Listening to Now: Earth, Wind & Fire - "Got To Get You Into My Life"
By Richard K. Barry I was thinking about this song today. I'm not sure why. I remember when Earth, Wind & Fire came out with it in 1978. I didn't realize then it was a Beatles song first.
The original was written by Paul McCartney, though it is credited as a McCartney-Lennon collaboration. It was first released on the album Revolver in 1966, but didn't make a ton of noise then. In a 1980 Playboy interview, however, Lennon called the song one of McCartney's best.
According to allmusic, “Got To Get You Into My Life” is enormous fun and a heartfelt Stax tribute from Paul McCartney. There’s no denying the tune’s catchy, and the faux-soul arrangement is spot-on." And by "Stax tribute" they mean in part the way that horns are used in the original, which helped define the Stax sound.
In 1978, Earth, Wind & Fire covered the song for the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band soundtrack, giving it another life. It reached No. 1 on the Soul singles chart and No. 9 on the Hot 100 singles chart.
The song won a Grammy Award for Best Instrumental Arrangement Accompanying Vocalist(s) and also got a Grammy nomination for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocals.
Absolutely on the Best Instrumental Arrangement.
It seems appropriate that a song intended as an homage to soul music would get better notice by a bona soul/R&B act - not that there was anything wrong with the Beatles' version.
(Ed. note: Let's take a short break from our political coverage, with all the attention today on Michigan and Arizona, and delve into some the best music ever made, including a must-watch video... This is Marc's third guest post at The Reaction. His first, on how Steve Jobs represented much of what's wrong with the U.S. economy today, can be found here. His second, on how Ronald Reagan laid the groundwork for the death of capitalism, can be found here. For more of his writing, check out his great blog, Beggars Can Be Choosers. -- MJWS)
**********
Marc McDonald is a Texas journalist who runs the progressive political blog Beggars Can Be Choosers.
I've long been a fan of The Beatles. And I've long been fascinated by
the topic of unexplained historical mysteries. So for this article, I
thought I'd combine the two.
As one of the 20th century's biggest
pop cultural phenomena, The Beatles have been endlessly analyzed and
discussed in literally thousands of books over the years. But for all
the analysis, there remain a few lingering mysteries about this band.
And with the passing of the decades, it's unlikely a lot of these
mysteries will ever be explained.
So, here, in my opinion, are the top mysteries surrounding The Beatles:
1. What was the origin of the song title "Eleanor Rigby"?
Not long after this 1966 song was released, Paul discussed its origins
in an interview. The title, he claimed came from two sources. "Eleanor"
was the first name of an actress, Eleanor Bron, who'd worked with the
band on the film, Help!. And the name "Rigby" came from a shop
sign that Paul once spotted in Bristol. And for many years, that was the
accepted explanation for the song's title.
Then, in the 1980s,
fans discovered the grave of an "Eleanor Rigby" in the graveyard of St.
Peter's Parish Church in Liverpool. Rigby, who'd died in 1939, was
buried on a site close to where Paul had first met John in 1957. (In
fact, as teenagers, both Paul and John had spent time sunbathing near
the spot). The grave's discovery was an amazing, spooky coincidence, and
Paul has since admitted that the name "Eleanor Rigby" may have stuck in
his subconsciousness for years and inspired the title of his 1966 song.
But if that's the case, then why in 1966 did Paul give interviews
specifically citing other sources for the origin of the song's title? A
definitive answer on this mystery remains elusive.
2. When The Beatles recorded their swansong album, Abbey Road in 1969, did they know at the time that it'd be their final studio album?
This is a mystery that has long divided Beatles historians. The Beatles
themselves in interviews over the years have given contradictory
answers to this question---the answer to which has been lost in the haze
of time. Note that The Beatles did record a few studio sessions in 1970
to put the finishing touches on the Let It Be album, which (although it was released after Abbey Road) was actually mostly recorded in January 1969, before the summer sessions that produced Abbey Road.
3. What was going on with all those wild and crazy studio sessions in 1967?
The year 1967 was a tremendously productive period for The Beatles. The
band generated an enormous amount of creativity during the sessions
that produced the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album.
And yet, if you look at the day-by-day studio logs (as has been noted by
Lewisohn), there were a number of truly strange sessions in 1967 that
never produced anything other than highly disorganized noise. During a
number of these sessions, the band spent many hours doing endless takes
of "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)," a true oddity of a song.
During other sessions, the band aimlessly jammed in lengthy sessions
that produced nothing but unlistenable noise (often played on
out-of-tune instruments). One of these sessions was on June 1, the very
day the Pepper album was released. (One might have thought that after the exhausting marathon Pepper sessions, The Beatles would have taken a break from the studio).
What
was going on at these wacky sessions? And what was the point? Why the
strange obsession with the throwaway ditty, "You Know My Name?" It's odd
how the band's 1967 sessions alternated between the extremes of tightly
focused, disciplined sessions and other sessions that were anarchic,
sloppy and totally unproductive.
4. What ever happened to The Beatles' infamous lost recording, Carnival of Light? Long considered the holy grail of unreleased Beatles recordings, Carnival of Light was recorded in 1967 during a session in which the band also worked on "Penny Lane." The existence of Carnival was brought to wide public attention in Lewisohn's Recording Sessions
book. Supposedly the song is an experimental piece that lasts around 13
minutes. There have been repeated hints over the years that the piece
is on the verge of release. But these never pan out. In 1996, Paul
McCartney sought to include the piece on the band's "Anthology" set, but
the other band members vetoed this decision. Then, in 2008, McCartney
indicated that the piece was nearing release, but nothing further has
been heard since.
5. Who was behind the cryptic voice that repeated the words, "Number 9," in John Lennon's "Revolution 9," the musique concrete piece that has baffled many a listener of the band's 1968 album, The Beatles
(popularly known as "The White Album")? To get the various sounds used
in the recording, Lennon and collaborator George Harrison rummaged
through the sound effects vaults at Abbey Road studios. The most
prominent sound fragment features a voice repeating the phrase, "Number
9." As Beatles author Mark Lewisohn noted in his The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions the identity of that mysterious voice has been lost to history.
6. Why, exactly, did The Beatles break up?
Nobody seems to be able to fully agree on why the most popular and
successful musical act of the 20th century broke up at the height of
their commercial and creative success. Ask any Beatles expert (or member
of the band, for that matter) and you'll get conflicting and
contradictory answers. Was it because of Yoko? Or was it the usual
"musical differences" clash that has driven many bands to split? Was it a
desire to simply move on and do something different? Or was it money
disputes? A case could be made for any and/or all of these reasons. But
the definitive answer remains elusive.
Whatever the reason for
the breakup was, though, it was such a powerful reason that the band
remained split forever. To get an idea of just how decisive the band's
breakup was, consider this: not only did The Beatles never record
together again, it's possible that all four members of the band never even met up once in all the years after 1970. The band's final publicity photos date from August 1969 and not one single photo
has ever emerged that show the band members together after 1970. In the
years since the split, two or three members would occasionally meet
here and there, but never all four together at the same time. Band
members collaborated on a few of Ringo's solo albums, but it appears
unlikely that all four were ever together in the same spot at the same
time. Sometime in August 1969, a photographer snapped a photo of the
band, not knowing that this was literally the final photo that would be
ever taken of The Beatles together.
The answer to some of these
mysteries may be cleared up in Lewisohn's upcoming official biography of
the band, a book that Lewisohn has been working on for decades. This
massive work will be released in three volumes, starting in summer 2012.
In a recent interview, Lewisohn promised that the book will offer many
new revelations and insights. The signs are good that Lewisohn can
deliver on this promise. After all, his Recording Sessions book
is one of the definitive works on The Beatles and itself was a
fascinating source of new insights about the world's most famous band.
One
thing Lewisohn's past work has revealed is that The Beatles' story is
so rich that, the closer you look at their work, the more fascinating it
becomes. It's the total opposite of the old saying, "If you like
sausage, you should never watch how it is made." With The Beatles, the
closer you look, the more intriguing their story is. Virtually every
song has a fascinating behind-the-scenes story. But for all the books
written about the band over the decades, Lewisohn has noted that The
Beatles' story "has been told often, but rarely very well." Here's
hoping that Lewisohn's labors will finally produce a biography worthy of
the band.
A nice clip of the lads playing "I Want to Hold Your Hand," with an intro by their producer, George Martin. What more needs to be said? (I think you have to click through to the YouTube site to get it, but that doesn't appear to be too difficult.)
It's hard to believe it's been 29 years since the death of John Lennon. Ironically, this complex man of peace who had a temper as large as all outdoors was shot to death by someone he barely knew.
Michael Jackson's death earlier this year throws this anniversary into stark detail. While Jackson arguably had as much influence over music, particularly American music, as John Lennon and the Beatles had, Lennon outclasses Jackson by a wide margin in his influence over American culture, American politics, and America's image. From the worst, Lennon's persecution at the hands of the Nixon administration, to the best, his ultimate inclusion as the ultimate insider in America, Lennon became a totem for the burgeoning liberal anti-war movement.
And a hero. I confess, my favorite Beatle as a Beatle is Paul McCartney -- he's just do darned cute! -- but my favorite Beatle as a human being and world citizen is John Lennon.
I look around me at the world today, and wonder what John might think? Would he say that we as a people, we as Americans, have backslid? Would we have slid had he been around to be in our faces on the news or on these egregious "talk shows" that pass for open debate? Would he have become so disgusted at Ronald Reagan and the forces of evil that crept across this land over the past thirty years that he would have thrown up his hands and moved to his farm in Delaware County to raise cows (been there, by the way)?
If we could wake him now, what would he say about September 11 and the aftermath? I have a pretty good idea what his opinion would be of George W. Bush and the Iraq war, but would he have been more forgiving on Afghanistan?
What would he say about the current healthcare debate? Would he point out that England has had national health for decades and seem quite happy with it? Would he point out that Jesus would have wept to see the resources of a government used to destroy the lives of its citizens, not heal them?
What would he say about a black American President, besides "it's about bloody time"?
What would he say about the internet, besides it's obvious distortion into a giant shopping mall? Would he approve of the fact that it's bringing billions of people closer together, despite the fact that it's also exposing the inherent hatred of those who fear change? Or would he take note that it still has a long way to go?
Would he have, as a Beatle, used the internet to its fullest ideal, to broadcast a message that billions could respond to in real time, to come together over him and reach out to each other? To see that we share as much in common with the farmer in Katmandu as we do the shopkeeper in Kankakee?
What would he say about technology?
What would he say about global warming? "We are all water from different rivers"?
It's 09.09.09, and that means one thing will dominate the news cycle: The Beatles.
EMI is re-releasing the entire Beatles catalogue in two versions: as recorded (meaning the earliest albums are in monoaural) and one digitally remastered in stereo. Nearly every fawning review has mentioned the beauty of the new recordings.
In addition, The Beatles: Rock Band videogame is being released. Again, the reviews are almost saccharine.
Now, I love The Beatles. When Sir Paul was at Citifield in July, I sat second row. I mourn every December 8 and November 29, despite the proximity of the dates. And Ringo is Ringo.
I have all the albums on vinyl and all the original releases of the CDs.
So please don't take the tone of this column as being curmudgeonly, altho I am certainly known for that. This is not about hating The Beatles.
This is about hating the money-making machine around them and the dilution of the artistry that is The Beatles.
According to the press releases and reviews, the intent of the dual-release was to capture a whole new market of fans for Beatles music: Millenials who might not have known Beatles' music. The idea is, play the game, buy the catalogue.
The catalogue has been remastered and from all accounts, the sound has been sharpened and honed to a finer edge.
And there's my beef.
Those original "records" were played by kids on "turntables" that were barely moving at 45 rpm (the speed of a single for you youngsters out there), with "needles"...yes, they touched the "record"...usually weighed down with a nickle (or a few pence for my Brit readers). Or we'd listen on an "AM radio" in monoaural with all kinds of static and cross-signal interference, and would lose the station in a car passing under a bridge.
My point being, the way we heard these records was not in soaped-up distinct digital form, but in sloppy ugly tinny crappy boxes and cans.
And we went nuts! I remember standing in front of a mirror for hours, mimicking Paul and John's playing style, and George's solos, trying to get John's singing posture...a turtle on his hind legs is the closest short description...or Paul's goofy smile and whipping of his head and hair just right.
I knew the lyrics to every Beatle song from With The Beatles to Revolver within a week of getting my hands on the album. After that, I was so blown away by the artistry of Sgt. Pepper's or Magical Mystery Tour or The White Album that it took a little longer.
All on crappy Denon turntables and Tandy cassette players and Westinghouse radios!
To release these albums completely remastered without that part of the experience, actually trying to hear the music, work out the chords, follow the baseline, is to deprive the listener of the thrill of discovery. Yes, maybe that squeak of the piano seat at the end of A Day In The Life now blasts thru the earbuds at full volume with so much detail you hear the farts of McCartney, but that treat on the vinyl was buried in the track that signaled the record player to pick up the needle! What a joy it was to find!
And I don't need to hear Paul's fingers slide down the neck of his Hohner to appreciate the baseline in Taxman.
This event, this stunt, speaks to me more of milking a cash cow, like the Anthology release of twelve or so years ago, than of bringing this music to a whole new audience. Which, by the way, was represented very nicely at the concert in July. At least the Anthology had the charm of bringing us two new Beatles songs, albeit in a really creepy fashion.
But this, this is pure piracy on the part of EMI.
So I guess I have to go buy it. But not Rock Band. I don't have room for a four-piece band...
A blog on politics, philosophy, science, sports, and the arts -- featuring news, commentary, and analysis by Michael J.W. Stickings and the Reaction team.
