Peppers Discussion

yea...

 

David, who you trying to kid? "Whiskey Man" says "Are you people on crack?" How many times have you posted with the following line: "You people use drugs!"? And "Whiskey Man" just *happens* to begin posting on this forum at the same time as you began your self-imposed exile. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. Besides, I don't know why you'd want to deny it. "Are you people on crack" is one of the funniest lines I've read on this board--even funnier when you consider it was directed at Luke, one of the most knowledgeable and "uncrack-like" members here.

You do swear more, though.

 

Well, no.

Besides, the "you love drugs" thing that I love so much is actually a reference to something...

http://www.somethingawful.com/archives/news-archive-3-4-2002.htm

I'm in self-imposed semi-exile because, frankly, this is no longer fun, or really all that rewarding, and I'm clearly not as *good at this* as most people. I'm going to finish this FAQ, so help me god, and then I'm probably gone.

-D

 

I've done lots of insane reading, etc. on the Beatles history (like everyone else here) and this is what my memory tells me (of other people's memories).

After the last tour in 1966, the Beatles were almost defunct. The lads (with the long hair) got very tired of the "norm" job of being superstars (touring, death-threats, screaming 14 year old girls, not playing "real" music, etc.). John really wanted out and Brian was slowly realizing that his function was becoming meanigless ('Baby, You're a Rich Man'). They all needed to get their individual & collective heads together so they parted ways (John went to Spain, Paul worked on a soundtrack, George to India, Ringo read a book). So, music output was not high on the list.

Ya, 'SSF' & 'PL' were part of a concept about Lennon & McCartney's childhood in Liverpool but I think it was only meant for a single (or perhaps an EP) not an entire album. I think the main concept of 'Sgt. Pepper' (to help entertain the semi-disintergrating Beatles) was a way for them to re-invent themselves and to almost be another band (hence, Sgt. Pepper's). The album is a show in a sense...

Also, I think it would've been a pity (according to the other post) if 'When I'm 64" was dropped for 'SSF' or 'PL' ...

Todd

 

Below is a quote from an interview with Steve Hoffman concering his remastering of Bob Dylan's Blonde on Blonde for DCC records:

"I also wanted to do both the stereo album and the mono album and to also include some of the outtake tracks, but they [Columbia Records]squashed all that too. They said that if I were to do it at all, it must be exactly the same way the original LP was. I wanted to put Positively 4th Street on there, a couple of other things, but they wouldn't have any of that."

http://www.edlis.org/twice/threads/hwy61_DCC.html

Wow, Steve Hoffman, your hero, wanted to add Positively 4th Street, a contemporary outtake from the Highway 61 Sessions, to his deluxe remastered version of Highway 61 Revisited. I guess Steve wanted to "rewrite history" or to "tamper with Dylan's work."

No, what Steve recognized, I think, is that it is sometimes *more* faithful to the history of 60s pop music to look to the recording session logs to see where an artist was "at" at a particular moment in time and what he recorded at a particular session rather than blindly reissue whatever "product" the artist's record company released at the time. Dylan recorded too much music at the Highway 61 sessions to fit on a single album, and not enough for a double album. Outtakes such as "Positively 4th Street" and "Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window" were later released as singles. Under a British EMI theory of what should be included on an album, "Like a Rolling Stone", as a previously released single, should not have been included on Dylan's subsequent album, and perhaps Positively 4th Street would have been the lead-off track instead. What Steve wanted to do was to give the listener the *choice* to hear all of the songs that Dylan recorded during the Highway 61 sessions. If you don't think Positively 4th Street should have been on the record, you have the choice to program your player to skip it or to hit stop before your player gets to the bonus tracks. Without the outtakes added to the record, you would have to buy a greatest hits record and/or Biograph and/or various bootlegs in order to hear everything Dylan recorded at these sessions.

You may believe, for whatever reason, that it would have been sacrilege to add Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields to Pepper or We Love You/Dandelion to Satanic Majesties back in the 60s. I think you're wrong, and that you have gotten sidetracked into whether or not Pepper is a concept album or not. Who cares? The issue to me is whether or not Pepper contains the 13 to 14 best songs that the Beatles wrote and recorded during the sessions for the album. Without Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields, it clearly does not. Without We Love You and Dandelion, the Stones had include the aimless Sing This Altogether reprise jam in order to fill up space on Majesties.

With todays CD technology that allows 74 minutes on a single disc, as opposed to 20 minutes an side on vinyl, there is absolutely *no* reason not to restore songs that were recorded during the *same sessions* as original U.K. albums to those albums.

Unless you get a kick out spending $30 for redundant compilations such as More Hot Rocks, that is. It sure is neat that ABKCO has re-released that great album with the original packaging just like it was in 1972. They are really being faithful to the artist's original intent by doing that.

 

Actually, that was Highway 61, but your point stands.

Bonus tracks are nice, but they're just that -- a bonus. When I buy an album, I want the album. Anything more is gravy. And I definitely don't want to hear SSF and/or Penny Lane in the middle of Pepper. I'd follow the advice in the Pepper booklet and re-program my player if I want to hear it in a different order. Or burn my own copy that meets my own personal requirements for what should be on Pepper.

And I don't see how More Hot Rocks is redundant. There are no tracks repeated between Hot Rocks and More Hot Rocks.

And MHR even has bonus tracks on the new reissue! Isn't that what you want?

If people just want a singles comp, Forty Licks fills that bill.

Ryan

 

Who is believing that? As I've said before, if SFF and PL were integral to the point of Pepper, The Beatles could have easily included those songs on it. They *chose* not to. There was no law saying they couldn't. As I've previously mentioned, they *had* released singles on LPs in the past, so the precedent was there.

Should SFF/PL be included as bonus tracks on Pepper? Nope. You know why? They're already on the MMT album, which is a great collection of the group's non-Pepper 1967 tracks. Why release them on Pepper too?

How is MHR any more redundant than Hot Rocks? If anything it's *less* redundant, since it has a lot more unique tracks that can't be found anywhere else. Not counting the Big Hits discs and the singles box, Hot Rocks has exactly 6 "unique" tracks (*none* if you count the BH discs and the singles box). Contrast that to More Hot Rocks' 14 unique tracks (8 if you count the singles box, UK Aftermath, and discount any alternate mixes - i.e., Child Of The Moon).

What did you say was redundant?

 

Gosh, I hope you don't leave, I'm going to have some Tattoo You questions for you in the next week or two.
Aaron

 

I may very well be wrong here, but I thought Klein and ABKCO own the Stones 64 - 71 catalog outright, and can do whatever they want with it. I can see how Klein would have to negotiate with the Stones to add outtakes or unreleased songs, but that he can repackage the existing catalog in any way he sees fit. On this point, weren't a few "bonus" tracks added to the recent reissue of "More Hot Rocks"? If he could do that, what is stopping him from including "Paint It Black" on the UK Aftermath?

I haven't read as many books about the Stones as I have about the Beatles - what was the deal between Klein, Decca, and the Stones that led to ABKCO taking over the Stones Decca catalog? When did it take place?

 

Why would you conclude that Steve wanted to rewrite history? Steve asked, Columbia said no. Does Columbia have to explain itself to Steve, you or me? No. As has been stated before, in a ‘perfect world’, companies would take advantage of the time available on CDs to pack them full. A lot of times, and it has been suggested here in this thread, that companies are obligated, by artist contracts, to do what they do. Having had some interaction with Mr, Dylan, I know that he has to sign off, too (using Mr. Jeff Rosen as his go-between).

Also, depending on the reading of the contract of a major artist, a record company may not want to address issues related to packaging as it may open up an artist’s right to re-negotiate an entire contract. I believe that has become less of an issue as compact discs have proliferated. But it makes you wonder why major stars like Springsteen still have not been re-mastered.

A lot of companies include bonus tracks separate from the relevant albums. Costello, Elton John and McCartney went so far as to space their bonus tracks with a little more time between the end of a particular album. This implies they don’t want you to re-program the sequence. McCartney, himself, refused to add bonus tracks to ‘Tug Of War’ because he has said that album was complete in and of itself.

A lot of record companies/artists place bonus tracks that are faithful to the particular time period of an album’s recording sessions. That’s nothing new. To imply that Steve was engaged in something unique is not correct. Again, if the reality was to create bonus tracks for Beatle albums, yes, of course, “Penny Lane” and “Strawberry Fields Forever” could be released with ‘Pepper’. It wasn’t. The powers-that-be decided against it. And as far as what occurrecd in 1966/1967 during the recording phase, you know I don't buy into your scenario.

Your opinion as to what makes ‘Pepper’ a good, great or better album is subjective. I like (love) the album just as it is. It’s a concept album much like it was previously stated. It creates a mood revolving around its time and the literary theme of loneliness. The theme may be an afterthought or done on purpose. It may be sprinkled throughout the album rather than a defining theme. It may even be irrelevant. For me, The Beatles have always written about love and loneliness. And, for me, that theme of loneliness is very evident in ‘Pepper’.

That you think anyone has been sidetracked by concepts or anything else is ridiculous. Using words like ‘should’ ‘sacrilege’, ‘who cares?, etc. imlies, to me, that you see this as so much black & white. I’m glad you used the phrase “I think you’re wrong”. I’m not interested in changing your mind as much as acknowledging that myself and others are not wrong to think what we think. I take it from the continuing discussion, this means a lot to you. It means a lot to me, too. But I hope I have stated my point clearly. I don’t care what alternatives I could come up with, at the end of the day, it’s the artist presentation I want.

As regards The Stones, I feel the same way. I don’t need ABKCO’s versions of ‘Flowers’ or ‘Hot Rocks’. They could have done something different. But they didn’t. I may find ‘Satanic’ a weaker album in The Stones catalog and weaker than ‘Pepper’, but I find it also is a ‘whole’ album. I feel if I tell you I like “Sing This All together (See What Happens)” you will think I love it more than its due. Well, I like it. In the scheme of things, it’s not the ‘top of the pops’, but I don’t need “We Love You” or “Dandelion” to replace it.

And “Positively 4th Street” and “Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window” were outtakes? I don’t think so. If I got my history correct. They may have been recorded within the same time frame, but they did have purposes.

 

Father Mackenzie, you and lukpac keep returning to the argument that "the Beatles could have chosen to include Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields on Pepper if they wanted to".

This argument does not reflect the reality of the Beatles' relationship with EMI and Capitol records. The Beatles wrote the songs, but they did not have complete control over what was released and when.

At the most obvious level, this is manifested in completely made-up U.S. releases like Something New and Yesterday and Today.

At a less obvious level, this is manifested in the demand that they produce 2 albums a year (one in the summertime, one at Christmas) and 2-3 independent singles a year in Britain, as well as touring, making movies, etc.

I would like to see someone make the argument that the Beatles *chose* to include Mr. Moonlight or I'll Follow the Sun on Beatles for Sale for artistic reasons. They dredged up an old cover and a song Paul wrote when he was a teenager because they couldn't come up with enough quality new material to feed the machine in time for Christmas 64.

They recorded Dizzy Miss Lizzie to fill out Help for the same reason, etc.

With Revolver and Pepper the Beatles began to *attempt* to assert more control over the process of making records. In Barry Miles's book about Paul McCartney Paul talks about how they wanted EMI to use heavier cardboard and add the cutouts and other special features to Pepper to give the fans value for their money, and how the Beatles met with massive resistance from EMI on points like these. Despite the deluxe for it's day packaging of Pepper, some of the Beatles' original ideas were vetoed by EMI because of cost concerns.

I simply don't see how you can ignore the historical documentation that some combination of a panicked EMI and Brian Epstein pressured the Beatles and George Martin into releasing some kind of product from their "overdue" follow up to Revolver in early '67. To pretend that the Beatles had the power at this moment in time to record at their leisure and total control over what was released and when is to ignore the historical record.

As I have stated above, it is ironic that a "rule" which was intended to give value to British record buyers (we won't make you pay "twice" for a single you have already bought when you buy the next album) cheated British and American record buyers out of a stronger version of the Beatle's masterpiece at the moment when the Beatles and every other major band were moving away from singles to album-oriented rock.

I would not argue that the tremendous success of Pepper and the subsequent legitimization of rock as a "respectable" art form gave the Beatles more power over these matters, and that they used this power to override George Martin's desire to cut the White Album down to a single record. From what I understand, however, there was still pressure on the band during the late stages of that album's recording to wrap it up and deliver product in time for Christmas, just as there had been in the days of Beatlemania.

 

I don't have the data in front of me but the total cost and time of producing 'Sgt. Pepper' was totally unheard of. I think the Beatles had a little bit more pull with their label than the average group or even supergroup...

Also, how many groups could say they didn't feel like doing a live appearance on Sullivan, etc. and provide a promo film or say "We are done with touring"?

Todd

 

Good arguements abound. The funny points in Whiskey's discussion above:
- Instead of "Mr Moonlight" and "I'll Follow The Sun", they could have just included the "I Feel Fine"/"She's A Woman" single to reach 14 songs.
- Instead of "Dizzy Miss Lizzie", they could have included "I'm Down" or "Yes It Is".

Having grown up in England, singles were always kept separate (if possible). With "Please Please Me", I think the Love Me Do and PPM A & B sides were included due to lack of material and (more likely) to continue launching the popularity of the band (debut LP). Likewise, with Hard Day's Night, the title single (b/w Things We Said Today) were part of the 14 original songs they had. The Long Tall Sally EP followed shortly thereafter but only had one original song (I Call Your Name). The Rubber Soul period had it's own dedicated single (Day Tripper/WCWIO), Eleanor Rigby/YS was a single _from_ the Revolver album, and so on.

Cliff

 

No argument there. The Beatles certainly had more pull than the average group, and that is what allowed them to attempt a project like Pepper at all. What I am trying to point out is that as late as 67, EMI was still very concerned with keeping the golden goose laying the golden eggs on the same schedule as it had been laying them for the past 3 years.

The same point applies to the decision to stop touring. Yes, they quit touring, but the historical record shows that all of them, and, in particular John and George, would have liked to have stopped touring even earlier than they did. Read what John and George had to say about the 66 American tour that ended in Candlestick Park. They were not happy about being on that tour. They had not been happy with touring for a long time. They were more interested in recording Revolver than playing Twist and Shout without adequate monitors to thousands of screaming fans.

 

Of course, by the time of Pepper, that had stopped. So that argument doesn't really hold up.

Do you honestly think that Sgt. Pepper was randomly compiled by EMI execs? That The Beatles just recorded a bunch of songs and said "here, do something with these"?

That's all well and good, but we're not talking about Beatles For Sale or Help. We're talking about Pepper. By that point the "2 LPs/4 singles" equation was dead (1966 only saw 1 new LP and 1 unique single, with Yellow Submarine coming off of Revolver and "Oldies" being a compilation).

First of all, they *were* recording at their leisure. I'd say 5 months to complete an LP is a pretty leisurely pace, wouldn't you? How about 5 months between the Revolver and Pepper sessions?

Second of all, you're forgetting that EMI *did* have some pretty recent product out - A Collection Of Beatles Oldies came out in December 1966.

Third, the release of SFF/PL would not necessarily exclude those songs from being on the next album.

Again, you're assuming that it was this "rule" (which I've already shown was *frequently* broken) that kept SFF and PL off of Pepper. That's a bit assumption to make. As I've already stated, if the band had really wanted those songs on the upcoming album, they could have put them on. "Stronger" to you might be "out of place" to others.

And what of More Hot Rocks?

 

Do you honestly think that Sgt. Pepper was randomly compiled by EMI execs? That The Beatles just recorded a bunch of songs and said "here, do something with these"?

No, as I've already stated five times at least, I think that the Beatles had begun recording Pepper in late 66, and that in early 67 Brian Epstein and EMI pressured them for a single to release. When it came time to release the final album, George Martin and the band followed the "rule" that they couldn't put a previously released single on the album. George Martin later stated in interviews that this was the single biggest mistake he made while recording the Beatles.

***

they *were* recording at their leisure. I'd say 5 months to complete an LP is a pretty leisurely pace, wouldn't you?

By the standards of the early to mid-60s, yes. By todays standards, no. In large part due to the revolution begun by Pepper, major bands have the ability to spend two or three years between albums if they feel like it.

***

Third, the release of SFF/PL would not necessarily exclude those songs from being on the next album.

quote:
As I have stated above, it is ironic that a "rule" which was intended to give value to British record buyers (we won't make you pay "twice" for a single you have already bought when you buy the next album) cheated British and American record buyers out of a stronger version of the Beatle's masterpiece at the moment when the Beatles and every other major band were moving away from singles to album-oriented rock.

Again, you're assuming that it was this "rule" (which I've already shown was *frequently* broken) that kept SFF and PL off of Pepper.

The rule was not frequently broken. After Please Please Me, which contained the previous singles because it was the album that introduced the British public to the Beatles, no non-movie soundtrack album contained a previously released British A-side. The only reason the movie soundtracks contained the A-sides is because it wouldn't make much sense to have A Hard Day's Night or Help soundtrack without the title song from the movie, would it? As I stated before, the inclusion of those A-sides on the soundtrack albums made those albums stronger, not weaker, just as the inclusion of PL and SFF would have made Pepper a stronger album.

***

"Stronger" to you might be "out of place" to others.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The whole point of the Pepper concept that finally made it to vinyl is a kaleidoscopic sound world where anything goes. Nothing could be more "out of place" or jarring than following George Harrison's Indian-influenced Within You Without You with Paul McCartney's vaudevillian When I'm 64. But those two songs sit side by side on Pepper. The entire album is a collage of exotic sounds. Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever would not be out of place on the album - they were recorded during the same sessions and feature the same psychedelic feel as all of the other songs on the record. Strawberry Fields is out of place next to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? What are you talking about? The two songs share the same psychedelic, trippy instrumentation and worldview.

The album that should have been:

Side One

Sgt. Pepper
With a Little Help from My Friends
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
Getting Better
Fixing a Hole
She's Leaving Home
Mr. Kite
Within You, Without You

Side Two

Penny Lane
Strawberry Fields Forever
When I'm 64
Lovely Rita
Good Morning Good Morning
Sgt. Pepper (reprise)
A Day in the Life

One problem with this line-up is that Side One may be too long to fit on one side of a vinyl record. Again, technological limitations of the day very well played a part in the decision not to add Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields. If this were the case, I would have dropped Mr. Kite, the weakest Lennon song from my side one.

I would also go so far as to replace Fixing a Hole, the weakest Paul song, with Fool on the Hill and axe the whole Magical Mystery Tour project, but that's another debate, I suppose.

 

Father Mackenzie, you and lukpac keep returning to the argument that "the Beatles could have chosen to include Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields on Pepper if they wanted to".

This argument does not reflect the reality of the Beatles' relationship with EMI and Capitol records. The Beatles wrote the songs, but they did not have complete control over what was released and when.

At the most obvious level, this is manifested in completely made-up U.S. releases like Something New and Yesterday and Today.

***

Of course, by the time of Pepper, that had stopped. So that argument doesn't really hold up.

***

No, it *hadn't* stopped by the time of Pepper. The Christmas 66 Collection of Beatles Oldies album was as a cheap Christmas cash-in by EMI specifically to cover the fact that the band hadn't come up with new Christmas product because they were locked in the studio taking "too much time" recording Pepper.

 

Here's my version of Sgt. Pepper(in MONO!):

Side One

Sgt. Pepper
With a Little Help from My Friends
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
Getting Better
Fixing a Hole
She's Leaving Home
Mr. Kite


Side Two

Strawberry Fields Forever
When I'm 64
Lovely Rita
Good Morning Good Morning
Sgt. Pepper (reprise)
A Day in the Life

Single:
A side-Penny Lane
B side-Within You, Without You

 

I don't know how recording sessions work? Okay, that's a good place to start.

I don't think Dylan would talk to his musicians in such a way. Why would they need to know Dylan's intent anyway? Maybe it would help or come up in conversation, but would it be absolutely necessary for Dylan to inform the session musicians what they were recording for? I think that it is possible he knew what he was doing and talked to his manager and label about what he wanted.

I would like to point out that I have many books on Bob Dylan. The Paul Williams trilogy of books points out, in volume one, that "Positively 4th Street" was intended as a single.

That "Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window" was attempted several times may imply Dylan was unsure of its place, but I don't think it was an aborted outtake from a particular session as you suggest. Dylan used it as one of the vehicles to 'test' the possibilities of what Dylan and the Hawks could accomplish in the studio. The Hawks' version was released, though it appears that Dylan felt the sessions with The Hawks would not make for an album and these sessions were discontinued.

And I could certainly be a little too 'fussy' about my definition of an outtake here.

Playing around with track order and such is part of the process. Though the artist may not have initially been involved in every process of recording, it seems they certainly grew into being involved. There are pictures of John and Paul sitting next to each other working on the track order for 'Abbey Road', and, documentation that they were involved in earlier releases.

And no, I don't address these items from it had to be this or that way. I have been continually addressing it from the idea that it is the artists' intent and their way. I want to hear, see and read what the artist wants to present to me AND their second, even third, thoughts, their process and their self-criticism. I don't want to hear FatherMcKenzie's version of anything but FatherMcKenzie's own work.

I have never read that EMI was concerned about their 'golden goose' and the relevant output. There are so many examples of The Beatles breaking whatever pattern has been suggested that I believe there never was a release pattern other than Epstein or Martin or EMI representatives making comments to the media as to their own personal views on what that might entail.

By the way, the initial Parlophone contract called for four sides to be recorded in a one-year period. That's it. It was a horrible contract for an unknown group, but who knew. It is unclear, to me, how and what kinds of terms were negotiated after the initial success. It is known the royalty rate was increased, but how much product was required is unclear.

 

Actually, recording on Pepper hadn't even begun until close to a month after the decision was made to release "Oldies".

You make a lot of excuses, but nobody can deny the fact that several singles were also released on albums:

Please Please Me - Love Me Do, P.S. I Love You, Please Please Me, Ask Me Why
A Hard Day's Night - Can't Buy Me Love, You Can't Do That, A Hard Day's Night, Things We Said Today
Help - Ticket To Ride, Help
Revolver - Eleanor Rigby, Yellow Submarine

Even if we were to agree about the early singles and the movie songs, what about P.S. I Love You, Ask Me Why, You Can't Do That, Things We Said Today, Eleanor Rigby and Yellow Submarine? By what reasoning did those *have* to be on the albums they were on? Lack of "better" material? If that were the case, the same reasoning could have applied to Pepper.

Keeping SFF and PL off of Pepper was The Beatles' *choice* - if they had wanted to include them, they would have.

Again, saying that adding SFF and PL to Pepper would make it stronger is your opinion and only your opinion. It isn't a fact. Some people, myself included, feel that putting those songs on Pepper would feel out of place. IMO, they work *very* well as a combo, but don't fit in as well with the rest of the songs from Pepper.

 

Originally posted by Whiskey Man
No, it *hadn't* stopped by the time of Pepper. The Christmas 66 Collection of Beatles Oldies album was as a cheap Christmas cash-in by EMI specifically to cover the fact that the band hadn't come up with new Christmas product because they were locked in the studio taking "too much time" recording Pepper.

***

Actually, recording on Pepper hadn't even begun until close to a month after the decision was made to release "Oldies".

***

That would make the theory that the Beatles were producing new product too slowly for EMI even stronger, I suppose.

 

Whiskey Man,

Please use the QUOTE tags when quoting people. Your posts are becoming difficult to follow.

thanks,

HZ

 

Whiskey Man, I'd like you to tone it down a bit - having a strong opinion is one thing, but telling people their flat out wrong when we're mostly talking about opinion here is another. Chill.

If you have a problem with this, send me a PM.

HZ

 

My version of 'Sgt. Pepper'

Side 1
'Sgt. Pepper'

Side 2
'Sgt. Pepper' (Reprise)

Now that would've been one hell of an album!!!

 

I'm going to split the stones/beatles discussions. Please give me a minute.