I know it’s something of a heretical view, but I must be honest: I’m not much of a Beatles fan. I like many of the band’s singles and I freely acknowledge their significance to the history of popular music, but for the most part, I’ve never understood the deep, almost mystical reverence that so many hold for the boys from Liverpool. They just don’t grab me that way. I think it’s even arguable as to whether their music qualifies as “rock and roll”; the later stuff, especially, sounds to my ears more like a descendant of the English music-hall than anything related to the blues.
Still, I like them well enough, and I’m always interested in stories about lost-and-found treasures. Which is all my roundabout way of saying that I was very intrigued this afternoon by the news that some 500 tapes from the 1969 “Get Back” sessions have been recovered:
The tapes recorded [The Beatles] performing more than 200 cover versions of work by the artists who had influenced them: Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly. They played their own version of Bob Dylan’s Blowing in the Wind, and Rod Stewart’s Maggie May. They belted out Great Balls of Fire, Hippy Hippy Shake and Lucille in spontaneous bursts of play.
You know that at least some of this stuff will be released on CD — more likely all of it will in a big old collectible box set — and, despite my reservations about the orthodoxy of the band’s greatness, I’d really like to hear Lennon’s take on “Great Balls of Fire…”
Very interesting news! The covers will shed light on a very important and troubling period in the band’s history. By 1969 the band was dealing with personal problems (not just Yoko Ono–the boys had been working together non-stop for almost a decade), and they were obviously going in different directions musically, as demonstrated by the shapeless and inconsistent White Album. In the “Get Back” sessions they wanted to “get back” to their musical roots. Playing (and apparently recording) covers of all their favorite acts from the 50s and early 60s was a big part of it. But it was too late: the sessions were abandoned. It wasn’t until the Beatles decided to record a final album and then split up that they found a way to work together and to compliment each other’s styles as they had done in the early days. Abbey Road is really a remarkable album when you consider the impasse of “Get Back.”
Of course, “Get Back” didn’t go away. After the release of Abbey Road and the breakup of the band, Paul McCartney salvaged what he could from the abandoned sessions and released it as “Let It Be.” But instead of reflecting the harder, more rock-and-roll sound they originally went for, the album was way overproduced thanks to Phil Spector. Only last year, a stripped-down version of the album came out called “Let It Be . . . Naked.”
All of which is to say that I will line up to buy the super-duper box set of the newly discovered covers when they come out!
I figured you’d be interested in this news, Robert – do you have/have you heard the “Let It Be Naked” album? Is it any good, or was it one of those “stunts” that has little value beyond the novelty?
Yes, I own it, and when I listen to Let It Be it’s the version I choose. Many of the songs are not substantially different, except that the talking intros have been removed. The most impressive changes are seen in the title track, “The Long and Winding Road,” and “Across the Universe.” The original release slowed the tempo and loaded these songs with schmaltzy orchestration. The stripped-down release restores the original tempo of these songs and highlights the band members. “Across the Universe” is almost entirely John and a guitar; “The Long and Winding Road” emphasizes Paul and the piano; and “Let It Be” just feels different, like the misty lens has been taken off the camera. The only downside of the latter track is that it features yet another version of the guitar solo. Neither this one nor the original album version beats the one on the single release, which you can hear on Past Masters Volume 2.
I’d say that if you’re not a hardcore Beatles listener, you don’t need to buy this album. Download “Across the Universe” on iTunes and use the rest of the money to buy yourself some ice cream. It’s hot out there!
Yes, it is hot… I don’t know how it is out there in LA, but here in the SLC it was 80 degrees at 6 a.m., according to the sweaty-looking UPS driver I just talked to while waiting for the crosswalk light. Pretty miserable…
I have trouble imagining “The Long and Winding Road” without all the strings. I’ll have to give the whole album a listen sometime.
“Let It Be” has always functioned in my mind as a sentimental farewell from the soon-to-be-solo Beatles to their younger days of being in the band — you mention the “misty lens” yourself — and as such I think the schmaltz was appropriate for that song. Do you think removing it alters what the song is supposed to be about?
No, I think it’s the other way around. “Let It Be” was recorded before the Abbey Road sessions, before the decision to split. Spector and McCartney dug it up and recast it as a schmaltzy song in a generally schmaltzy album.
The band’s real farewell song is “The End,” which is the second-to-last track on Abbey Road. Why second-to-last? Because McCarntey (the Beatle we love to hate during this period) made a last-minute switcheroo on the album, taking “Her Majesty” (a McCartney song) out of the “Mean Mister Mustard”-“Polythene Pam”-“She Came in Through the Bathroom Window” sequence and sticking it at the end of the album. Paul has the last word.
Incidentally, John Lennon wanted Abbey Road to end with a slow fade into white noise, which is how Side 1 ends now. If he’d had his way, “I Want You (She’s So Heavy)” would have been the last track, giving John the last word.
I stand in awe of your Beatles expertise. 🙂
From what little I know of the behind-the-scenes stuff on this group, it is fascinating how the creative conflicts between John and Paul (and to a lesser degree, George; as far as I’ve ever heard, Ringo was pretty content) drove even something so seemingly minor as track order. I wonder if there are any currently active bands that spend that much time (and ego) on the details?
I had always heard that Paul wrote Let It Be while sitting at a piano in the studio as the rest of the band worked something else out, and then liked it so much he put it on the album. Probably an apocryphal story, but Robert can confirm/deny.
As for track order, remember that back in the day, there was no iTunes (or even CD’s). The album was the work of art, not the song. Hence, they worried about things like how it started, where it peaked, how it ended, etc.
These days, albums are just bulk distribution vehicles for song collections, and most artists probably expect them to be cut up & consumed as iTunes singles, tracks on a Mix CD, etc. Or if they don’t, they probably should. Either way, I think the days of “Tommy” or “The Wall” are gone forever…
I think you’re right, Brian. However, it seems to me that that the album as a unified work of art is both a fairly recent and a relatively short-lived phenomenon. Up until the mid- to late-60s, most popular music was distributed on 45 rpm singles, and when LPs did come along, they were mostly compilations of previously released singles. Or, to use your words, bulk distribution vehicles. You could say that the paradigm that produced “Tommy” was an aberration and we’re now returning to the “normal” way of doing things as the single again because primary.
You make a good point, Jason. I don’t know where the start/end of album dominance was, but it’s clear that John and Paul were in “album” mode at this point (that, or they were just so sick of each other that they decided to be jerks about it all…)
Well, that’s always a possibility… 😉