Hi folks, Mike Brown, maintainer/compiler of "What Goes On" here.
I was made aware of this forum topic by an email from Fletcher, and we've had an off-list discussion. I don't think we'll see entirely eye to eye on this, but I just want to set some misconceptions straight from my side. Sorry this is a bit long, but there's a fair bit to respond to.
Clearly Fletcher has strong opinions on my website, but reading his posting shows that to some extent, he's missed the point of the website. Having heard from Fletcher, he's filled me in on why he's so down on it.
Fletcher describes these anomalies as "flaws", something which I have been keen to point out is not entirely the case -- and if you'd care to read the introduction section, maybe that will make it clearer. If I'd meant the site to be about that, it'd be called "Beatle Bloopers" or somesuch. Or "BeatlesSuck.com".
The rest of Fletcher's posting is talking about people he assumes to be "of my ilk" and I don't recognise any of the stereotyping expressed as being relevant to me, so I'll skip that bit. And the $450k Hi Fi that I don't own, because I'm not an audiophile nut. Most of the following forum comments seem to have been spurred on by Fletcher's misconceptions of my motives ...
Barry Hufker: Make that "mostly harmless" and you've got a deal
Apart from the bit about having lost the capacity to enjoy the art -- no no, I still enjoy listening to the Beatles *with* all these anomalies in there. Because as Fletcher said, they are part of the charm of the track. They catch my ear, but don't detract.
Level: The comment about "paying ruthlessly for the tools to do it" is obviously aimed at the other person Fletcher was talking about with the $450k Hi Fi. Again, that's not me. I'm sitting here listening on Spirit Absolute Zero speakers and a Samson Servo amp. Hardly the top end of equipment, but they'll do me. As for other tools: Cooledit. I'm guessing some of you guys are surrounded by far more expensive equipment, so let's not continue
hurling irrelevant audiophile insults ...
Wireline: I don't think I'm really trying to second guess anyone. I'm not saying that any of it should have been recorded differently, better, whatever. Or that Paul should've written better lyrics, Ringo played more interestingly etc. I leave that to people with a real oversize ego! Occasionally, I have to admit that something is "just plain old wrong", and unless someone convinces me that it is some stroke of musical genius that I've failed to appreciate, then I'll stick with it.
zmix: "Armchair quarterback of music?" and not creative. No, I can't sit down and write the next big hit. In fact, I don't really write much musically at all. I do play (keyboards, bass, guitar), sing a bit, I'm still at the "home recording" level of things. I let people who are better at it write stuff. Then, I tinker with it. That I *can* do. Re-word a clumsy vocal, fix a "what were you thinking, man?" harmony ... suggest different chords that are more interesting. I can get a reasonable recording down of the performance, and even do some turd polishing later if necessary. I'm not up there on the level of skill of you professionals, but certainly not an armchair quarterback. "Too perfect and it's a jingle" -- absolutely right. I even acknowledge that in the introduction, modern music has had all these things minutely battered out of it at the expense of having some decent music to listen to. I'm not happy about that either. On that, Fletcher and I seem to agree.
JJ: Yeah, that's a nutter you've got there. I get them too. I've had people tell me that it's really Elvis singing on "Oh Darling!", that they're channeling John Lennon and he has an announcement, that they've got some secret black box that can unmix mono tracks. I try and filter them out.
I don't go for the whole Paul Is Dead thing, or backwards hidden messages. I'm not that much of an obsessive!
wwittman: Thanks, at last someone that's understood the site. You've got it!
Your point about things being fixed in subsequent releases is right on.
If it's all about the artist's intention, and who the hell am I to second guess etc... then who the hell are these jumped up producers and engineers at EMI who go round "fixing" these things and taking all the soul out of the music? Eh? The Beatles wanted it like that, leave it alone!
Oh hold on ...
It's because *some* of the things *are* just out and out mistakes. They weren't intended, no matter what people here might say. They may be part of the charm of the track, but if EMI are prepared to go round fixing them, I'd have to have some large brass balls to tell EMI that they should leave them there.
*Some* of the things were intended, and were just plain weird. Inventive but weird. Those are covered too, and explained where possible ... Fletcher seems to have failed to see those bits. It's not all about mistakes, guys!
I am not saying that these anomalies are failings. They are *there*. People are curious about them. People are curious as to what they are, and why they are there. I'm *not* mounting a campaign to fix them. I'm not sending copies of "What Goes On" to EMI demanding them to sort it out. In fact, it's a bit of a bugger when they go and fix them, as I have to keep up with which ones are no longer there. Hey ho ...
Also some of the contributors to What Goes On are producers or engineers that had something positive and constructive to add, and in fact enjoyed reading the site. They helped clear up some common misconceptions about recording processes etc. that had crept past me.
What Goes On has been offered as a FAQ reference document through the main Beatles USENET groups for years, and has been commented on and used by thousands of fans. They get it -- mostly. A few have had a knee-jerk reaction to it. People who believed it to be an anti-Beatle site designed to expose the crapness of the Beatles. Oh well, there you go. I've tried to set them straight, and sometimes it gets through. Hundreds of people have contributed to putting it together by submitting new entries and corrections. They also understand it's motive and content for what it actually is.
Fletcher, to summarise your extensive email: You don't like the site, because of the possible effect on up-and-coming people in the recording industry. So, I've asked you, and I also ask anyone else here :-
The claim is that the site may mislead new generations of engineers, producers, A&R people into thinking that perfection in recording, at the expense of all else, is the way forward for music. To the detriment of your careers, and the music industry.
How can I make it clearer that it is not a quest for perfection? I really don't want my motives to be misunderstood!
If anyone has anything constructive to add, then I'm quite happy to hear from you, contact details are on the website -- I'll also keep an eye on this thread.
P.S. If you "clicked on the link, but didn't read the site because you already knew what it was about", can you please look again having read the above, and give it a second chance?
Mike.
Author
Topic: Why is it you never have a ball peen hammer when you need one? (Read 10318 times)