The not-quite naked TRUTH!
Perhaps there is a thin
line between speaking ones own truth - putting your heart on the line
- and being an insufferable grump! The secret probably lies somewhere
in the sense of humor department. Most of my “kvetching” is meant
in a lighthearted way. Nobody could ever mistake me as an authority
on pretty much anything! I've been wrong plenty of
times. A continuing reality, in fact. I'm more often just groping
around for my own conclusions. I'm not in a hurry, therefore, to use
this space as a slag-fest for any un-vented spleen that needs
purging. Mostly. But I have to own my reactions and I'm fine with all
that. So, if I can't hear the value in late-period Rush it doesn't
mean I'm an authority on that subject. I've since read how some
listeners really like those albums. Good for them! Maybe someday I'll
hear the music differently – I reserve the right to change my mind!
Case in point......
For all the times I spent listening to the
Beatles White Album, last night I gained a new appreciation for it.
There's a fascinating narrative that unfolds on the first side of the
album. Imagine that many of the original listeners were kids - quite
a few who got a first hearing after finding their copy under the
Christmas tree that December morning of 1968 (original release was
in late November 1968). Considering who the audience was - in some
ways it's a bit of a kids' album. There are references to children
and childlike singalongs. The two opening tracks actually share a
theme - both are earnest calls to isolated people. In the case of
Back in the USSR, the audience is a whole country separated from the
west because of political reasons. The song is a reaching out -
mostly by celebrating the women, in a Beach Boys “California Girls”
kind of way. The next track, Dear Prudence, is focused on one
person....the shy meditating lady who refused to leave her hut in
India. Lennon finds a sincere voice in encouraging someone to "come
out to play" as a child would to a friend. Both songs represent
a genuine warmth and welcoming vibe. The rest of side one meanders
from a witty nod to Beatles invented characters in Glass Onion to the
sing along tracks Ob-la-Di Ob-la-Da and Bungalow Bill. Yet, the
childlike refrain of the latter has a dark edge - what did you KILL
Bungalow Bill? This is clearly the era of “hey hey LBJ how many
kids did you KILL today”? And despite the wacky Wild Honey Pie,
side one wraps up with reminding listeners to love one another even
in dark times (While my guitar gently weeps). Yet it's Lennon's oddly
titled last track - “Happiness is a Warm Gun” - illustrating the
tensions of 1968. It is both a sad comment on the horrible violence
of that year AND an unfortunately chilling foretelling of Lennon's
own fate at the hands (or gunpoint) of his murderer's gun....though
the gun in the song was meant as a metaphor for something similarly
sinister – Lennon's increasing dependence on heroin.
Now all this is hardly the stuff of kids
entertainment...but when one considers the prevalent nature of gun
violence all around in the reality of those times – the Vietnam War
coverage on the TV news showed the grim realities in ways wars hadn't
been shown before or since. The earth can be a heck of a place to
raise your kids! How rapidly the optimism sobers during the course of
one LP side. Yet, the general effect of the album as a whole is
informal and at times quite intimate, even vulnerable - Lennon's
Julia is clearly the greatest example of this aesthetic. Side Two
features more of the dialog between Lennon (the realist) and
McCartney (the idealist). McCartney's tunes exhibit a spirit of
prevailing over tough times with humor – Lennon's tunes are more
direct confrontations with reality. Yet Lennon dares to be vulnerable
in his disclosures – the childlike wonder of “Julia” or the
shockingly forthright declarations of “Yer Blues”. McCartney
might bellow “Why Don't We Do It in the Road?” (who doesn't love
this track?) but Lennon bares his soul, not to mention his fragile
state of mind. It is astounding to consider the wide range of
emotional content in John Lennon's offerings. Perhaps the most
dramatic saved for the end of the album with the one-two punch of
“Revolution 9” followed by “Good Night”. It certainly was a
stroke of genius to have the two tracks programmed next to each other
as the closing pieces. But it was also a genius move to have Ringo
deliver the vocal to “Good Night”. It makes better sense for the
listener to hear this Beatles lullabye from good old Ringo, but it
was John Lennon who wrote it for his son Julian. Lennon was a
troubled person – no question about that. Yet, he clearly had a
depth of feeling evident in his work – wearing his heart on his
sleeve more than McCartney at that time.
There are many other reasons to illustrate why The
Beatles - a/k/a The White Album – is a masterful song cycle. The
dour, yet earnest offerings from George Harrison – the wacky humor
amidst the cultural turmoil of the times. It is interesting to note
that the Beatles spent months recording, recording, recording tracks
for the record yet mixed and programmed the whole shebang in, what –
ONE marathon 48 hour mixing session due to a deadline? For both mono
and stereo? That could explain why there are many rough edges left in
on the finished product. No matter the reason, the White Album is NOT
a sonic marvel. It is a funky, progressive, multi-faceted sonic
carnival - though not a pretty one. Apparently it was such a pain to
cut to vinyl – Capitol Records in the USA compressed the crap out
of the tapes they were sent just to normalize the levels between
tracks. As the story goes, George Harrison personally intervened and
forced the first batch of production lacquers to get thrown out in
favor of less compressed re-cuts. Now, some of those early pre-George
pressings DO exist, but they're apparently pretty nasty sounding.
They're rare as hell, but you won't find me spending hundreds of
dollars just to hear crappy sound.
Even still, the Harrison-approved cuttings from
Capitol still aren't that great. Those would be the discs found in
the numbered jackets like this.
The original US Apple labels have a dark background.
My copy was pressed at the Capitol factory in Scranton, PA - easy to
tell when you see the triangle with “IAM” in the deadwax area.
Collectors get excited about numbers on sleeves, but not me. It's
nice to have an “original” pressing. But they don't sound good.
Not like the UK counterparts......
Here's a later pressing from the UK that still had
most of the original cutting plates used. The sides, in order,
feature -1 / -2 / -1 / -1 . So still all tube cut I think? It is easy
to hear how much better the mastering is here from fresh tapes. Beats
the original US pressings by a mile – no contest. Now, despite how
many copies of the UK were made it is important to remember how
frequently and with what prevailing equipment these early copies were
played. So finding mint copies of these early UK cuttings are tough
and increasingly expensive.
The good news is – many other countries got UK
metal parts to press their own records from. Strangely, I have a
Philippines pressing of the White Album – with Parlophone labels
instead of Apple – made mostly from UK -1 metal stampers. The UK
metal sourced copies are easy to spot because there are no clear
“bands” between tracks. The vinyl surface looks like one big
track with no divisions visible. This was also the case with the UK
Sgt Pepper album – no visual divisions between songs on the vinyl
to be seen. US cut albums had visual distinctions – easy to spot
where each track was.
Because my Philippines copy of the White Album was
pressed from UK metal – it sounds quite similar to the UK pressed
copy I have. But neither are something I reach for to just throw on
the turntable for casual listening. Yet, the first copy I ever owned
(and played often) was the 1978 US white vinyl pressing.
And I played this thing a LOT. But even when new, it
was not a sonic marvel. These get listed on ebay often enough, but
they're not rare nor are they sought after by audiophiles like the
1978 UK white vinyl. That is supposed to be the bees knees – if you
have the $200 to spend on one now. Not me! But over the years I
picked up a few different versions to find a general play-copy. Now,
I recently watched that Parlogram guy on youtube give his White Album
countdown and it was fascinating! I was surprised to hear him extol
the virtues of the German DMM pressing. I'd passed up copies of those
things many times in record stores figuring they wouldn't be so hot,
but he loves that one. It made me remember a little blurb I read on
the inside cover of the 1995 Capitol “C 1” reissue I bought –
that the discs were direct metal cut. So I had to play them again.
Compared to the UK -1 cutting the 1995 Capitol DMM
sounded kinda thin. So much for that. Then I pulled out my 1971-era
Apple pressing from Winchester Virginia USA. Its easy to spot
pressings from that factory since there is a little gun-like drawing
– a line connected to a triangle – in the deadwax areas. I
actually got this years ago because it was clean and had all the
stuff in the jacket – pictures and poster – and didn't cost me a
lot of money.
Now, comparing the sound between all these pressings
– including the UK pressing – HERE IS THE WINNER! The sound of
the music had the most musicality to it. Good bass presence without a
muddy sound. Plenty of highs in the right places. Now, the EQ choices
did render the vocals a bit different – not as transparent as on
the UK cutting. But the overall musicality of the album SHONE THROUGH
LIKE NO OTHER COPY did. When I want to hear the Beatles White Album –
I'm reaching for this. It was the only pressing that made me want to
turn the volume UP because I was digging the music. And since there
are plenty of these around – I don't feel precious about it. Just
throw it on and enjoy. No white gloves needed to handle this puppy.
Certainly this mastering was given some frequency boosting, but in a
way that suits the music overall. To hear what a flat transfer of the
master tape sounds like, most folks know by now – the original CD
issue is where to get that. And there was only ONE mastering of this
from 1987 no matter how it was packaged. Mine came in a longbox (long
gone) and looks like this:
The Parlogram guy gives this mastering the thumbs up
too. And its common enough to find and cheap. Doesn't have to look
like mine – many were sold in those “fat boy” double CD cases.
And that was the same mastering until 2009 – when this appeared as
part of the deluxe re-mastering of the whole catalog:
HOWEVER – the 2009 “remaster” was tampered with
and not just in the EQ department. Various little anomalies were
tweaked - “fixed” if you like. So that essentially renders the
2009 closer to a remix. Elements that made the original album funky
and awkward were smoothed out. Play “Happiness is a Warm Gun”
from any source made before 2009. Then listen to the 2009 remaster.
All kinds of little “errors” have disappeared. Which ruins the
whole intent of the Beatles in the first place. Here's my pitch /
theory:
Beatles albums – both mono and stereo – were
mixed to sound “professional” from Please Please Me up through
Rubber Soul. Mono mixes were given more time since that was the
format most listeners heard in those days. So the mono was the main
mix approved by the band from early on. Stereo mixes were done
quickly without much input from the band.
This starts to change with Revolver as stereo becomes
more common in households. However, even Sgt. Pepper was given more
attention in its mono mix – really THE mix approved by the band.
All of this information has come to light in recent years due to the
research done by many Beatles scholars. Those of us who grew up in
the 70s only knew the stereo Beatles albums. The difference between
the mono and stereo mixes of Sgt Pepper blew my mind when I heard the
mono in the late 80s. The mono mix had all kinds of rough edges kept
in while the stereo sounded “professional” - just like all the
other records to that point. So, for many listeners who bought the
mono albums when released, the aesthetic difference between the mono
Pepper and the stereo White Album was a LOT closer than the stereo
Pepper mix and the stereo White Album. (Still with me?)
In other words, the rough and wacky vibe of the White
Album is fairly jarring to listeners who didn't hear the progression
on earlier releases in their mono mixes which represent the group's
aesthetic at that time. It isn't a polished, “professional” piece
of work in that sense. But it IS personal, intimate and experimental
in an artistic way. At least in its original form. I have to
acknowledge how fun and exciting it was to discover the UK mono mix
of the White Album when I heard that by the mid-1990s. All those
subtle differences make for entertaining listening for those familiar
with the stereo. The mono mix got wider distribution in the mono CD
box and vinyl collections from 2015. But I tracked down a 1982 UK
mono reissue long before that:
Considering how the Beatles started to fracture
during the White Album sessions and nearly breaking up during the Get
Back project, it makes sense that they sought to bring a polished
final effort to their listeners – what came to be Abbey Road. The
Let It Be album notwithstanding, Abbey Road is the true end to the
Beatles recording career and the return to a “professional” and
updated sound. Abbey Road provides a “what if” as well – had
the group managed to stay together where would the aesthetic land?
Would there ever be wacky, humorous, experimental adventures like
Revolver, Pepper and the White Album ever again? Or would they have
settled into the mature pop-rock professionalism which made Abbey
Road so accessible to a widening fan base as it continues to do?
Maybe this is why I like my Beatles music to remain
as it was intended by the group – as released when they were
functioning. The story makes better sense and the music is still
timeless with no need to update for modern listeners. Future
generations ought to have the opportunity to ponder the mysteries
with the best and most accurate evidence available. And only THEN can
the true value of the art be understood and appreciated.
