I love this sort of stuff, whether it's true or not--so sue me, I'm a guy who still loves blind items, despite the fact that I'm too out of touch and disinterested in most contemporary pop iconography to intuit who I'm reading about, or even actually give a shit when I find or figure it out. But describing Gay Talese's piece, "FRANK SINATRA HAS A COLD.' as 'fawning' completely misses the point. Talese is a man who contributed at least as much to the paradigm shift of celebrity journalism as Wolfe, Capote and Mailer. He's the George Lois of the printed text, and the Beatles book clearly misses the irony underpinning everything Talese writes about Sinatra in this piece. Read it--it's brilliant--possibly even more so than "AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING." That was, for those not paying attention, irony intended.
The Viscount
· 10 months ago
Fantastic Ned. Thanks!
commercial health insurance
· 2 months ago
This is truly marvelous!!
Jonathan Gould
· 10 months ago
Dear All:
For some reason, this passage seems to have attracted more web-based attention than anything else in my book. As for where the information comes from, let me be the first to say that it's a supposition on my part - albeit an informed supposition - based on the timing of the Esquire piece and the writing of "And You Bird Can Sing"; the emphasis Talese gave to Sinatra's private vocabulary and his use of the term "bird"; the offensive allusion to the Beatles that was quoted in the press release for Sinatra's "comeback" television special; and my own sensitivity to John Lennon's acutely rivalrous nature (see his relationships with Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger; indeed, until I came across the Esquire piece, my original supposition was that the song was written about Jagger and his newly acquired singer-girlfriend, Marianne Faithful).
In other news, I agree with Howard Chaykin about the importance of Talese's piece in the history of celebrity journalism. But I strongly disagree that Talese's fundamental perspective on Sinatra is ironic. On the contrary, the piece is an act of Italian-American hero worship on a par with Francis Ford Coppola's future unironic efforts to lionize the Mob, for Talese, self-evidently, is completely enthralled by Sinatra. Show me the irony in this passage, please:
"For Frank Sinatra was now involved with many things involving many people -- his own film company, his record company, his private airline, his missile-parts firm, his real-estate holdings across the nation, his personal staff of seventy-five -- which are only a portion of the power he is and has come to represent. He seemed now to be also the embodiment of the fully emancipated male, perhaps the only one in America, the man who can do anything he wants, anything, can do it because he has money, the energy, and no apparent guilt. In an age when the very young seem to be taking over, protesting and picketing and demanding change, Frank Sinatra survives as a national phenomenon, one of the few prewar products to withstand the test of time."
Besides, whoever said that the New Journalism was less fawning than the old? Does anyone think that Tom Wolfe's writing about Chuck Yeager or Ken Kesey was ironic?
NeddieJingo
· 10 months ago
Mr. Gould;
Thanks for your comment. It's very gratifying -- and oh so modern! -- to receive instant comment from the author of the piece being written about.
I've not read the Talese piece -- but it is summarized at Wikipedia. (I do intend to seek it out.) The Wiki article implicitly separates the technique of the New Journalism from the content; Talese's piece may well have been a powerful example of early New Journalism (use of dialog, splitting the piece into "scenes," etc.) while still being a suck-up. I certainly don't read sarcasm or ironic intent or satire into the paragraph you quote. That's a serious suck-job.
I had suspected that your paragraphs about "And Your Bird" were speculative, as I've never read anything from Lennon's mouth about the song other than a brief slagging-off; if I could slag off a song of mine with a riff and middle eight as good as these are, I'd consider myself a lucky man indeed. Lennon seemed to rate his songs by their degree of brutal honesty and self-insight. I guess it's possible he disliked the song because he alone knew its origins in professional jealousy and spite. Do you know if the Esquire article and the offending press release ever got back to the Beatles? That would be a useful piece of information.
It's a minor point in a book that's truly the best of its kind I've ever read (did someone just say "suck-up"?), but don't you agree that a small hint of the speculative nature of your thinking might have been appropriate? Rather than "But Lennon was stalking bigger game," render it "It's possible that Lennon was stalking bigger game"?
At any rate, thanks for stopping by, and don't be a stranger!
I'd like to add, while they probably weren't the very first band to record a "double lead guitar" part, (though I can't think of a popular song that did it before them - perhaps The Ventures or Duane Eddy?) they beat the Allman Brothers to the punch by about 3 years. Duane Allman was certainly influenced by The Beatles and other "British Invasion" groups, though his heart was always in the blues.
I keep waiting for the latest incarnation of The Allman Brothers Band to cover this one. I know, I lead a rich fantasy life.
The Viscount
· 10 months ago
I'd like to add, while they probably weren't the very first band to record a "double lead guitar" part, (though I can't think of a popular song that did it before them - perhaps The Ventures or Duane Eddy?) they beat the Allman Brothers to the punch by about 3 years. Duane Allman was certainly influenced by The Beatles and other "British Invasion" groups, though his heart was always in the blues.
I keep waiting for the latest incarnation of The Allman Brothers Band to cover this one. I know, I lead a rich fantasy life.
Jason_Chervokas
· 10 months ago
Dudes, just a point of historical info, Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, for one, were doing double (and even triple) lead electric guitar parts in the 1940s. See, for one, the aptly titled "Twin Guitar Boogie" which I think is circa 1946.
TheViscount
· 10 months ago
I'm not surprised Jason. I knew somebody here would know. Thanks.
NeddieJingo
· 10 months ago
And mixing in fiddle too...
Well, yeah, Jason, but what's the likelihood that Harrison/Lennon heard "Twin Guitar Boogie" and said to themselves, "Hmmm. Have to try that!" And then to have come up with something so completely unlike "Twin Guitar Boogie "? I mean, it's possible for the foregoing to have happened, but the genius comes in when you consider the vast gulfs of difference between the two.
And pace the Viscount, I'd look to Western Swing as the main motivator of the Allmans' sound before the Beatles'.
Jason_Chervokas
· 10 months ago
No doubt the Allmans sound descends directly from western swing, rockabilly and that whole thread among other sounds in the southern stew. Tho the Brit invasion also had an impact on their sound I'm sure.
I dunno that Lennon and McCartney heard the Texas Playboys or anything specific, but I don't think the idea of lead guitars playing in harmony is any more novel than say, a fiddle and mando playing in harmony at an irish pub or something.. or a trumpet and sax playing in harmony....and to stick w/ electric guitar antecedents: speedy west and jimmy bryant playing in harmony on records the beatles probably did hear from the 1950s, or all that overdubbed close harmony guitar lead guitar on the les paul mary ford records, which they almost certainly would have known (forget "And Your Bird Can Sing," is there anything cooler sounding than Les Paul and Mary Ford famous version of "How High The Moon"?, which btw doesn't have any double lead lines as I remember)
BTW, little fragment of video of Speedy and Jimmy here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzt1iA2D_Kg) from 50s US TV, dig not only the solos but the fragment of the double lead head at the end.
Not to take anything away from the artistry, beauty and imagination of And Your Bird Can Sing which is an amazing record. But in terms of historic milestones in double lead guitar, it came along 20 years into the development of that sound, a sound which came right out of western swing and straight into the rockabilly and 50s pop that directly inspired the young English lads.
NeddieJingo
· 10 months ago
I don't think the idea of lead guitars playing in harmony is any more novel than say, a fiddle and mando playing in harmony at an irish pub or something
Or, hell, a Bach gavotte...
I still think, though, that Speedy and JImmy (thanks for the clip, that was wonderful) were playing within something we'd all acknowledge was a tradition. Right? Blues changes, flatted thirds and sevenths, close harmonies, inside a well-established harmonic structure. Really, a WWII-era guitar duet was really just replicating the popular close-harmony vocal, fashionable at the time, no? The Fabs no doubt studied those intricate changes, learned from their creamy deliciousness (and creamily delicious they were), and decided to try to imitate it. But I still suggest that the difference between what came before (smooth, cool, sleek) and what the Beatles produced (cacophonous, clangy, like steel drums being dismantled in an alley made of aluminum), is utterly stunning.
I've been between two extremely loud, distorted guitars playing harmony lines. I may have been playing one of those lines myself, It's fucking thrilling. All those overtones. Better than sex. Almost.
NeddieJingo
· 10 months ago
Oh, and...
Has anyone in the American vernacular ever beaten those twin guitars during the middle eight? Ho-lee jumping Christ are they great...
NeddieJingo
· 10 months ago
Now that I've thought about it for a minute, the vocal harmonies of the last verse ("You tell me that you've heard every sound there is") is a perfect inversion of the Everly-Brothers-inspired opening lines of "Please Please Me": In "Please Please Me," the vocal lead ("Last night I said...") stays on one note while the low harmony digs down into "I said these words to my girl"; in "Bird" the lead stays on "You tell me that you've heard..." while the high harmony digs downward to the same note. Jesus, these guys were beautiful in their symmetries.
Jason_Chervokas
· 10 months ago
It's not an either/or alternative to me, all part of a single continuum, and particularly interesting in the case of the anglo-american feedback loop--you know that twin guitar stuff in western swing and proto rockabilly comes out of fiddle jigs and reels which came to the new world w/ anglo europeans...etc.... I don't really hear radical departure, I hear evolutionary adaptation to a new environment--new zeitgeist, new gear.
To me all the distorted guitars of rock were in some ways an evolution of the buzzy, square wavish sound of the bar walking tenor honker of the chitlin circuit ripping loose anyway. Before there was the thrill of the buzzy, midrangey thick guitar solo, there was the thrill of buzzy, midrangey tenor solo.
On the one hand every player has a role in changing the history of the sound of an instrument, on the other hand I think there are precious few you can point to and say--that guy single handed altered the vocabulary of the instrument--or precious few moments you can point to and say--that moment changed the sound of music forever. The Beatles, particularly in the studio, changed the sound of music. But pretty much for anything you point to in terms of electric guitar in the rock of the 1960s you'll find antecedents in electric guitar pioneers of the 40s and 50s. Only time led us to raunchy saturation (I still love that bit from Back to the Future where Michael J. Fox plays his way through the history of rock guitar)., time and new gear (for the Beatles the Vox AC30, later the Marshall variations on the Bassman circuit for the other Brit rockers). But have you watched Sister Rosetta Tharpe ripping on the triple pickup SG? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeaBNAXfHfQ.... The SG didn't debut until 1961 so this is 15 or more years into Sister's career. Her playing is similar to what it was in the 40s, but now w/ the hotter PAFs and cranked up she's got more hair on her tone. Like I said, evolutionary change, adaptation to environment.
The Beatles (and Geoff Emerick and George Martin--I assume a lot of that chimey, sound related to the Vox amps w/ their EL84 output tubes and the compressors Emerick was using) brought their new flavors to the vernacular american music they mixed w/ english music hall stuff and all those hawaiian novelty records george harrison loved and tin pan alley pop, and out came something new. It was cool. All I'm saying is as a matter of history, the sound and style of twin lead electric guitar starts 20 years before Revolver. Twin Guitar Boogie by Bob Willis is the earliest instance that springs to mind for me, there may be earlier stuff on record or lost to time from live performances or radio shows, but 1946 or 1947 places it pretty early in the history of electric guitar as a whole, and I definitely see a pretty straight line from Twin Guitar Boogie to And Your Bird Can Sing.
Jason_Chervokas
· 10 months ago
Oh, and PS, the way Speedy West and Jimmy Bryant played guitar and steel guitar was like brothers from another planet...all that crazy swooping stuff, huge leaps up and down the neck...yeah, it was clean, precise, round tone, but it was definitely not like even other players in the hillybilly boogie vernacular.
tomwatson
· 10 months ago
Loving this thread!
Can't hold a candle to the musicology of Jingo and Chervokas, so just a footnote:
McCartney was such a musical polyglot, growing up in a home literally infused with both professional and semi-pro musicians - and a huge variety of instruments. One of his big influences was country yodeler Slim Whitman (a lefty guitarist, whose tenor voice doubled the lead on many records) who had a No. 1 UK hit with Rose Marie in the 50s - a tune in which the piano and steel guitar double the lead lines.
'Course, that ain't distorted electric guitar - but I think the point may be that Liverpool in the 50s was a place of vast musical influences. And that doesn't even get into the influence of pirate radio on the Fab Four...
This is a great conversation.
TheViscount
· 10 months ago
Regarding the Duane Allman influences: The record that really pushed him over the edge was Kind of Blue. He was completely taken by that album listening to it incessantly. What made the early Allman Brothers so special was his desire to recreate that sort of jamming in a blues / rock format.
Has anyone in the American vernacular ever beaten those twin guitars during the middle eight? Ho-lee jumping Christ are they great...
Beaten? I'm not sure I'd enter into that debate, especially when The Beatles are on one end of it, with Ned as their defense attorney. Indeed when I do I'm on the side of The Beatles except sometimes when it comes to Ringo, and I'm not going there here. (Yeah, I love him and think he was great, but...)
What makes it extra-special is that John actually sings on top of it. The fact that I've no doubt he could have done that live is of course impressive enough, (he was able to sing Feel Fine while playing that riff) but even if he couldn't it wouldn't change the fact that it doesn't feel crowded at all. There's no clash between the lead vox and the guitars. They mesh perfectly. Who ever did THAT better than the Beatles?
Was there ever a moment in recorded music that sounded better than the "ahhhs" sung over the Leslie amplified guitar in You Never Give Me Your Money just after Paul sings, Ohhh that magic feeling / nowhere to go - nowhere to go? You'll never convince me otherwise.
I will argue this: The guitar break on The Allman Brothers' Midnight Rider is as good as it gets, wonderfully played here by the two heirs apparent Warren Haynes and Derek Trucks. The part at the end of Warren's solo where the two of them do a letter perfect rendition of the original recording (00:1:43) is definitely the mammaries.
As far as Beatles and their guitar solos and tones and all of the that go, aside from the jam (with all three of 'em!) at the end of the Golden Slumbers medley which in my humble opinion is the last word on what rock guitarists ought to aspire to, I love, and I mean LOVE the guitar solos in Nowhere Man (that harmonic at the end of it is like a Courvoisier at the end of a meal at Emerils) and the version of Let It Be that was on the original album. George could get a tone that could cut to the bone.
And an honorable mention to John's two-note solo in Yer Blues for sheer audacity of it and the fact that it works like WD40 on a squeaky hinge.
I wish I believed, because if anyone deserves to burn for eternity it's that sonofabitch Chapman.
Jason_Chervokas
· 10 months ago
Interesting about "Kind of Blue"...I always heard a lot of jazz in the Allmans. "Les Brers in A Minor" always sounded like a rip thru something like a variation on "You'd Be So Nice to Come Home To" changes the way a jazz band might do it. It seems like modal jazz really appealed to rock musicians in the 1960s, in part , I suspect because it offered an approach to soloing that was familiar--kind of like soloing in a single blues scale over a I-IV-V--but also different. I know Coltrane's "India" was in part the inspiration for "8 Miles High" for example. I'm a huge jazz fan and a huge fan of improvising rock bands, tho, sad to say, many of 'em aren't that imaginative. The Allmans were always a great improvising rock band, tho. The Grateful Dead too. And Television if you ever got to see them live.
I'm not too interested in the battle of the bands kind of approach--all good music is a gift as far as I'm concerned and I give love and props to all inspired musicians. Just because these days I probably enjoy (and listen to much more frequently) old time Charlie Poole or Dock Boggs records, or Soul Stirrers or Staples Singers records (the gospel stuff from VeeJay and Peacock) than I do Revolver--which really taught rock bands how to arrange for two guitars bass and drums--doesn't mean I need to pit one against the other. But the whole discussion leads me to think about listening habits.
In my experience tastes and listening habits change over time--for example, I've kind of lost my taste for The Who. I have nothing against the Beatles. I devoured their catalogue in my early teens, and again when my now 17-year old discovered the band. I've got Geoff Emerick's memoir and a great book that catalogues what equpment the Beatles acquired year by year on my bedstand. But I find I rarely listen to the band's records these days. Part of the problem of course is that it becomes impossible to hear old favorites w/ fresh ears. (Sometimes I'll play an old favorite on "random" to give me a chance to hear it in a fresh way.) So as much as I adore, say, The Shape of Jazz to Come, or Highway 61 Revisited, The Bridge,or Reiner and the CSO playing Beethoven's Pastoral symphony, etc., I find I'll always listen to a new album or new discovery more frequently these days. There ARE some records I can play over and over, year after year--like Sam Cooke w/ the Soul Stirrers singing "Jesus, Wash Away My Troubles." But even still months go by when I don't spin it.
My listening habits involve jags--like last summer when Joe Nick Patowski's book on Willie Nelson came out and I spent a coupla months listening very deeply to Willie. Or this fall when I fell in love with The Hold Steady and played their catalogue over an over. Or at the end of last year when I went on an jag involving early rock and roll guitar heros and spent a lot of time w/ Cliff Gallup of Gene Vincent's Blue Caps, Paul Burlison w/ the Johnny Burnette Rock 'n Roll Trio, and James Burton w/ Ricky Nelson.
It's true, my bias is for all things American because as a cultural critic and observer my principal interest is American culture, so, I'm much more attached to Elvis' Sun Sessions, or Chuck Berry's Chess sides, or the Soul Stirrer's Aladdin singles w/ RH Harris than I am to anything the Beatles ever cut. But you know, my fascination w/ American culture doesn't keep me from digging, say, the literature of Salman Rushdie or the great music of Kiran Ahluwalia.
I'd love to hear about other folks listening biases/habits.
TheViscount
· 10 months ago
Maybe you should take this comment as a skeleton for a blog post and have people add their 2 cents via comments?
For me, the whole "Battle of the Bands" concept you mention is always couched in "Yeah we know it's all subjective but let's pretend it isn't!"
You're right - it's all good.
Sean
· 10 months ago
Jason, gotta agree with you about the Who. I loved their early records (Sings, Sell Out) and I still occasionally listen to them, but for the most part anything later kind of makes me queasy. I go on jags myself but I try to intersperse other things or I would lose my mind. Been on a Miles one lately: mostly electric (almost endless) plus other stuff like the Braxton box, the Franco reissue. Plus new stuff. Always new stuff. Discovery is what its about for me whether it's new or old. Though it's impossible to stay completely current at a time when a zillion records come out each year, I try to listen as wide as possible. There are times when I never want to hear another roots rock record. But then I hear Drive By Truckers or Miranda Lambert and I put that aside for awhile. Anyway, that's a few of my habits.
Jason_Chervokas
· 10 months ago
I don't really feel like listening to The Who at all--aside from Substitute which I still seem to dig. A coupla months ago I tried to listen to Live at Leeds (I had put a set of new pickup in an SG clone I have and I was going back to listen to a lot of classic SG playing) and I just had to shut it off. I used to love "A Quick One While He's Away," now I can't get through it. Maybe that'll change some day, but for now I'm off The Who.
I dig electric Miles (actually, I dig almost all Miles)--esp. Agharta, Pangaea and Black Beauty, (that stuff Chick Corea plays w/ the ring modulator and the electric piano is amazing) but you're right @ this point the discography is endless. How many live sets from the 50s and 60s bands playing Walkin' can one listen to? I mean, I can listen to it all, but the quantity is numbing.
Tell me more about that Franco set (talk about a guy w/ a daunting discography). I picked up the 2 CD 20th anniversary collection a coupla years ago at Stern's when I was in London. The music was great but w/ no notes or detailed info the collection wasn't that helpful in giving me any kind of context or understanding.
Braxton huh? Another guy w/ a mega discography. I've dabbled in Braxton over the years and saw him once at the Knitting Factory but haven't gotten to the point where I'd be willing to invest in an 8-CD Mosaic set.
tomwatson
· 10 months ago
You are forgiven (you are forgiven) for this strange bout of Who-bashing - this conversation certainly winds and winds.
Townshend's writing and playing are pretty central to me, so I never go too long without 'em - sure, it's not necessary to listen to any of the Who's Next stuff anytime soon, but I never go a year w/out playing much of Quadrophenia. Live @Leeds never sent me, to be honest - the Who isn't a metal band, so it always seemed like a novelty, a phase for them, part of PT's restlessness...and a reax to all the powered up power trios.
Jason_Chervokas
· 10 months ago
Yeah, I'm not making a judgment about The Who, more about my own changing tastes...when I was a kid I loved bananas, can't eat 'em today...and The Who, it seems, suddenly I don't have a taste for.
TheViscount
· 10 months ago
I get tired of records, don't listen to 'em for a while then one day pull one out and love it all over again. I think the Live at Leeds - Expanded Addition is great but I have to be in the mood. I didn't listen to Who's Next (and turned off the songs when they came on the radio) for about 10 years. Now I put it on every once in a while and it sounds great. Bargain has got to be one of my all time favorite Who tracks.
marketing for chiropractors
· 7 months ago
Learn new things every day and keep yourself in shape to cope better with everyday life's stresses. That being said, let us all continue growing in the right direction.
boston moving companies
· 7 months ago
LOL, I didn't expect that a song will be about Frank Sinatra’s dick. I wonder what the people thought it was about when it was first sung. Moving on, were this guys popular? I never heard of this guys before.
marco's inflatable dildo
· 6 months ago
Woah! I didn't know about that shocking fact until now. But then again, knowing John's sly yet witty songwriting, I should not have been surprised.
Explosives Automation
· 6 months ago
Interesting trivia. Never knew that the former battle between Sinatra and The Beatles eventually led to Lennon making a song of out Frank's dick! Funny, yet trifling conspiracy.
SLR Camera
· 6 months ago
i think it is so very interesting but as for now i have no idea for this!
classical music
· 6 months ago
WOW i never thought of this facts before thank you for posting this one,
Police Sunglasses
· 5 months ago
Wow.. I learn now new things.. Great post.. I really like trivia..
James
· 3 months ago
The lyrics of the song is very nice. I hope this would be very melodious.
ll soon become a wreck They're breathin' on my neck Dick Haymes, Dick Todd, and Como
They're really coming fast Who knows I may be passed By Dick Haymes, Dick Todd, and Como...
Cheap Auto Insurance Quotes
· 2 months ago
Jason, gotta agree with you about the Who. I loved their early records (Sings, Sell Out) and I still occasionally listen to them, but for the most part anything later kind of makes me queasy. I go on jags myself but I try to intersperse other things or I would lose my mind. Been on a Miles one lately: mostly electric (almost endless) plus other stuff like the Braxton box, the Franco reissue. Plus new stuff. Always new stuff. Discovery is what its about for me whether it's new or old. Though it's impossible to stay completely current at a time when a zillion records come out each year, I try to listen as wide as possible. There are times when I never want to hear another roots rock record. But then I hear Drive By Truckers or Miranda Lambert and I put that aside for awhile. Anyway, that's a few of my habits.
Apex Professionals LLC
· 1 month ago
Talese is a man who contributed at least as much to the paradigm shift of celebrity journalism as Wolfe, Capote and Mailer. He's the George Lois of the printed text, and the Beatles book clearly misses the irony underpinning everything Talese writes about Sinatra in this piece. Read it--it's brilliant--possibly even more so than "AND YOUR BIRD CAN SING." That was, for those not paying attention, irony intended.
Cheap Auto Insurance Quotes
· 1 month ago
LOL, I didn't expect that a song will be about Frank Sinatra’s dick. I wonder what the people thought it was about when it was first sung. Moving on, were this guys popular? I never heard of this guys before.
ipotpal ipotpalov
· 1 month ago
Hello, You're right - it's all good.
cash advance loans
· 1 month ago
Voucher code | promotion codes are more important than ever to people trying to save money on their shopping online.Such as New Look Voucher Codes | Asda Voucher Codes | Tesco Voucher Codes | Adobe Coupon Codes | Expedia Coupons|Newegg coupon codes|Musicians Friend Coupon Codes and Kohls Coupon Codes A minute or two online can save you big money.
compare voip providers
· 1 month ago
Dudes, just a point of historical info, Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, for one, were doing double (and even triple) lead electric guitar parts in the 1940s. See, for one, the aptly titled "Twin Guitar Boogie" which I think is circa 1946.
San diego boutique hotels
· 1 month ago
It's a minor point in a book that's truly the best of its kind I've ever read (did someone just say "suck-up"?), but don't you agree that a small hint of the speculative nature of your thinking might have been appropriate? Rather than "But Lennon was stalking bigger game," render it "It's possible that Lennon was stalking bigger game"?
Free Online Games
· 1 month ago
The Fabs no doubt studied those intricate changes, learned from their creamy deliciousness (and creamily delicious they were), and decided to try to imitate it. But I still suggest that the difference between what came before (smooth, cool, sleek) and what the Beatles produced (cacophonous, clangy, like steel drums being dismantled in an alley made of aluminum), is utterly stunning.
Jobs
· 4 weeks ago
thanks guy i like it.
Homepage Design
· 3 weeks ago
Learned from their creamy deliciousness (and creamily delicious they were), and decided to try to imitate it. But I still suggest that the difference between what came before (smooth, cool, sleek) and what the Beatles produced (cacophonous, clangy, like steel drums being dismantled in an alley made of aluminum), is utterly stunning.
Zdenka
· 3 months ago
Great. There is lot to learn today. thanks.
Stroke Treatment
· 3 months ago
I'm agreeable on that. Human beings only utilizes less than 5% of their brain capacity. If they utilize it more, they could have the potential to become the next Einstein.
All Comments
For some reason, this passage seems to have attracted more web-based attention than anything else in my book. As for where the information comes from, let me be the first to say that it's a supposition on my part - albeit an informed supposition - based on the timing of the Esquire piece and the writing of "And You Bird Can Sing"; the emphasis Talese gave to Sinatra's private vocabulary and his use of the term "bird"; the offensive allusion to the Beatles that was quoted in the press release for Sinatra's "comeback" television special; and my own sensitivity to John Lennon's acutely rivalrous nature (see his relationships with Bob Dylan and Mick Jagger; indeed, until I came across the Esquire piece, my original supposition was that the song was written about Jagger and his newly acquired singer-girlfriend, Marianne Faithful).
In other news, I agree with Howard Chaykin about the importance of Talese's piece in the history of celebrity journalism. But I strongly disagree that Talese's fundamental perspective on Sinatra is ironic. On the contrary, the piece is an act of Italian-American hero worship on a par with Francis Ford Coppola's future unironic efforts to lionize the Mob, for Talese, self-evidently, is completely enthralled by Sinatra. Show me the irony in this passage, please:
"For Frank Sinatra was now involved with many things involving many people -- his own film company, his record company, his private airline, his missile-parts firm, his real-estate holdings across the nation, his personal staff of seventy-five -- which are only a portion of the power he is and has come to represent. He seemed now to be also the embodiment of the fully emancipated male, perhaps the only one in America, the man who can do anything he wants, anything, can do it because he has money, the energy, and no apparent guilt. In an age when the very young seem to be taking over, protesting and picketing and demanding change, Frank Sinatra survives as a national phenomenon, one of the few prewar products to withstand the test of time."
Besides, whoever said that the New Journalism was less fawning than the old? Does anyone think that Tom Wolfe's writing about Chuck Yeager or Ken Kesey was ironic?
Thanks for your comment. It's very gratifying -- and oh so modern! -- to receive instant comment from the author of the piece being written about.
I've not read the Talese piece -- but it is summarized at Wikipedia. (I do intend to seek it out.) The Wiki article implicitly separates the technique of the New Journalism from the content; Talese's piece may well have been a powerful example of early New Journalism (use of dialog, splitting the piece into "scenes," etc.) while still being a suck-up. I certainly don't read sarcasm or ironic intent or satire into the paragraph you quote. That's a serious suck-job.
I had suspected that your paragraphs about "And Your Bird" were speculative, as I've never read anything from Lennon's mouth about the song other than a brief slagging-off; if I could slag off a song of mine with a riff and middle eight as good as these are, I'd consider myself a lucky man indeed. Lennon seemed to rate his songs by their degree of brutal honesty and self-insight. I guess it's possible he disliked the song because he alone knew its origins in professional jealousy and spite. Do you know if the Esquire article and the offending press release ever got back to the Beatles? That would be a useful piece of information.
It's a minor point in a book that's truly the best of its kind I've ever read (did someone just say "suck-up"?), but don't you agree that a small hint of the speculative nature of your thinking might have been appropriate? Rather than "But Lennon was stalking bigger game," render it "It's possible that Lennon was stalking bigger game"?
At any rate, thanks for stopping by, and don't be a stranger!
I keep waiting for the latest incarnation of The Allman Brothers Band to cover this one. I know, I lead a rich fantasy life.
I keep waiting for the latest incarnation of The Allman Brothers Band to cover this one. I know, I lead a rich fantasy life.
Well, yeah, Jason, but what's the likelihood that Harrison/Lennon heard "Twin Guitar Boogie" and said to themselves, "Hmmm. Have to try that!" And then to have come up with something so completely unlike "Twin Guitar Boogie "? I mean, it's possible for the foregoing to have happened, but the genius comes in when you consider the vast gulfs of difference between the two.
And pace the Viscount, I'd look to Western Swing as the main motivator of the Allmans' sound before the Beatles'.
I dunno that Lennon and McCartney heard the Texas Playboys or anything specific, but I don't think the idea of lead guitars playing in harmony is any more novel than say, a fiddle and mando playing in harmony at an irish pub or something.. or a trumpet and sax playing in harmony....and to stick w/ electric guitar antecedents: speedy west and jimmy bryant playing in harmony on records the beatles probably did hear from the 1950s, or all that overdubbed close harmony guitar lead guitar on the les paul mary ford records, which they almost certainly would have known (forget "And Your Bird Can Sing," is there anything cooler sounding than Les Paul and Mary Ford famous version of "How High The Moon"?, which btw doesn't have any double lead lines as I remember)
BTW, little fragment of video of Speedy and Jimmy here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzt1iA2D_Kg) from 50s US TV, dig not only the solos but the fragment of the double lead head at the end.
Not to take anything away from the artistry, beauty and imagination of And Your Bird Can Sing which is an amazing record. But in terms of historic milestones in double lead guitar, it came along 20 years into the development of that sound, a sound which came right out of western swing and straight into the rockabilly and 50s pop that directly inspired the young English lads.
Or, hell, a Bach gavotte...
I still think, though, that Speedy and JImmy (thanks for the clip, that was wonderful) were playing within something we'd all acknowledge was a tradition. Right? Blues changes, flatted thirds and sevenths, close harmonies, inside a well-established harmonic structure. Really, a WWII-era guitar duet was really just replicating the popular close-harmony vocal, fashionable at the time, no? The Fabs no doubt studied those intricate changes, learned from their creamy deliciousness (and creamily delicious they were), and decided to try to imitate it. But I still suggest that the difference between what came before (smooth, cool, sleek) and what the Beatles produced (cacophonous, clangy, like steel drums being dismantled in an alley made of aluminum), is utterly stunning.
I've been between two extremely loud, distorted guitars playing harmony lines. I may have been playing one of those lines myself, It's fucking thrilling. All those overtones. Better than sex. Almost.
Has anyone in the American vernacular ever beaten those twin guitars during the middle eight? Ho-lee jumping Christ are they great...
To me all the distorted guitars of rock were in some ways an evolution of the buzzy, square wavish sound of the bar walking tenor honker of the chitlin circuit ripping loose anyway. Before there was the thrill of the buzzy, midrangey thick guitar solo, there was the thrill of buzzy, midrangey tenor solo.
On the one hand every player has a role in changing the history of the sound of an instrument, on the other hand I think there are precious few you can point to and say--that guy single handed altered the vocabulary of the instrument--or precious few moments you can point to and say--that moment changed the sound of music forever. The Beatles, particularly in the studio, changed the sound of music. But pretty much for anything you point to in terms of electric guitar in the rock of the 1960s you'll find antecedents in electric guitar pioneers of the 40s and 50s. Only time led us to raunchy saturation (I still love that bit from Back to the Future where Michael J. Fox plays his way through the history of rock guitar)., time and new gear (for the Beatles the Vox AC30, later the Marshall variations on the Bassman circuit for the other Brit rockers). But have you watched Sister Rosetta Tharpe ripping on the triple pickup SG? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeaBNAXfHfQ.... The SG didn't debut until 1961 so this is 15 or more years into Sister's career. Her playing is similar to what it was in the 40s, but now w/ the hotter PAFs and cranked up she's got more hair on her tone. Like I said, evolutionary change, adaptation to environment.
The Beatles (and Geoff Emerick and George Martin--I assume a lot of that chimey, sound related to the Vox amps w/ their EL84 output tubes and the compressors Emerick was using) brought their new flavors to the vernacular american music they mixed w/ english music hall stuff and all those hawaiian novelty records george harrison loved and tin pan alley pop, and out came something new. It was cool. All I'm saying is as a matter of history, the sound and style of twin lead electric guitar starts 20 years before Revolver. Twin Guitar Boogie by Bob Willis is the earliest instance that springs to mind for me, there may be earlier stuff on record or lost to time from live performances or radio shows, but 1946 or 1947 places it pretty early in the history of electric guitar as a whole, and I definitely see a pretty straight line from Twin Guitar Boogie to And Your Bird Can Sing.
Can't hold a candle to the musicology of Jingo and Chervokas, so just a footnote:
McCartney was such a musical polyglot, growing up in a home literally infused with both professional and semi-pro musicians - and a huge variety of instruments. One of his big influences was country yodeler Slim Whitman (a lefty guitarist, whose tenor voice doubled the lead on many records) who had a No. 1 UK hit with Rose Marie in the 50s - a tune in which the piano and steel guitar double the lead lines.
'Course, that ain't distorted electric guitar - but I think the point may be that Liverpool in the 50s was a place of vast musical influences. And that doesn't even get into the influence of pirate radio on the Fab Four...
This is a great conversation.
Has anyone in the American vernacular ever beaten those twin guitars during the middle eight? Ho-lee jumping Christ are they great...
Beaten? I'm not sure I'd enter into that debate, especially when The Beatles are on one end of it, with Ned as their defense attorney. Indeed when I do I'm on the side of The Beatles except sometimes when it comes to Ringo, and I'm not going there here. (Yeah, I love him and think he was great, but...)
What makes it extra-special is that John actually sings on top of it. The fact that I've no doubt he could have done that live is of course impressive enough, (he was able to sing Feel Fine while playing that riff) but even if he couldn't it wouldn't change the fact that it doesn't feel crowded at all. There's no clash between the lead vox and the guitars. They mesh perfectly. Who ever did THAT better than the Beatles?
Was there ever a moment in recorded music that sounded better than the "ahhhs" sung over the Leslie amplified guitar in You Never Give Me Your Money just after Paul sings, Ohhh that magic feeling / nowhere to go - nowhere to go? You'll never convince me otherwise.
I will argue this: The guitar break on The Allman Brothers' Midnight Rider is as good as it gets, wonderfully played here by the two heirs apparent Warren Haynes and Derek Trucks. The part at the end of Warren's solo where the two of them do a letter perfect rendition of the original recording (00:1:43) is definitely the mammaries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EkJRy3gIS4
As far as Beatles and their guitar solos and tones and all of the that go, aside from the jam (with all three of 'em!) at the end of the Golden Slumbers medley which in my humble opinion is the last word on what rock guitarists ought to aspire to, I love, and I mean LOVE the guitar solos in Nowhere Man (that harmonic at the end of it is like a Courvoisier at the end of a meal at Emerils) and the version of Let It Be that was on the original album. George could get a tone that could cut to the bone.
And an honorable mention to John's two-note solo in Yer Blues for sheer audacity of it and the fact that it works like WD40 on a squeaky hinge.
I wish I believed, because if anyone deserves to burn for eternity it's that sonofabitch Chapman.
I'm not too interested in the battle of the bands kind of approach--all good music is a gift as far as I'm concerned and I give love and props to all inspired musicians. Just because these days I probably enjoy (and listen to much more frequently) old time Charlie Poole or Dock Boggs records, or Soul Stirrers or Staples Singers records (the gospel stuff from VeeJay and Peacock) than I do Revolver--which really taught rock bands how to arrange for two guitars bass and drums--doesn't mean I need to pit one against the other. But the whole discussion leads me to think about listening habits.
In my experience tastes and listening habits change over time--for example, I've kind of lost my taste for The Who. I have nothing against the Beatles. I devoured their catalogue in my early teens, and again when my now 17-year old discovered the band. I've got Geoff Emerick's memoir and a great book that catalogues what equpment the Beatles acquired year by year on my bedstand. But I find I rarely listen to the band's records these days. Part of the problem of course is that it becomes impossible to hear old favorites w/ fresh ears. (Sometimes I'll play an old favorite on "random" to give me a chance to hear it in a fresh way.) So as much as I adore, say, The Shape of Jazz to Come, or Highway 61 Revisited, The Bridge,or Reiner and the CSO playing Beethoven's Pastoral symphony, etc., I find I'll always listen to a new album or new discovery more frequently these days. There ARE some records I can play over and over, year after year--like Sam Cooke w/ the Soul Stirrers singing "Jesus, Wash Away My Troubles." But even still months go by when I don't spin it.
My listening habits involve jags--like last summer when Joe Nick Patowski's book on Willie Nelson came out and I spent a coupla months listening very deeply to Willie. Or this fall when I fell in love with The Hold Steady and played their catalogue over an over. Or at the end of last year when I went on an jag involving early rock and roll guitar heros and spent a lot of time w/ Cliff Gallup of Gene Vincent's Blue Caps, Paul Burlison w/ the Johnny Burnette Rock 'n Roll Trio, and James Burton w/ Ricky Nelson.
It's true, my bias is for all things American because as a cultural critic and observer my principal interest is American culture, so, I'm much more attached to Elvis' Sun Sessions, or Chuck Berry's Chess sides, or the Soul Stirrer's Aladdin singles w/ RH Harris than I am to anything the Beatles ever cut. But you know, my fascination w/ American culture doesn't keep me from digging, say, the literature of Salman Rushdie or the great music of Kiran Ahluwalia.
I'd love to hear about other folks listening biases/habits.
For me, the whole "Battle of the Bands" concept you mention is always couched in "Yeah we know it's all subjective but let's pretend it isn't!"
You're right - it's all good.
I dig electric Miles (actually, I dig almost all Miles)--esp. Agharta, Pangaea and Black Beauty, (that stuff Chick Corea plays w/ the ring modulator and the electric piano is amazing) but you're right @ this point the discography is endless. How many live sets from the 50s and 60s bands playing Walkin' can one listen to? I mean, I can listen to it all, but the quantity is numbing.
Tell me more about that Franco set (talk about a guy w/ a daunting discography). I picked up the 2 CD 20th anniversary collection a coupla years ago at Stern's when I was in London. The music was great but w/ no notes or detailed info the collection wasn't that helpful in giving me any kind of context or understanding.
Braxton huh? Another guy w/ a mega discography. I've dabbled in Braxton over the years and saw him once at the Knitting Factory but haven't gotten to the point where I'd be willing to invest in an 8-CD Mosaic set.
Townshend's writing and playing are pretty central to me, so I never go too long without 'em - sure, it's not necessary to listen to any of the Who's Next stuff anytime soon, but I never go a year w/out playing much of Quadrophenia. Live @Leeds never sent me, to be honest - the Who isn't a metal band, so it always seemed like a novelty, a phase for them, part of PT's restlessness...and a reax to all the powered up power trios.
Download
They're breathin' on my neck
Dick Haymes, Dick Todd, and Como
They're really coming fast
Who knows I may be passed
By Dick Haymes, Dick Todd, and Como...
i like it.