically considered the band at their very best. More likely, these labels were trying to avoid the legal wrath of EMI, since these tapes were, in fact, recorded after The Beatles were under their contract. Either way, these tapes were notoriously poorly recorded, on a stage-side single mic tape machine, and even more poorly "enhanced" through some crude filters, compression and equalization. Most collectors prefer to own the tapes in their original state, and these initial LPs have been out of print for 30 years, although it is still not difficult to find them in used bins.
The tapes do, however, have "historic" value, probably the most euphemistic use of "historic", but still. Rather than showing the band deep in the groove of their late-night grind, this is much more of a homecoming reunion, a party atmosphere indicative of the Christmas/New Year's holiday, in 1962 when they were recorded, with an apparently small audience filled with old friends and revellers. As poor as the sound quality is, it is also a little refreshing compared to so many of their eventual live performances when the screaming would start. The performances here are plenty professional, if well-lubed - Harrison would testify later that the band was too drunk to legitimately consent to being recorded - and there's an open question over how seriously they were taking these shows, on the eve of imminent success, turning the page on this particular chapter of their youth. Indeed, on many of the songs, including what would have been some of their war horses, The Beatles would delegate the performances to a number of friends, allowing Tony Sheridan to sing "Money" (and he does a pretty good job), and a random German waiter takes the lead vocal on "Be Bop A-Lula". On the initial record releases, these details would go unmentioned, possibly unnoticed, and some of these records even included bands who were not the Beatles at all, like Cliff Bennett or Kingsize Taylor, who had presumably been recorded on the same dates. For "Be Bop A-Lula", this is a shame, because The Beatles would never return to record a proper version of what was one of their very favorite numbers, and was definitely a staple of their vintage Hamburg shows. Outside of a weak attempt during the Get Back sessions, one has to wait for Lennon's Rock and Roll and McCartney's Unplugged to hear their respective renditions.
Among the other rarities of special note is the performance of Buddy Holly's "Sheila", sung by George, also unique, and a take on Chuck Berry's "Little Queenie", which was only brielfy revisited during the Get Back sessions. A track called "I Wish I Could Shimmy Like My Sister Kate" (listed as either "Shimmy Shimmy" or "Shimmy Like Kate") is a rock and roll update arrangement of a 1920s standard with an especially energized McCartney. Also, there's "Roadrunner", which is not a serious take but a rare attempt for the band to do a Bo Diddley number.
The exact chronology of the tapes is still in dispute, so I'll go by the Purple Chick run order. The Christmas show is the longest of the three tapes, and after "Horst" sitting in for "Be Bop A Lula" and "Hallalujah I Love Her So", The Beatles proudly present their brand new soon-to-be-classic "I Saw Her Standing There". The band sounds best in their rockin' mode, with plenty of Chuck Berry standards - "Sweet Little Sixteen", "Roll Over Beethoven" and a ferocious John Lennon on "(I'm) Talking 'Bout You". Lennon would also offer a tremendous "Twist and Shout", the earliest version, and "Mr. Moonlight", as well as his yet-released "Ask Me Why", "To Know Her Is To Love Her" (surely one of his very favorite tunes) and a rare ballad in "Where Have You Been All My Life", a number from Arthur Alexander, the same R&B singer that Lennon would later cover with "Anna" and "Soldier of Love".
McCartney shines not only on "I Saw Her Standing There" (two performances, both terrific) but shows off his Little Richard flair on "Kansas City" and "Long Tall Sally" (also the earliest version) and chomps through "Hippy Hippy Shake", one of those early Beatles' favorites that some still think is an actual Beatles' song. Paul does his Elvis thing on "I'm Going to Sit Right Down and Cry", and, along with "Shimmy With Kate", leads another rock arrangement of an old standard, "Your Feets Too Big", and tries out a brief rocking take on the jazz classic "Red Hot". George handles most of the rockabilly, fronting "Everybody's Trying to Be My Baby" and "Nothin' Shakin' but the Leaves on the Tree". Ringo, still new, sits out the vocals, but Lennon instead handles "Matchbox" and another Carl Perkins number, "Lend Me Your Comb".
Of course there's plenty of odder choices. Pop standards like "Red Sails in the Sunset", "Falling in Love Again", "I Remember You". These are below par even for the Beatles' most pedestrian instincts. For comparison, some of McCartney's torch songs, "Till There Was You" or "Taste of Honey", are also here and not nearly as maudlin.
One of the tapes (usually dated as December 26th) has a lot of distortion, making it the biggest challenge for clean-up, but there's enough here to warrant the effort, and reportedly Peter Jackson is looking to apply his patented audio software to the task. There also happens to be another vintage but poorly recorded Beatles concert from sometime in 1962, perhaps the summer (it's unclear whether Best or Starr is drumming), recorded at the Cavern Club by someone in the audience (I imagine the acoustics are atrocious), and was won at an auction by McCartney. There's even a track listing available, including rare numbers like Orbison's "Dream Baby", a mystery song called "What's Your Name" and very early versions of "Words of Love", "Dizzy Miss Lizzie" and Elvis' "I Forgot To Remember To Forget". If Paul would be so charitable as to slide this tape over to Peter Jackson, this also has the potential to be revelatory.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 6/21/2025 9:55 pm | #34 |
One correction from the previous post: "Sheila" was not a Buddy Holly song, but rather from Buddy Holly-soundalike Tommy Roe. George Harrison did actually perform a true Buddy Holly song at the Star Club, "Reminiscing", which I failed to mention because the performance is not otherwise remarkable.
It must have already been established that George Harrison was not going to share vocal duties on par with Lennon and McCartney, much as he had on the Decca audition. Of the fragmentary available BBC recordings done just prior to the recording of their first LP, there's a first glimpse at Harrison handling "Chains", a Goffin-King song issued by The Cookies. Much like "Picture of You" and "Reminiscing", the song is pleasant enough but faceless. It could be considered the weakest, blandest track on Please Please Me. Also in a brief fragment is McCartney's take on "A Taste of Honey", a song which was likely in competition with "Till There Was You" over which would be his spotlight ballad for the LP. "Taste of Honey" suits both McCartney's moody. milky croon and broody sense of drama. "Till There Was You" would have to wait.
One BBC show from January 22nd is nearly intact and, despite some transmission distortion, in fairly decent quality. McCartney's bass is clear, but Ringo's drums sound like soda cans. The Beatles had been promoted from Here We Go to Saturday Club, a higher profile booking which afforded them nearly twice as much airtime per show. The band's run through their two singles, "Love Me Do" and "Please Please Me" are sadly missing chunks out of them, but the remaining three numbers are complete, which is fortunate as they are real gems. They kick off with "Some Other Guy", cleaner but without the live energy of their Cavern Club performance. Lennon takes on a far superior Goffin-King composition, Little Eva's "Keep Your Hands Off My Baby", a sterling example of their "girl group" appropriation, with John's inner-child vulnerability on his sleeve. Finally, McCartney does another one of his rock arrangements of a standard, "Beautiful Dreamer", an extremely charming rendition which the band would not repeat, and the kind of early Beatles performance which, after hearing it, simply makes sense as the kind of classic we should have assumed always existed, and as an encapsulation of why this early incarnation of the band was so wonderful.
When EMI/Apple finally got their shit together enough to release an official version of their BBC performances, naturally they would focus more on the existing tapes which survived, but the did make a single exception to include this date's performance of "Keep Your Hands Off My Baby", probably as this is the only available version. Unfortunately, because of the relatively weaker fidelity, it would also suffer from overly muddy compression on that release, and an ill-advised edit-loop of the drums to create an artificial intro. 20 years later, for Live at the BBC 2, "Beautiful Dreamer" would be issued. Both tracks were also included on the iTunes-only non-physical release The Beatles Bootleg Recordings 1963, which was a rather cynical ploy to keep these tapes from falling into public domain.
As we can see, heading into recording the first proper LP, there are a number of options here which could be considered a pretty worthy alternate early Beatles record, and could also be considered as valuable candidates for Mr. Jackson's magic remixes:
Some Other Guy
Besame Mucho
Dream Baby
Beautiful Dreamer
Keep Your Hands Off My Baby
The One After 909
Catswalk
The Hippy Hippy Shake
Like Dreamers Do
Shimmy Like Kate
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 7/13/2025 6:56 pm | #35 |
The well-oiled machine was able to crank out the remaining ten tracks for their debut album in a single day, even an 11-hour one. (I think the closest competitor would be Oct. 16th 1964, when they would polish off seven tracks start to finish.) The initial Beatles LP is bookended by two of their eternally veritable rock classics, "I Saw Her Standing There" and "Twist and Shout", which, appropriately, were also the first and last numbers recorded on that 11-hour day. The album's tentpole is the title track, "Please Please Me", the fresh slice of their power-pop impact, soon to be their first chart-topper. The only other truly rock'n'roll number was graciously delegated to the newest member Ringo, "Boys", gender-spinning another girl group tune, and providing Starr a phenomenal exhibition of his drumming strut, becoming one of his signature cuts. Even if it was clear that Lennon and McCartney were inevitably the band's primary voices, this democratic demonstration would revolutionize the very concept of the "band" as a creative musical unit going forward in subsequent decades. To this point, rock "bands" either had a designated frontman or were more faceless ensembles (The Searchers, The Ventures, etc).
As I noted already, George gets the short shrift with a pedestrian singalong, "Chains", one of the band's more boring performances. The ballad "Do You Want To Know a Secret", a Lennon/McCartney original, is considerably better, but, despite being a sentimental favorite of many (and every Beatles song has their sentimental fans), it is still pretty slight, with an incredibly weak middle eight, and it's clear why neither Paul nor John was interested in singing it. (We never did get John's preferred version, "Do You Want To Hold a Penis".)
The other originals, "Misery" and "There's a Place" are understandably obscure, although the latter does feature an explosive harmony from Paul which elevates it well beyond the insipid lyrics. The sheer magic of the combined voices of Lennon and McCartney was becoming more evident, and it's easy to see how some of the early songs could simply ride on that joy alone.
The other covers offer a root look into each of their emerging songwriting styles. Within a year, "A Taste of Honey" would flower into "And I Love Her" and "Things We Said Today". And Lennon's sweet spot between R&B and girl group ballad ("Anna", "Baby It's You") would begin to form into his own "All I've Got To Do" and "This Boy". But these performances are not merely affectations either. Lennon especially on these covers offers vibrant and achingly sincere pleas.
The fact that this is The Beatles' weakest album shouldn't be seen as a slight. It certainly has some of the aromas of the meals to come.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 7/15/2025 7:22 am | #36 |
I get the impulse to put this one at the bottom of the heap, but With the Beatles has got to be my choice. All My Loving might be the first LP bound song of theirs that really breaks through for me, but the rest of that record is mostly filled with songs I struggle to even remember. You could say the same for PPM, but it has an energy in sound of this record that enlivens even the saggiest material. And it has Anna, which is super-underrated.
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 7/15/2025 10:25 pm | #37 |
crumbsroom wrote:
I get the impulse to put this one at the bottom of the heap, but With the Beatles has got to be my choice. All My Loving might be the first LP bound song of theirs that really breaks through for me, but the rest of that record is mostly filled with songs I struggle to even remember. You could say the same for PPM, but it has an energy in sound of this record that enlivens even the saggiest material.
I prefer With by a considerable margin. More nostalgically, I prefer Meet and Second Album actually. The album's sound is more streamlined and developed, the performances are more energetic. There's only a couple of weak tracks by comparison, "Little Child", "Devil in Her Heart".
crumbsroom wrote:
And it has Anna, which is super-underrated.
Amazing Lennon vocal. "I've been searching for a girl to love me like I love you" is as close as young Lennon would get to "Mother".
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 7/16/2025 6:02 pm | #38 |
Jinnistan wrote:
crumbsroom wrote:
I get the impulse to put this one at the bottom of the heap, but With the Beatles has got to be my choice. All My Loving might be the first LP bound song of theirs that really breaks through for me, but the rest of that record is mostly filled with songs I struggle to even remember. You could say the same for PPM, but it has an energy in sound of this record that enlivens even the saggiest material.
I prefer With by a considerable margin. More nostalgically, I prefer Meet and Second Album actually. The album's sound is more streamlined and developed, the performances are more energetic. There's only a couple of weak tracks by comparison, "Little Child", "Devil in Her Heart".
crumbsroom wrote:
And it has Anna, which is super-underrated.
Those are definitely two of the songs I'm not a fan of on With, along with Hold Me Tight and Not a Second Time. I also don't like Roll Over Beethoven (I'm generally really lukewarm on Chuck Berry songs in general, outside of a handful).
Looking at the tracklisting, I forgot about It Won't Be Long Now and All I've Got to Do, plus Don't Bother Me, all of which I like. Then the rest turns to middle of the road murk. Not that I've listened to it for years, so it's possible others might shine more than I remember.
Amazing Lennon vocal. "I've been searching for a girl to love me like I love you" is as close as young Lennon would get to "Mother".
Posted by Jinnistan ![]() 7/17/2025 5:04 pm | #39 |
crumbsroom wrote:
Not a Second Time.
I'll do a more complete track critique later, but I'll just point out here that I have a strong disagree. The melodic miracle behind "I wonder why" is enough for me to defend it. "Hold Me Tight" is much sillier, but McCartney is giving it his all. (Also can't stress enough how crucial Ringo is on these tracks.)
Also worth pointing out, if it hasn't been clear, that pretty much all of my judgments so far have been based entirely on musical attributes. At this point, lyrics are definitely a secondary concern. And it's telling that the only lyric I've yet quoted, from "Anna", was a cover, but one I suspect resonated.
Posted by crumbsroom ![]() 7/17/2025 10:50 pm | #40 |
Not a Second Time isn't the song I thought it was. I actually like that one.
And it's not like I'm saying any of these songs are actually even disagreeable to me. I pretty much like most of them. But this album is just one I never even think of listening to. Outside of All My Loving, I don't think there are any others here that I love, and usually I love most of the songs on most Beatles albums.
As for the lyrics on these early songs, they don't need to be anymore than what they are. They are earnest and direct and full of emotions and I actually think they are mostly good, even if not up to their later stuff.