|
Post by Beatle Bob on Nov 18, 2008 15:49:49 GMT -5
Being such an obsure piece of music, and music that won’t be appreciated by many–I’d suggest that if Paul wants it released, issue it as part of a limited edition bonus CD of rarities when the remixed/remasters are issued next year. That way it sees the light of day but only for a limited amount of time will you be able to purchase that version if inclined to. Regards, Beatle Bob
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 19, 2008 3:14:02 GMT -5
...when the remixed/remasters are issued next year. Is this now for definite or still just speculation?
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 19, 2008 3:33:13 GMT -5
I have to agree with those who see this move as more evidence of Paul's insecurities. As for the speculation that it is a mercenary endeavor, it wouldn't surprise me. Since Heather tried to take him for a fortune he does seem even more money-obsessed than he previously was. The heiress girlfriend is only Exhibit A. The fact the HE'S worried about the credit crunch is Exhibit B. People are fighting to hold on to the one home they wished they could own, and the billionaire owner of at least eight homes and properties on two continents is griping about his "exposure" in the current financial mess? Give me an effin' break. First, he starts making noises abour releasing COL, and now I see he's talking about his longstanding affinity for punk (again). Then there is the ongoing Fireman gig. Paul's been trying to sell the narrative that he's a wild and crazy guy for years. His image as the soppy romantic who wrote "Yesterday" clearly rankles him. It also rankles him that John is popularly perceived as being the "cutting edge" Beatle. In "Many Years From Now," Paul spends an awful lot of time arguing for his overdue recognition as THE cool, hip, avant-garde Beatle, and he isn't above throwing John under the bus to do it. Paul and his tape loops. Paul and his arty little experimental films. Paul and his affinity for Stockhausen and Ginsberg. Once, during a conversation with the latter, he couldn't fall over himself fast enough to reveal that it was he, not John, who first discovered Ginsberg. I can't think of another person with so much talent, who has accomplished so much, and yet who remains so insecure. He's tried poetry, with not particularly stellar results. Painting--there are no words. Okay, one word--abysmal. His classical compositions have met with decidedly mixed reviews. Someone described his interest in releasing COL as "Paul putting his artistic house in order." Problem is, he is not the sole owner of the Beatles house, and George didn't want COL on the Anthology. Looking at this from Olivia's viewpoint, I think it's more than a little insensitive of him to raise the issue again now that George is gone. Is Olivia going to feel pressured to agree to something that she knew her husband was against? What is most interesting--and what should be gratifying to all of us as Beatles fans--is that the possible release of a 41-year-old song by a group that broke up in 1970 is so newsworthy. Still, I think Paul should let this one be. Mark Lewisohn and George Martin are reportedly not impressed with COL, and maybe everyone, including Paul, should defer to their judgment. Stop trying so hard, Paul, to sell the Sir Avant-Garde image. Your credentials as a musical genius and legend are well established. Seriously, what's wrong with being known as the guy who wrote "Yesterday?"
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Nov 19, 2008 4:09:37 GMT -5
Now this is a little strange. I'm sitting in a hotel lobby, and guess which song is now being played over the sound system?
Carnival of Light.
Nah, I'm messin' with ya. "Yesterday," of course. They played COL last night.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 19, 2008 4:47:11 GMT -5
To be honest, I can't understand why 'Carnival of Light' wasn't included on Anthology II in one form or another - i.e. edited down to 3-4 minutes, or something.
When you consider some of the inconsequential stuff that did make it onto the Anthology CDs (not-very-interesting takes of well-known songs, fairly pointless instrumental versions), it seems more than a little odd that an original, unreleased track wasn't included at least in part - as with 'Helter Skelter'.
Was it vetoed because it was seen as Macca's show pony?
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Nov 19, 2008 8:21:27 GMT -5
The solution is simple based on the Roundhouse poster posted here-"music by Paul McCartney" Put it out as a solo piece accompanied by JL, GH and RS as backing musicians. It doesn't HAVE TO BE BEATLE Product, and the other 3 parties get royalties anyway. The alternative is that Paul gets Brian Wilson's new band to rerecord it with him. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 19, 2008 9:14:07 GMT -5
...when the remixed/remasters are issued next year. Is this now for definite or still just speculation? It's still speculation, but logic says they know they can't keep delaying it and they need to do it asap. So next year seems very likely. My guess -- and it's just that -- was that when they made "All Together Now" the big holiday project they knew -- or were forced -- to make it next year. Honestly, I can't see them continue to delay this. It's making them look ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 19, 2008 9:21:30 GMT -5
I have to agree with those who see this move as more evidence of Paul's insecurities. As for the speculation that it is a mercenary endeavor, it wouldn't surprise me. Since Heather tried to take him for a fortune he does seem even more money-obsessed than he previously was. The heiress girlfriend is only Exhibit A. The fact the HE'S worried about the credit crunch is Exhibit B. People are fighting to hold on to the one home they wished they could own, and the billionaire owner of at least eight homes and properties on two continents is griping about his "exposure" in the current financial mess? Give me an effin' break. First, he starts making noises abour releasing COL, and now I see he's talking about his longstanding affinity for punk (again). Then there is the ongoing Fireman gig. Paul's been trying to sell the narrative that he's a wild and crazy guy for years. His image as the soppy romantic who wrote "Yesterday" clearly rankles him. It also rankles him that John is popularly perceived as being the "cutting edge" Beatle. In "Many Years From Now," Paul spends an awful lot of time arguing for his overdue recognition as THE cool, hip, avant-garde Beatle, and he isn't above throwing John under the bus to do it. Paul and his tape loops. Paul and his arty little experimental films. Paul and his affinity for Stockhausen and Ginsberg. Once, during a conversation with the latter, he couldn't fall over himself fast enough to reveal that it was he, not John, who first discovered Ginsberg. I can't think of another person with so much talent, who has accomplished so much, and yet who remains so insecure. He's tried poetry, with not particularly stellar results. Painting--there are no words. Okay, one word--abysmal. His classical compositions have met with decidedly mixed reviews. Someone described his interest in releasing COL as "Paul putting his artistic house in order." Problem is, he is not the sole owner of the Beatles house, and George didn't want COL on the Anthology. Looking at this from Olivia's viewpoint, I think it's more than a little insensitive of him to raise the issue again now that George is gone. Is Olivia going to feel pressured to agree to something that she knew her husband was against? What is most interesting--and what should be gratifying to all of us as Beatles fans--is that the possible release of a 41-year-old song by a group that broke up in 1970 is so newsworthy. Still, I think Paul should let this one be. Mark Lewisohn and George Martin are reportedly not impressed with COL, and maybe everyone, including Paul, should defer to their judgment. Stop trying so hard, Paul, to sell the Sir Avant-Garde image. Your credentials as a musical genius and legend are well established. Seriously, what's wrong with being known as the guy who wrote "Yesterday?" sadie, I can't say I disagree with much of anything you said. The whole Paul vs. John as the avant-garde artist is interesting and really makes Paul look silly. In my mind and almost everyone else's (except his), John (and Yoko) were the premier avant-garde people in the Beatles. That's not saying Paul didn't get into it, but Paul's stuff never had the influence John's did. And how many of us remember "Liverpool Sound Collage"?
|
|
|
Post by jimc on Nov 19, 2008 17:57:55 GMT -5
To be honest, I can't understand why 'Carnival of Light' wasn't included on Anthology II in one form or another - i.e. edited down to 3-4 minutes, or something. When you consider some of the inconsequential stuff that did make it onto the Anthology CDs (not-very-interesting takes of well-known songs, fairly pointless instrumental versions), it seems more than a little odd that an original, unreleased track wasn't included at least in part - as with 'Helter Skelter'. Was it vetoed because it was seen as Macca's show pony? Exactly. Carnival should have been on A2 -- the perfect spot for something like this. As it is, release it already -- one would hope as part of Sgt. Pepper or MMT remaster package.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 20, 2008 6:31:39 GMT -5
Karlosi, Marinucci, mikev and others- I don't want Let It Be on DVD: I've had the film for years. Cruddy little movie anyhow. Well, what can I say to that? Regardless of how "negative" certain things are in LET IT BE, it still belongs on DVD like any other film. And there are a lot of good moments in there - like the performances of TWO OF US, LET IT BE, LONG AND WINDING ROAD, and the entire Rooftop Concert. I don't want any "new" remixing (though the Beatles' music itself went through various mixes, even back in their day!) but in this day and age there ought to be nice-quality CDs available. But having said that, these days I opt to relive my own upbringing of the Beatles by listening ot the U.S. Capitol versions anyway! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 20, 2008 6:37:20 GMT -5
I think the weird Beatles songs are completely corny rubbish such as Michelle (lyrics? Ugh!), drivel such as Maxwell's Silver Hammer, and tedious forced "major" ballads such as Long and Whining Bore. Whatever were they thinking? Oh, brother.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 20, 2008 6:45:14 GMT -5
I'm not saying this will change the minds of those of you aching to hear this "track", but here is the direct entry from straight out of Mark Lewisohn's book, THE BEATLES: RECORDING SESSIONS, where he got to hear this "gem" for himself:
Thursday, 5 January 1967
After overdubbing another McCartney vocal onto "Penny Lane', replacing the one from the previous evening, the Beatles set to work on the session's main task; preparing a sound effects tape for a 'Carnival of Light', being held at the Roundhouse Theatre, London, later in the month. Paul was the chief instigator behind the commission and he took charge of the creation on tape of the bizarre collection of loops and distortions. Or, as it was described in the press at the time, "a tape of electronic noises".
The Beatles had never made a recording quite like this before, although they were certainly to repeat the exercise again, culminating in 'Revolution 9'. This day's attempt lasted 13' 48", the longest uninterrupted Beatles recording to date, and it was the combination of a basic track and numerous overdubs. Track one of the tape was full of distorted, hypnotic drum and organ sounds; track two had a distorted lead guitar; track three had the sounds of a church organ, various effects (the gargling with water was one) and voices; track four featured various indescribable sound effects with heaps of tape echo and manic tambourine.
But of all the frightening sounds it was the voices on track three which really set the scene, John and Paul screaming dementedly and bawling aloud random phrases like "Are you alright?" and "Barcelona!"
Paul terminated the proceedings after almost 14 minutes with one final shout up to the control room: "Can we hear it back now?" They did just that, a rough mono mix was made and Paul took away the tape to hand over to the "Carnival of Light" organisers, doubtless pleased that the Beatles had produced for them such an 'avant garde' recording.
Geoff Emerick recalls this most unusual session. "When they had finished George Martin said to me 'This is ridiculous, we've got to get our teeth into something a little more constructive'." Twenty years on, George had obviously driven the session entirely from his mind, for when reminded of the sounds on the tape and asked whether he could recall it, he replied "No, and it sounds like I don't want to either!"
As far as I'm concerned (Joe Karlosi here) I think it would be absurd to release this crap at this point in time. It won't do the Beatles' modern legacy any favors, and it will be - as Steve pointed out - "a headache they don't need". Critics and tabloids these days are already trying to put a dent inthe Beatles' impenetrable classic reputation, and new kids who aren't interested in "I Want to Hold Your Hand" are likely to scratch their heads in collective befuddlement upon hearing this from "the Great Beatles". My feeling is that Paul McCartney is really getting old and wants to assert himself as being "just as cool and wild as John Lennon was". Paul always seemed to resent that he was considered rather "twee" while John was the one who was always the "experimental one".
The best I can say is I agree with some of you that 'Carnival of Light' would have been more suitable on Volume 2 of the ANTHOLOGY. Unless it's included in a future collection of similar "Beatles outtakes, rehearsals, and experiments", then forget it. To release this as "The New Unheard Beatles Song!" would be akin to shooting oneself in the foot.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Nov 20, 2008 8:13:03 GMT -5
I'm suprised the people on You Tube who gave us the very clever Cheatleg "Now and Then " haven't taken a crack at faking this one.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 20, 2008 8:32:13 GMT -5
I'm suprised the people on You Tube who gave us the very clever Cheatleg "Now and Then " haven't taken a crack at faking this one. Yeah, but there are a couple of fakes there that claim to be "Carnival".
|
|
|
Post by theoak on Nov 20, 2008 11:49:11 GMT -5
Here is why I am interested in hearing it:
Where Revolution 9 was John and Yoko's thing, and the band was fragmented, this comes from a time when they were united. Not only united, but when they were producing their most creative work. We hardcore fans deserve to hear it.
I do agree that it does not need to be presented to the general public as a long, lost Beatles track.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 20, 2008 13:57:51 GMT -5
I think the weird Beatles songs are completely corny rubbish such as Michelle (lyrics? Ugh!), drivel such as Maxwell's Silver Hammer, and tedious forced "major" ballads such as Long and Whining Bore. Whatever were they thinking? Oh, brother. What? Do you think the lyrics of Michelle are not corny? Do you think Maxwell is a class song? Do you think Long & Whining Bore is anything more than Macca's failed attempt at another magnificent ballad?
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 20, 2008 14:04:04 GMT -5
I know what Macca should do with Carnival of Light:
Contact his friendly neighborhood bootlegger, and GIVE it to him.
Then: (1) all true believers will get to hear the track, and none of the run-of-the-mill fans will (after all, we faithful deserve it, and the great unwashed don't!)
(2) Macca will have the satisfaction of getting it "out there", without having to convince Ringo and two widows
(3) we can argue - interminably - whether it is the REAL Carnival of Light! It can become another Peace of Mind.
McCabe
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 21, 2008 6:16:51 GMT -5
Oh, brother. What? Do you think the lyrics of Michelle are not corny? Do you think Maxwell is a class song? Do you think Long & Whining Bore is anything more than Macca's failed attempt at another magnificent ballad? THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD is an excellent song, a classic. It requires no defending. MICHELLE has never been one of my personal favorites, yet I do think it's a lovely song, and again it enjoys a healthy reputation. MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER is a silly romp, but that's the point. Again, not one of my faves, but as an offbeat ditty about a mass murderer, it's very tongue in cheek and realizes its goal. I just wrote "oh brother" because I don't see how you can mention the virtues of REVOLUTION 9 and CARNIVAL OF LIGHT and at the same time smear the above three songs saying THEY'RE actually the "weird" ones. It's hard to take such comments seriously.
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Nov 21, 2008 10:39:38 GMT -5
THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD is an excellent song, a classic. It requires no defending. MICHELLE has never been one of my personal favorites, yet I do think it's a lovely song, and again it enjoys a healthy reputation. MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER is a silly romp, but that's the point. Again, not one of my faves, but as an offbeat ditty about a mass murderer, it's very tongue in cheek and realizes its goal. I just wrote "oh brother" because I don't see how you can mention the virtues of REVOLUTION 9 and CARNIVAL OF LIGHT and at the same time smear the above three songs saying THEY'RE actually the "weird" ones. It's hard to take such comments seriously. Couldn't agree more Joe Karlosi. 100%.
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 21, 2008 11:14:12 GMT -5
The hope is, presumably, that the re-masters will each have a bonus disc -- in which case the boffins at Abbey Road must be giving the out-takes barrell one last scrape to augment the existing Anthology stuff...
'Presto'! - Carnival of Light. It's even had a little pre-release promo push from the man Himself.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 21, 2008 11:21:57 GMT -5
I just wrote "oh brother" because I don't see how you can mention the virtues of REVOLUTION 9 and CARNIVAL OF LIGHT and at the same time smear the above three songs saying THEY'RE actually the "weird" ones. It's hard to take such comments seriously. I think you are missing the point. Old Fredcalled some stuff "weird". Well, that's fine, but don't get in a huff if others call as weird tracks YOU happen to like. I feel that many fans on this board (yes, and others too) are VERY VERY conservative in their tastes. To call Rev 9 weird is evidence of this. As an example of the genre of musical collages, it is fairlygood, and not the least bit weird. It tells a story, & if you listen you will hear it. BTW no-one has heard Carnival of Light. I neither praise nor condemn it: how could I? How could YOU?
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 21, 2008 11:22:52 GMT -5
The hope is, presumably, that the re-masters will each have a bonus disc -- in which case the boffins at Abbey Road must be giving the out-takes barrell one last scrape to augment the existing Anthology stuff... 'Presto'! - Carnival of Light. It's even had a little pre-release promo push from the man Himself. Well, I hope you're right ...
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Nov 21, 2008 12:36:39 GMT -5
I just wrote "oh brother" because I don't see how you can mention the virtues of REVOLUTION 9 and CARNIVAL OF LIGHT and at the same time smear the above three songs saying THEY'RE actually the "weird" ones. It's hard to take such comments seriously. I think you are missing the point. Old Fredcalled some stuff "weird". Well, that's fine, but don't get in a huff if others call as weird tracks YOU happen to like. I feel that many fans on this board (yes, and others too) are VERY VERY conservative in their tastes. To call Rev 9 weird is evidence of this. As an example of the genre of musical collages, it is fairlygood, and not the least bit weird. It tells a story, & if you listen you will hear it. BTW no-one has heard Carnival of Light. I neither praise nor condemn it: how could I? How could YOU? Lewisohn has, as has George Martin. Neither gave it a rave review. Revolution #9 was weird 40 years ago. I had to listen to my parents complain about it then. We see it in a different light after 40 years, but that doesn't make it any less unusual.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Nov 21, 2008 12:56:07 GMT -5
The funniest thing about all of this is how much more coherent audio material exists in so many forms, yet this gets all the press.
Acetates and demos, including Peter and Gordon stuff Additional BBC material All of the live material 62-66 Kinfauns Get Back Christmas 63-69 dozens of little studio jams, like the 1969 Ain't She Sweet, which happened to be one of my favorite cuts on Anthology, because it was so unexpected.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 21, 2008 14:32:50 GMT -5
Lewisohn has, as has George Martin. Neither gave it a rave review. Revolution #9 was weird 40 years ago. I had to listen to my parents complain about it then. We see it in a different light after 40 years, but that doesn't make it any less unusual. You're right, Lewisohn and George Martin have heard it. And all the Beatles, and the recording engineers, and - and- lotsa folks. Clearly, when I said no-one had heard it, I meant "ordinary folks" like you and me. It doesn't matter whether neither Lewisohn or Martin gave it a "rave" review. I will make up MY mind if/when I hear it. And you are dead-set wrong about Rev9 being "weird" 40 years ago. It is a sound collage. It is a musical genre. Weird? No. It was "unusual" only in the sense that a popular music group did one. And isn't that what makes the Beatles such a great and interesting group - that they pushed the envelope for a "pop/rock" band so often? And THAT'S why I'd love to hear Carnival of Light: what did that wonderful band produce that day? It may be good, may be bad; I might like it or might not. But I've got a feeling it will be ... cool!
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Nov 21, 2008 14:51:57 GMT -5
And you are dead-set wrong about Rev9 being "weird" 40 years ago. It is a sound collage. It is a musical genre. Weird? No. It was "unusual" only in the sense that a popular music group did one. I don't care whether R9 gets tagged as 'weird'or not - it's beside the point. As far as I'm concerned the Beatles recorded something similarly avant garde (whirring tape loops, backwards sounds, strange cryptic noises etc.) but far better, some two and a half years previously - 'Tomorrow never knows'. To me, 'Revolution 9' is a longer, more boring and self-indulgent re-hash of that greatly superior song.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 21, 2008 16:08:58 GMT -5
To me, 'Revolution 9' is a longer, more boring and self-indulgent re-hash of that greatly superior song. Tomorrow Never Knows is NOT a sound collage. Rev 9 IS a sound collage. Rev 9, for you, might be boring and self-indulgent. However it is NOT in any sense a "rehash" of Tomorrow Never Knows.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 21, 2008 16:25:30 GMT -5
Just to clarify more feelings on REVOLUTION 9 - first -- I'd call it odd, unusual, risque, strange, avant garde, and yes.... weird. But at the same time, I have no problem with it being on the White Album at all. It's never a track I'd go to on its own to specifically listen to, but any time I indulge in playing both discs of THE BEATLES, I always allow REVOLUTION 9 to play through. I can accept it for what it is, and actually don't mind it within the context of the double LP. I even would agree it's interesting in the way it's experimental, and yes, it is great that the Beatles "pushed the envelope".
I guess for me the difference with CARNIVAL OF LIGHT is that it's now well after the "happenings" of the psychedelic sixties, and this montage doesn't appear (reading from Lewisohn's account) to have anything but random banging around and screaming to it. Not that I'm saying REVOLUTION 9 is a high work of art, but it seems to have more work to it...
But in the end, I just basically would prefer that CARNIVAL got released as part of another "Anthology-like" collection of rarities. I wouldn't mind hearing it in such a context, but from all accounts it sounds like something rather expendable, no matter how you look at it.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 21, 2008 18:05:02 GMT -5
--------------------------------------- I guess for me the difference with CARNIVAL OF LIGHT is that -------- this montage doesn't appear (reading from Lewisohn's account) to have anything but random banging around and screaming to it. -------------- -----------------but from all accounts it sounds like something rather expendable, no matter how you look at it. Why don't you wait until you hear it? Why use the judgement of others ["it doesn't appear (reading from ...)", "from all accounts"]? Basically, you are just falling for a variation on a "hype" theme.
|
|
Joseph McCabe
Very Clean
A rebel to his last breath ...
Posts: 912
|
Post by Joseph McCabe on Nov 21, 2008 18:22:03 GMT -5
I don't know whether this has been posted on Steve's site or here or not, but you can download a BBC4 interview with Macca, mostly about Electric Arguments. But from 6.20 for about 2 minutes Paul talks about Carnival of Light. The link is rapidshare.com/files/166052625/BBCR_MCYC.rarBroadcast 20 November.
|
|