Turn Me On, Dead Man

Recently Rolling Stone magazine released another "Collector's Edition" of song rankings--this one ranks the top 100 songs by the Beatles. Like the recent update to their picks for the 500 greatest songs of all time, The Beatles: 100 Greatest Songs is a fun read, but fortunately this one skips much of the self-importance evident in Rolling Stone's all-time greatest songs list. No "blue-ribbon panel" necessary for this one, just the editors of Rolling Stone. At the top of their list is "A Day in the Life," and the rest of the Top 10 Beatles Songs is on their website.

I was interested to see if Rolling Stone's list favored John more than the other Beatles. That has been the case with cover photos, as John holds the record for most appearances on the cover of Rolling Stone with 29 (including the premier issue of the magazine in 1967). The Beatles have been featured on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine 13 times, and John and Paul have appeared as a duo on the cover of Rolling Stone three times, and John has appeared alone (or with Yoko) 13 times. Paul has appeared on the cover without any other Beatles 10 times, so his total is 26, not far behind John but considering that John died almost 30 years ago after a reclusive five-year period, and that Paul has been active through the entire time that Rolling Stone has been in publication, it is striking that John leads Paul on this score. In case you're curious, George has been on the cover four times outside of the band for a total of 17 appearances, and Ringo has only been on one cover without the Beatles for a total of 14 appearances.

A "by the numbers" analysis is given on the last page of The Beatles: 100 Greatest Songs, and it does, in fact, show that John is the favorite Beatle among the editors of Rolling Stone magazine. The list includes 40 songs written by John alone and 17 written in collaboration with Paul, while the list contains only 35 written by Paul alone. The list also includes eight songs written by George. John is disproportionately represented on this list, but by how much depends, of course, on how you attribute authorship to each of the Beatles' songs, not to mention how you count the songs (is "Revolution 1" the same as "Revolution"? Is the "Abbey Road Medley" one song, as it is counted in The Beatles: 100 Greatest Songs, or is it eight songs?) William J. Dowlding developed rather detailed authorship estimates in his book Beatlesongs, and I used a simplified version of Dowlding's conclusions that is consistent with the "main writer" attributions used in The Beatles: 100 Greatest Songs. I came up with the following:

This accounts for the Beatles output from 1962 to 1970, removes duplicates and cover versions, and counts the "Abbey Road Medley" as one song. Assuming equal contributions from each author in collaborative efforts, this means that John was responsible for 44.1% of the Beatles' output, Paul accounts for 41.8%, George 12.7% and Ringo 1.4%. John and Paul, then, are both disproportionately represented on the Rolling Stone list at the expense of George and Ringo. John accounts for 48.5 songs on the Rolling Stone list (40 individual compositions and 17 collaborations with Paul), while Paul accounts for 43.5 songs (35 individual compositions and 17 collaborations with John). George only has eight songs on the list and Ringo, well.... Then I wanted to see if John's songs were ranked higher than Paul's on average. Using a simple method of giving the author 100 points for the #1 ranked song, 99 points for the #2 song, 98 points for the #3 song, and so on (and dividing the points evenly for contributions), John has a total of 2524 points, Paul has 2137 points and George has 389. That is, John's point total is almost 50% of the possible number of points, while Paul has 42.3% and George has only 7.7% of the points. In other words, John's songs tend to be ranked higher than Paul's and George's. To sum up:

One last thing, I wanted to see if the list included songs from all eras equally, or if the editors of Rolling Stone were more partial to early- or late-period Beatles music. It turns out that the editors of Rolling Stone love Revolver (understandably) above all. About half of the Beatles output from most years made the Rolling Stone top 100 list, but almost all of the tracks the Beatles released in 1966 made the list. Both sides of the "Paperback Writer/Rain" single as well as all of the songs on Revolver with the exception of "Love You To," "Doctor Robert," and "I Want to Tell You" were included in the Rolling Stone top 100.

My biases are similar to Rolling Stone's.  My top 10 Beatles songs would be:
1. Strawberry Fields Forever
2. Rain
3. Tomorrow Never Knows
4. Dear Prudence
5. A Day in the Life
6. Two of Us
7. Ticket to Ride
8. Let It Be
9. Blackbird
10. It's All Too Much

Though my favorites are almost all late-period tracks, I am partial to John's songs and my favoriate album is Revolver.

The "Paul is dead" story has inspired a number of works of fiction. In 2009, Frayed Edge Films released a short (22 min.) film entitled Turn Me On, Dead Man (sounds strangely familiar...), in which a fictionalized version of the Beatles perpetrates a hoax after the death of one of their principal members. Without revealing the tragedy to the public, they replace "Blake" with the winner of a lookalike contest. The truth is bound to come out, though, particularly after fans become aware of odd "clues" about this deception that have been placed on the band's records. Recently, Andru Reeve (author of the definitive book on the "Paul is dead" story, also entitled Turn Me On, Dead Man) and I watched the film and discussed it.

Dead Man: My initial reaction to Turn Me On, Dead Man is that I understand why they would have to fictionalize the story, but the movie is so short that they're relying on the viewer to already be familiar with the whole "Paul is dead" mythology. The movie feels more like a few images and songs hung on a story that exists completely outside the film. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it felt like there was plenty of room for them to add to the story. What's your reaction to it?

Andru_Reeve: I agree 100% with your assessment. We get it, but that's because we're familiar with the story. Someone coming in cold will not understand it. It was deeply entertaining -- I enjoyed the homages -- and the music is top-notch. Also, the cinematography and casting were way better than I expected. The big disappointment is that I felt they reached an important transitional apex -- then, the credits roll. What happens next? Why place the clues? It felt like impressionism to me. Not that that is bad. The only explanation I can come up with as to why it was scarcely 20 minutes long was their budget.

DM: Yes, and they probably didn't have any extra money for a legal fund to fend off lawsuits from Apple if they had've used copyrighted Beatles material! I enjoyed the homages, too, and the music is sufficiently Beatlesque--some of it reminded me of the Rubber Soul Project. The music effectively captured the Merseybeat/Beatlemania period and the psychedelia of the Sgt. Pepper-era. Interesting contrast in that the music felt completely realized even though the film was just a sketch.

They took a few liberties with the story: the band is American, John is with the Yoko character as early as 1964, the rumor of Blake/Paul's death doesn't hit the public until 1971 and the band has already broken up. Given how deeply the history of the Beatles and the PID story are etched into my brain, those those things didn't sit well with me. I'm willing to believe the filmmakers had legitimate reasons for making those alterations, but given the brevity of the movie it's hard to see what those are. I thought they were sort of getting at something by switching to color when Blake/Paul is killed and throwing in the images of street protests and Vietnam combat, but you're right, other than perhaps John's obvious contempt for the new Blake/Paul there's no explanation for the clues.

AR: I thought that the shift to color was the most powerful moment; I said to myself: "okay -- this is the big turn." And, again, it works impressionistically just that way. But the story just doesn't meet the anticipated emotional and narrative payoff. You make a good point that "John" comes to despise the "Blake Monster" he created, and that seems to be the impetus for the clues. But, again, it's so subtle (no dialog, no big conflict) that I almost missed it.

Yes, the faux WKNR tableau really confused me. The deejay reminded me more of Venus Flytrap than Russ Gibb, and that took me out of the story (as well as it being the wrong year). I'm trying to be objective about it, because spending 30 years with this myth has resulted in it being subsumed into my DNA. However, it's difficult to make peace with the many blatant alterations to the basic premise of the rumor. Lawsuit? I think the Beatles have bigger transgressors to deal with. Certainly, making the band British and getting the timelines correct wouldn't cause writs to suddenly be served.

DM: It seems to me that the media hysteria around Paul's "death" was closely linked to the sense that the Beatles were going their separate ways. In other words, even though the rumors had been in the air for some time, it was no coincidence that they spread rapidly in late 1969, as evidence was mounting that the Beatles were in the process of breaking up. To relocate the infamous call to the radio station to play "turn me on, dead man/Blake is dead" to 1971 after Paul/Blake's third solo album, as they do in the film, makes no sense to me. (Venus Flytrap! Ha! Well, Venus Flytrap is definitely of the 1970s!)

Also, I thought it was strange that the conflict that leads to Paul/Blake's accident is *Paul/Blake's* frustration with the band musically selling out. In the movie it's John who admits that he just wants to give the people what they want and to stay within popular expectations. If John was willing to compromise his music and succumb to what must have sounded like a bizarre scheme to replace Paul/Blake, what exactly was he trying to accomplish by leaving clues about Paul/Blake being an impostor?

Once again, I'm willing to believe that the filmmakers had reasons for making those choices and that those could be explained in a longer film.

AR: Yes -- the rumor of Paul's "death" was really a metaphor for the death of the band. Of course, a significant element of the myth WAS used in the film -- as you pointed out, Paul/Blake storms out of the studio in frustration at the other members and climbs into his sportscar. It's raining, and I guess he picks up "Rita", whose VW Beetle is seen with its hazard lights flashing, evoking the ABBEY ROAD album cover. Rita "recognizes her famous driver"-- to (more or less) quote Joel Glazier's account of the accident -- and excitedly jumps all over him, causing the fatal crash. John either feels guilty, or fears losing all of his accumulated fame, and devises the coverup, utilizing the winner of the Blake Lookalike Contest. Those essential cornerstones of the tale are indeed in place.

The problem is that they are, again, "impressions" that both you and I immediately recognize and appreciate because we know the folklore so well. To someone coming in cold, I'm afraid alot of these images won't register the same way with them as they do with the PID cognescenti.

I agree with you that one of the major problems with the hoax being revealed AFTER the demise of the band is that it blunts the impact. Having the rumor appear in 1969 as the Beatles were themselves dying made the story really resonate with all of the symbolism of graves, churchyards, ceremony, iconography and deep sadness and mourning. The "loss" isn't as profound if the object of one's love and adulation is already gone.

DM: Did it bother you that the band was American? Or that they never gave them a name? To me that presents a real problem. The film made the band seem almost generic, as though any group could have stood in for the Beatles during this era. I would argue that the Beatles' commercial and musical success, as well as their social impact, was because of some very specific qualities the group possessed, and that it might very well be impossible to somehow fictionalize this story. In addition, the whole "Paul is dead" hysteria already has a "stranger than fiction" quality to it, such that trying to fictionalize it actually makes it seem more run of the mill. I don't know how the filmmakers could have gotten around this other than to just make the movie about the Beatles. What do you think?

AR: Yes, Dead Man -- it did bother me that the band was portrayed as a rather generic American outfit (albeit with definitive proxy members for John and Paul). It's true that part of the reason the Beatles "worked" is because of their singular composition. Imagine if just ONE element of their make-up was different -- Stuart Sutcliffe still on bass, for instance, or if they weren't groomed for early success with the suits by Brian Epstein. I know this is all an academic discussion, but I *really* don't think the Fabs would've had the same impact if EVERY element wasn't in place. However, the film is a parallel universe, and we must accept that this unnamed band DID have the impact of the real McCoys in this particular universe. I guess it boils down to just how much suspension of disbelief you are prepared to engage in. I'd rather have the band be the Beatles, but I'm imaginative enough to let that go in service to the overall story. However, the story in this case feels unfinished.

DM: I agree. I should say here that I really did enjoy watching the movie, even though my somewhat arcane criticisms may make it sound otherwise. I hope they do develop it into a full-length feature film. Closing thoughts?

AR: BOTTOM LINE: the film is technically polished and professional in every way. For close followers of the Paul-Is-Dead rumor, it's an evocative "sound-and-light poem", and it will be enjoyed by those who know the overall myth well. Otherwise, it is far too oblique for the casual viewer. I'd really love to see a feature-length treatment of the story -- however, I'd like it to hew more closely to the blueprint we've all been reading for the past 40 years.

                              

Do you own either of these Apple CDs, issued back in 1993 ? If so, then you know that they were released in very small quantities and are both highly-sought in the collector's market.  However, be warned: their value (selling recently on Amazon for as much as $149 each) is sure to drop in the coming months, as Apple Records has announced the remastering and reissuing of these and other renown titles from their famous catalogue.  

Gliding high on the tailwinds of their immensely popular Beatles remaster/reissue campaign last year, Apple Corp.  is set to drop some more fresh "Apples" this fall.  While the most popular (and best-selling) of these albums have stayed in print (more or less) since 1993 -- think Mary Hopkin, Badfinger and James Taylor -- albums such as the pair of MJQ releases and the Tavener sets have never been readily available until this reissue program.   The best news: ALL of the reissues will not only be rendered in sterling remasters, but they will, for the first time, also sport many bonus tracks. 

For complete details, go to the official link:  http://www.applerecords.com/

And if you don't want to miss out on some serious collector's bucks, think about listing your copy of "The Whale" right now.   In October, the current $97 selling price is sure to take a serious dive.  

When thinking about a title to use, I chose the phrase "turn me on, dead man" because it's memorable and provacative, but the strange thing about this often repeated phrase is that no one actually spoke those words. The phrase "turn me on, dead man" entered popular culture in the late-1960s when people looking for clues about the death of Paul McCartney played the Beatles track "Revolution 9" backwards. When reversed, the repeated phrase "number nine... number nine... number nine..." becomes "turn me on, dead man... turn me on, dead man... turn me on, dead man..." Like other catch-phrase memes, "turn me on, dead man" has now spread beyond its original context and has been used for a variety of purposes. There's this website, of course, and the associated internet-only radio station on Live365.com. The radio station came first, actually. I set up the website and included an article about the "Paul is dead" rumor with the intention of explaining the significance of the name. Only later did I discover that Andru Reeve (now a contributor to this blog) had written a book about the "Paul is dead" rumor using the same title years earlier that went into considerable detail about this strange story. Andru has now written two editions of his book. The first edition was part of the "Rock and Roll Remembrances" series and carried the subtitle "The Complete Story of the Paul McCartney Death Hoax." The expanded second edition is subtitled "The Beatles and the 'Paul Is Dead' Hoax." Another book entitled Turn Me On, Dead Man by Jerald Ford published earlier this year is a fictional account of the "Paul is dead" story. A recent movie called Turn Me On, Dead Man (2009) is also a fictional account of "Paul is dead" but I believe the book and the movie were created independently.

A repackaging of a 1979 radio broadcast about the "Paul is dead" rumor carries the subtitle "Turn Me On, Dead Man." Other Beatles-related uses of the title "turn me on, dead man" include a blog about the Beatles, an episode of Ground Zero TV that discusses Charles Manson's bizarre interpretation of the Beatles' White Album (and adds some "out there" conspiracy theories of its own), and the Beatles bootleg album Turn Me On, Dead Man: the John Barrett Tapes. Most of the uses of the phrase "turn me on, dead man," however, have little to do with the "Paul is dead" rumor. To my knowledge the band Turn Me On Dead Man has never made reference to "Revolution 9" or the "Paul is dead" rumor (although one of their tracks is called "Beatle George"). Also, several songs with little or no connection to "Paul is dead" are entitled "Turn Me On, Dead Man":

	Artist	Album	Year
	Game Theory	Lolita Nation	1987
	Swell Maps	A Trip to Marineville [reissue with bonus tracks]	1989 (original release, 1979)
	The Tear Garden	Last Man to Fly	1992
	Exit	Disco Sucks (compilation)	1996
	23 Degrees	From Here to Tranquility Vol. 5: The Silent Channel (compilation)	1996
	Bill Lloyd	Standing on Shoulders of Giants	1999
	Swifts	Quiet Little Mouse	2004
	The Brettster	Everything But Why	2008
	Tauntaun	Tauntaun	2009
	Ceremony(NL)	Reflections of a Decade	2009
	Spirit of the Matter	Zuble Land	2010

Other variations on the title include "Turn Me On 'Mr. Deadman'" (2000) by the Union Underground, "Turn Me On Again, Dead Man" (2008) by Tape Recorder Three, and "You Turn Me On" (1992) by the Beat Happening, where the line "turn me on, dead man" is repeated several times.

I did some Googling and found several articles that have used the title "Turn Me On, Dead Man." A Scientific American article by Michael Shermer uses the "Paul is dead" rumor as an example of how we make false associations. Our brains are good at pattern recognition, but this capability sometimes leads us to make associations where none exist. According to Shermer, in the search for clues about the death of Paul McCartney, "What we have here is a signal-to-noise problem. Humans evolved brains that are pattern-recognition machines, adept at detecting signals that enhance or threaten survival amid a very noisy world." Shermer refers to this as "the Turn Me On, Dead Man Phenomenon--if you scan enough noise, you will eventually find a signal, whether it is there or not." Also, an article about video game design on the website Game Design Advance uses the "Paul is dead" rumor to put forth the argument that urban legends make for the best alternate-reality games. Once again, however, most of the articles that use this title have nothing to do with the "Paul is dead" rumor. A Screen Rant article describing a recent movie where the Beatles become zombies uses the title "Turn Me On, Dead Man" even though the movie itself has little to do with the "Paul is dead" rumor, except that "Paul is undead" in the movie. The title was also used by the Boston Phoenix for an interview with George Romero. This article put the word "Dead" in quotes, as Romero was the director of The Night of the Living Dead (I see a "turn me on, dead man"-zombie connection building here). An article lamenting the lack of new music in the 2008 Grammy awards used the title "Turn Me On, Dead Man" to make light of the practice of giving the awards to dead musicians over living artists. An article in the University of Toronto student newspaper used the same title to highlight the excessive use of death imagery in the language we use to describe sexuality. Perhaps the most tenuous use of the phrase "turn me on, dead man" is in the Hollywood Elsewhere article about the most overpaid actors in Hollywood.

Like other catch-phrase memes, "turn me on, dead man" has gone well beyond its origins. What makes this unique, however, is that it is a line that no one actually said. Perhaps there are other examples of misheard lyrics or misquoted movie lines that have taken on a life of their own, but none immediately come to mind. Examples, anyone?

At the beginning of 1969, the Beatles were looking for ways to regain their sense of being a performing unit, to recapture the immediacy and the exhilaration of their early days. The band had been adrift since the death of their manager, Brian Epstein, in 1967, with all of the Beatles were finding other pursuits outside of the band. In Brian's absence Paul assumed a greater leadership role in the group, though this met with some resistance from the other Beatles. Paul felt that the Beatles had to continue challenging themselves but the other Beatles were more content to enjoy the rewards of their success. The White Album sessions in 1968 had been contentious and each of the Beatles had approached those sessions as though they were solo artists with the Beatles as their backing band. Intent on restoring a sense of purpose for the group as a whole, Paul came up with the idea to film the band rehearsing new material. After the rehearsals that band would stage a concert and the result would be a live album of all new material to be released along with a film showing the band's creative process. The Beatles agreed to record the new material live without overdubs, a departure from the days of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, where the Beatles explored the limits of studio technology.

In order for the film crews to record the Beatles' rehearsals, the Beatles set up on a large soundstage at Twickenham studios. Because of the film crews, the Beatles had to work during the day—something they were not at all accustomed to. Tensions within the band were already evident and the conditions of the project only heightened them. Things got so bad that George quit the band less than two weeks into rehearsals. He returned a few days later under the condition that the band move to Apple studios and abandon the live concert. George also took it upon himself to bring in keyboardist Billy Preston, which proved to be a productive move. Because in the presence of an outsider, the Beatles were on their best behavior.

George Martin was only marginally involved in the Get Back/Let It Be project, so Glyn Johns did most of the production for the album. Paul had approached Glyn Johns, who was an independent "balance engineer" and a member of the filmmakers union. After the recording was over, Glyn Johns produced an album of material and presented it to the Beatles in the Spring of 1969. Glyn Johns took the "warts and all" approach in assembling Get Back, as it was then called, but the results were not particularly good.  Several years later, however, Paul was quoted as saying that he loved Glyn Johns' Get Back mix. Johns tried a second time several months later with a somewhat altered playlist, but the Beatles rejected his efforts again. John Lennon then approached Phil Spector to assemble an album from the tapes of January, 1969. Phil Spector delivered the Let It Be LP, which included orchestral and choir overdubs, much to Paul McCartney's displeasure.

Because Paul McCartney was so dissatisfied with Phil Spector's production, on November 18, 2003, a new version of Let It Be, called Let It Be... Naked was released. The liner notes for this release explain that "the Let It Be project retained an air of unfinished business." Paul McCartney initiated the creation of a new version of the album, which features polished performances of all of the songs. Gone are the choral and string accompaniment. Also gone are is the jam tune "Dig It" and the impromptu performance of the Liverpool folk tune "Maggie Mae." Let It Be... Naked adds "Don't Let Me Down," which was the B side of the "Get Back" single, released in the Spring of 1969. Let It Be... Naked did not ultimately "replace" Phil Spector's Let It Be in the Beatles' catalog, though.  When the Beatles' albums were remastered for release on September 9, 2009, it was Phil Spector's version of Let It Be that was remastered along with the rest of the Beatles' original albums.

There are three basic takes on the Get Back/Let It Be project that differ in the following ways:

The Glyn Johns Get Back mixes [never released]
- one performance from the rooftop concert ("One After 909")
- a "warts and all" approach with rehearsal versions of songs with a lot of studio chatter

Let It Be, Produced by Phil Spector [1970]
- three performances from the rooftop concert ("One After 909", "Dig a Pony" and "I've Got a Feeling") 
- studio performances with overdubs and orchestration
- one jam ("Dig It") and one impromptu oldie ("Maggie Mae") and a few instances of studio chatter

Let It Be... Naked [2003]
- studio and rooftop performances without overdubs (for the most part) but the sound has been improved by using digital technology
- no studio chatter with the tracks, but a second "Fly on the Wall" disc included with studio conversations and rehearsal versions of several songs

Glyn Johns's First Get Back Mix
May 28, 1969

Side A
1. One After 909 (3:03)
Recorded live on the rooftop of Apple studios on January 30, 1969
2. Rocker (0:45)
Recorded January 22, 1969
3. Save the Last Dance for Me (1:38)
Recorded January 22, 1969
4. Don't Let Me Down (4:09)
Recorded January 22, 1969
5. Dig a Pony (3:48)
Recorded January 24, 1969
6. I've Got a Feeling (3:00)
Recorded January 24, 1969
7. Get Back (3:14)
Recorded January 28, 1969

Side B
1. For You Blue (2:45)
Recorded January 25, 1969
2. Teddy Boy (3:43)
Recorded January 24, 1969. "Teddy Boy" was omitted from Glyn Johns's second version of Get Back. Paul re-recorded this song for his first solo album McCartney.
3. Two of Us (3:31)
Recorded January 24, 1969
4. Maggie Mae (0:41)
Recorded January 24, 1969
5. Dig It (4:26)
Recorded January 26, 1969
6. Let It Be (3:58)
Recorded January 31, 1969 with overdubs recorded April 30, 1969
7. The Long and Winding Road (3:42)
Recorded January 31, 1969
8. Get Back (reprise) (0:40)
Recorded January 28, 1969

None of the Beatles wanted to face the job of mixing an album from the Get Back sessions recordings. Glyn Johns presented his first version of Get Back to the Beatles on May 28, 1969. Johns made an effort to present the Beatles returning to their roots and playing without overdubs or studio effects. No doubt this was a compelling idea, the results of his efforts were mixed.

Glyn Johns opened both of his mixes with "One After 909," one of the first songs John and Paul wrote. This song was the only rooftop performance that Johns included on Get Back. Rather than start the track at the opening note, Glyn Johns wanted to capture the feel of the rooftop concert. Before the Beatles begin to play "One After 909," one of the crew yells "all cameras [take] four!" At the end of the track, Glyn Johns added two bits of rooftop concert banter. After John's brief rendition of "Danny Boy," Glyn Johns edited in John and Paul's concluding remarks at the end of the rooftop concert. Paul thanks Ringo's wife Maureen John quips, "I'd like to thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we passed the audition." It's interesting to note that Phil Spector also used both of these segments on Let It Be. Glyn Johns then moves to a long segment recorded on the first day of recording at Apple studios. A brief jam entitled "Rocker" ends abruptly, followed by studio chatter indicating that the band were uncertain what song they would do next, and Paul calls out that they should play "Save the Last Dance for Me." The ensuing performance is brief and Paul doesn't know all the words. They conclude the track by segueing into a brief moment of "Don't Let Me Down." The Beatles finally perform "Don't Let Me Down" in its entirety after more studio chatter. John says, "This time it's serious. I remember your waltz--your 3/4, my 5/6." Paul urges John, "Do your thing, man" and John replies "I'm doing it all the time I can't keep off it." After a false start John asks Ringo to give him some cymbal crashes "to give me the courage to come screaming in." In another session John then suggests that the band perform "Dig a Pony" straight into "I've Got a Fever," John's joke title for "I've Got a Feeling." Glyn Johns is clearly playing a major role in this session. Prior to "Dig a Pony," John says, "alright Glynnis, we're off again" and at the end of "I've Got a Feeling," Ringo hits his drums and asks "Glyn, what does that sound like?" Side 1 concludes with the single version of "Get Back."

All of the studio performances on side A, with the exception of "Get Back," are very loose, full of silly chatter, improvised comic vocals and a number of mistakes. Side 2 opens similarly, a clinking glass, a brief practice run on the guitar, and one of the crew yelling "quiet, please!" before the Beatles play George's "For You Blue." As Mark Hertsgaard points out, "For You Blue" was an inconsequential song, and an odd choice to include on Get Back, especially given the backlog of excellent songs George had written during the latter years of the Beatles—enough to fill set three-record set All Things Must Pass. Still, the performance of "For You Blue" was more polished than most of the other tracks on Get Back. Paul offers it the following track, "Teddy Boy," "for further consideration," and it sounds like a rehearsal. Glyn Johns used an earlier version of "Two of Us" than Phil Spector included on Let It Be. "Maggie Mae" is a brief song, but "Dig It" goes on for much longer than the edited version that Phil Spector included on Let It Be. Glyn Johns then included two of McCartney's songs recorded the day after the rooftop concert. "Let It Be" included overdubs that had been added in April, 1969. Still, these songs were unadorned compared to the lush production that Phil Spector added. The Beatles' performance is particularly moving on "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" but Johns undercuts that mood with a bit of studio chatter between the tracks in which John asks "are we supposed to giggle during the solo?" to which Paul replies "yeah." Glyn Johns concluded Get Back with a brief reprise of "Get Back" recorded in the studio with annoying vocalizations by Paul. The Beatles could not agree on releasing Glyn Johns's version, so he edited a second version that he presented on January 5, 1970.

Glyn Johns's Second Get Back Mix
January 5, 1970

Side A
1. One After 909 (3:03)
Recorded live on the rooftop of Apple studios on January 30, 1969
2. Rocker (0:34)
Recorded January 22, 1969
3. Save the Last Dance for Me (0:20)
Recorded January 22, 1969
4. Don't Let Me Down (4:40)
Recorded January 22, 1969
5. Dig a Pony (4:04)
Recorded January 24, 1969
6. I've Got a Feeling (2:45)
Recorded January 24, 1969
7. Get Back (3:14)
Recorded January 28, 1969 - The single release version
8. Let It Be (4:02)
Recorded January 31, 1969 with overdubs recorded April 30, 1969

Side B
1. For You Blue (2:45)
Recorded January 25, 1969
2. Two of Us (3:26)
Recorded January 24, 1969
3. Maggie Mae (0:37)
Recorded January 24, 1969
4. Dig It (4:06)
Recorded January 26, 1969
5. The Long and Winding Road (3:39)
Recorded January 31, 1969
6. I Me Mine (1:45)
Recorded January 3, 1970 by George, Paul and Ringo. John was on vacation at that time.
7. Across the Universe (3:27)
Recorded February 4 and 8, 1968
8. Get Back (reprise) (0:40)
Recorded January 28, 1969

Glyn Johns changed a few things for his second Get Back mix. He left off "Teddy Boy" and added "Across the Universe" and "I Me Mine". Paul would later include "Teddy Boy" on his first solo album McCartney. Mark Lewisohn suggests that the reason Glyn Johns removed "Teddy Boy" was because Paul had informed him that he would include a re-recorded version for his first solo album, which would be released in the spring of 1970. "Across the Universe" had been included on a World Wildlife Fund album and Glyn Johns remixed the recording. Glyn Johns added "I Me Mine" to this version of Get Back because it was included in the movie. In one of the early Twickenham sessions, George sings the song to Ringo and starts to work out the parts. The version included in Glyn Johns's second mix was recorded several months later, though, on January 3, 1970. Only George, Paul and Ringo appear on this recording because John was vacationing in Denmark at the time.

Glyn Johns kept most of the studio tom foolery, but he edited out most of the Beatles' sloppy performance of "Save the Last Dance for Me." All that was left of this track from the first Get Back mix was the refrain and the segue into "Don't Let Me Down." Glyn Johns was true to Paul's initial concept for Get Back. Both of the versions of this album that Johns produced presented the Beatles as they were in the studio, "warts and all." Listening to these mixes, though, it's clear why the Beatles were not enthusiastic about them. Rather than creating a sense of immediacy and spontaneity, the Glyn Johns mixes are often annoying.

Let It Be
Released May 8, 1970

Side A
1. Two of Us (3:36)
Recorded January 31, 1969. Opens with John's studio banter, where he introduces "I Dig a Pygmy," his joke title for "Dig a Pony." John also gives a joke name for the band, Charles Hawtrey and the Deaf-Aids.
2. Dig a Pony (3:54)
Recorded live on the rooftop of Apple studios on January 30, 1969
3. Across the Universe (3:48)
Recorded February 4, 1968, with overdubs added February 8, 1969. Phil Spector removed some of the sounds, slowed down the tempo, and added orchestra and choir overdubs.
4. I Me Mine (2:25)
Recorded January 3, 1970. Phil Spector added orchestra and choir on April 1, 1970.
5. Dig It (0:50)
Recorded January 26, 1969. A brief segment of the extended jam that Glyn Johns had included in both of his mixes. Phil Spector added John's falsetto studio banter, "That was 'Can You Dig It' by Georgie Wood. Now we'd like to do 'All [Hark?] the Angels Come'" as a segue into "Let It Be."
6. Let It Be (4:03)
Recorded January 31, 1969 with overdubs recorded April 30, 1969. More overdubs were added on January 4, 1970. George Martin produced the track and scored the brass and saxophone parts.
7. Maggie Mae (0:40)
Recorded January 24, 1969.

Side B
1. I've Got a Feeling (3:30)
Recorded live on the rooftop of Apple studios on January 30, 1969
2. One After 909 (2:55)
Recorded live on the rooftop of Apple studios on January 30, 1969.
3. The Long and Winding Road (3:37)
Recorded January 31, 1969. Phil Spector added orchestra and choir overdubs on April 1, 1970.
4. For You Blue (2:32)
Recorded January 25, 1969.
5. Get Back (3:07)
Recorded January 27, 1969. The single version of the song, which Glyn Johns had used in his Get Back mixes, had been recorded the previous day. Phil Spector concluded this track with John's farewell from the rooftop concert, "I'd like to thank you on behalf of the group and ourselves and I hope we passed the audition."

Let It Be... Naked
Released November 18, 2003

1. Get Back
According to Paul Hicks, the version of "Get Back" that Phil Spector used was a studio version. They used the same version but omitted the ending.
2. Dig a Pony
"Dig a Pony" is the rooftop concert version.
3. For You Blue
"For You Blue" is the same version that Phil Spector used.
4. The Long and Winding Road
"The Long and Winding Road" used on Let It Be... Naked is the final take that the Beatles performed. This version has slightly different lyrics than the Phil Spector version.
5. Two of Us
"Two of Us" is a remixed version of the Phil Spector version with little editing.
6. I've Got a Feeling
The Beatles performed two versions of "I've Got a Feeling" in the rooftop concert. The producers of Let It Be... Naked used parts of each version.
7. One After 909
"One After 909" is taken from the rooftop concert without much editing.
8. Don't Let Me Down
"Don't Let Me Down" was also taken from the rooftop concert but with some editing to replace the verse in which John forgot the lyrics.
9. I Me Mine
"I Me Mine" used the same take from the Phil Spector version, apparently with the overdubs.
10. Across the Universe
The producers used the same version of "Across the Universe" that Phil Spector had, introducing stereo for the tamboura and John's vocals, and faded out at the end.
11. Let It Be
"Let It Be" is apparently also the same version Phil Spector used.

Because of the rancorous relations between the Beatles, Let It Be has acquired the reputation of being a substandard effort by the group—-a document of the forces that precipitated their breakup. Each of the Beatles made disparaging remarks about the atmosphere of the Get Back sessions and these were widely quoted. Listening to the music on Let It Be... Naked, however, does not bear this out. Let It Be... Naked makes it clear that the songs included on the original album were a consistently good and that Let It Be is on a par with any Beatles album.

The name Let It Be... Naked refers to the fact that the tracks are not "dressed up" with Phil Spector's elaborate orchestration. Let It Be... Naked includes several performances from the rooftop concert but all of the ambient noise has been removed. The studio recordings have been cleaned up as well and while this highlights the strength of the material, it reduces the spontaneity of those performances. Glyn Johns chose to focus on the liveliness of the Beatles in the studio, including a considerable amount of studio banter in both of his Get Back mixes. Perhaps too much, as the chatter often detracts from the listener's enjoyment of the material. Phil Spector included a only a limited amount of the Beatles' studio banter—-it's interesting to note, however, that Spector included almost exclusively John's quips on his version of Let It Be. Where Glyn Johns used studio banter, improptu performances and rough rehearsal versions of songs excessively, Let It Be... Naked leaves out this material entirely--or rather, relegates it all to a more polished "Fly on the Wall" bonus disc. While I can live without "Maggie Mae," I miss "Dig It", particularly the brief edit that Phil Spector included on Let It Be. It's a wonderful example of John's free association.  I'm glad both versions are available. 

This week, a somewhat legendary, almost mythical Beatles outtake emerged from...well, somewhere.  It's the much-discussed Take 20 of the White Album track "Revolution 1".  Why is it legendary?  Well, I'll let Mark Lewisohn explain, with a 1968 entry from his book The Beatles: Recording Sessions:



Now, I'll bet you want to hear it, don't you?  Of course you do.  Here it is:

                                             

You may recall that I posted an entry last year about Max Gordon Keller's accredited course on the Beatles that he created and taught at UC Berkeley.  The class has attracted attention far outside the confines of the campus.   In fact, if you are in the Bay Area on Friday, May 14th, there will be a news story about the class on KPIX-TV on both the 6pm and 11pm newscasts (and also to be posted online later at www.CBS5.com if you're from afar).

Nobody knows the Beatles with quite the depth of knowledge and fullness of heart as Max Gordon Keller.  Although but 22 years of age, his is a soul both older and younger than his years would suggest.  When I met him in person for the first time on May 4th, we immediately fell into warm conversation as if we'd been friends for years.  Later, when he took the helm before his students, he acquired the air of -- not so much "teacher", but "benevolent guide".   Nevertheless, he commanded -- and earned -- their rapt attention and complete respect as he led them through the final day of the class. 



And speaking of the final day of classes...well, that's why I was there.  At the invitation of Mr. Keller, I was to be the final lecture of the final class.   I guess I was the modest dessert to Max's sumptuous 14-course Beatle banquet.  

Alas, my presentation had an  inauspicious start.   Some equipment I hoped to have at hand was either not present or not in working order.  Then, my first audio sample wouldn't play when I needed it.   Ah, well...roll with the changes, sang Kevin Cronin.  With Max lending a hand on visuals, I gave a tidy "Paul-Is-Dead" lecture, replete with a very very rare showing of the 2005 Netherlands documentary Who Buried Paul McCartney?  My dear sister Vicki was in town for a visit, and was also an invaluable aide.   She took all the photos:



I'll tell you one thing: Max must be one helluva teacher, because NEVER have I had such an engaging and challenging volley of post-lecture questions!  Under his tutelage, Max's students -- freshly-minted, fully-credentialed Beatleologists all -- absorbed what I presented and followed up with smart queries that really kept me on my toes. 

Max Gordon Keller won't be back next year to teach the class.  He's graduating from UC Berkeley later this month and moving on to new phases of his life.  The future of the Beatles course itself is also up in the air -- although its incredible popularity has definitely left an indelible mark on the Berkeley curriculum.  

But that does not mean that The Long and Winding Road: The History of the Beatles (the official moniker of Keller's course) will become a fondly-remembered novelty or a future trivia question for the Beatle cognoscenti.  No.  In fact, Max hints that, like Paul McCartney, his Beatles class is far from dead. 

On the 40th anniversary of the break-up of the Beatles, the Vatican announced in its newspaper L'Osservatore Romano that they now look favorably on the Beatles, despite the Beatles' drug use and that they "put out mysterious messages, that were possibly even Satanic." In an interview with CNN, Ringo Starr dismissed this pronouncement. "Didn't the Vatican say we were satanic or possibly satanic -- and they've still forgiven us? I think the Vatican, they've got more to talk about than the Beatles," Ringo declared in the interview, making reference to scandals in the Catholic Church. The Vatican responded to Ringo the following day by reprinting its 1966 article on John Lennon's comments that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

The Vatican's recent statements are puzzling, particularly given that the Pope had already forgiven John Lennon for making the following statement:

Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first—rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me.

This quote appeared in an article called How Does a Beatles Live? John Lennon Lives Like This by Maureen Cleave, which originally appeared in the UK in the Evening Standard on March 4, 1966.  Though it created little stir in the UK, it caused protests in the United States when it was reprinted in American teen magazine Datebook in August of 1966.  The Beatles' music was banned by a number of radio stations and the Beatles' records were burned in public demonstrations. John Lennon was taken aback by the reaction and offered this apology:

You can check Google Trends to see the relative popularity of Jesus and Beatles as search terms on Google. Google Trends shows figures dating back to 2004, and they reveal that Jesus has consistently been more popular as a search term than Beatles. When the remastered Beatles CDs came out in September of 2009, however, Google searches on the Beatles briefly spiked, and for a few days the Beatles were more popular than Jesus, at least on Google.

Make no mistake: it takes alot of finesse and a whole lot more patience to create what has become known as the MashUp.    It's not just a matter of playing two disparate songs simultaneously and atop one another.  Instead, the MashUp creator is more than likely a musician himself, and uses his ear to guide the way he manipulates the two (or three or more) songs that he combines to create the magic and, indeed, the art of the MashUp.

Beatles MashUps are nothing new; the British MashUp master CCC has been the genius behind over a dozen brilliant examples of the nascent artform.   Here's one of his best -- 
an amalgamation of Beatles and Byrds:   
                                  
                             


Naturally, there are major licensing problems intrinsic within the concept.  In other words, you will not soon (and will probably NEVER) see a CD's worth of MashUps by your favorite artists.   I'm even a bit surprised to find them available on YouTube (shhhh....let's not tell, okay?), as their dodgy legal status could likely lead to claims of copyright infringement by the Mash-ees.   Such a shame, as the inventiveness of most MashUps elevate the result beyond mere "rhyming & stealing".  While it may be near impossible to find MashUps at your local record emporium, it's not difficult to find them throughout cyberspace.   And they've been a popular constant on the clubbing circuit in the U.K. and elsewhere.    Here's one you could certainly dance to --- The Beatles swirled up in a frothy ambrosia of Black-Eyed Peas.   Call it Black-Eyed Beatles:

                                



Andru Reeve

Here's a great Beatles-related tale that I hadn't heard before.   Thanks to Vernell Hackett at TheBoot.com.



John McEuen Meets a Beatle

Every musician comes through Nashville to record at least once, and Paul McCartney is no exception. The ace singer/songwriter and member of a fairly well-known British group called the Beatles drifted into town in the early '70s. John McEuen of the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band remembers  it well.   
"The fact that Paul McCartney was recording in Nashville was known to those in the music biz, but kept fairly quiet to the general public," John tells The Boot. "It was easy to find out, because when the question of 'where's Paul recording' was asked, all the pickers knew -- and had hopes of maybe being called for one the sessions. I didn't have much hope of that, as the words of my brother Bill kept ringing in my ears and were a good assessment of my chances. Bill is purported to have said, 'If the banjo was any good, the Beatles would have used it' right around this time period."

In spite of that, John asked around, found out where Paul was recording, and set out for the studio around 8:30 in the morning. "The anticipation of meeting a Beatle made my heart beat as fast as 'Foggy Mountain Breakdown'," John recalls. "Sitting in the parking lot waiting for his limo to show up calmed me down. He was at a studio I had recorded in before, so it felt more comfortable. At 8:45, he drove up and parked. I had heard he drove himself, but thought that might not be true. It was, and he was alone, going to work.
"In these pre-John Lennon's death days, it was easy to approach him. Walking up to him, I introduced myself and said I was from the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. 'Oh yes!' Paul replied. 'Spencer Davis gave me your album, 'Uncle Charlie and His Dog Teddy,' a few years ago -- a lovely album ... with the 'Mr. Bojangles' song on it, and the bluegrass music was lovely'." John remembers that the two of them chatted for about seven or eight minutes, with several opportunities for Paul to exit given but not taken. "It felt like two old friends running in to each other briefly," says John. "This feeling he was able to give another, him one of the biggest stars in the world, was a feeling that you were possibly a long missed neighbor or such, is something I carried with me since then. He listened, and responded to what he was hearing. He was a nice guy."
About 30 years later, John and his wife Marilyn were leaving a Hollywood showing of 'Ray,' the Oscar-winning film about the life of Ray Charles. As they left the theater, John turned around to speak to Marilyn and instead, found himself face to face with Paul. "The first words out of my mouth were 'Oh, hello again, Paul.'
"His polite reply of 'Hello, lovely movie, did you like it?' made me feel like the 30 years between seeing him had been 30 days. We started talking, I told him about our previous encounter, amused him with recounting about how often I had thought of it as an example of how one should handle celebrity. He introduced us to his wife, talked about the film, music, and a few chatting things from Nashville to Los Angeles, and cordially bid adieu.
"I forgot to ask him if the Beatles had ever used a banjo."
http://www.theboot.com/2010/03/23/john-mceuen-interview/