Tonight I finished 6 months of really hard work. In the last few weeks I have worked pretty much non-stop. I arrived home from work tonight and my beautiful wife provided me with pumpkin soup and a glass of shiraz. And in that setting, Neil Young's Silver and Gold sounded like the greatest album ever made. I really heard it tonight. And I have owned it for 10 years. Music is such a strange thing.

I have often enjoyed Lucinda Williams' but every now and then I feel so at odds with her view point that it sours the song for me. For example, in Passionate Kisses I find myself responding to her repeated cry of 'shouldn't I have this, shouldn't I have this, shouldn't I have all of this...etc with 'no - some people don't have clean water so i don't care about your problem with pens that run out of ink.'

Now I know that songs are just a snapshot of time and not a complete philosophy but I am wondering what otherwise good' songs have been spoiled for listeners in this way.

As much as I am slightly reluctant to begin yet another Beatles thread, I had the pleasure of listening to Beatles for Sale today. It is often an ignored record by their standards and most reviewers place it low down on the canon (see most recent Rolling Stone Record Guide and McDonald). The reasons are partly to do with timing: it comes after the truly great A Hard Day's Night (every song a winner and an originals only album); it includes covers that some find forced (Mr Moonlight)and some weaker original material (Baby's In Black).

But like many Beatles' albums these misgivings often disappear the moment you actually listen to it. I think No Reply and I'm a Loser are stand out Lennon tracks and I Don't Want to Spoil The Party anticipates Rubber Soul. But throughout the record you get the sheer joy of listening to the harmony singing of the two leads - I think that they are better on this album than anywhere else - I like If I Fell on AHDN but the harmony singing there is not effortless the way it seems here.

Overall, the rockabilly songs are great fun, I love Macca's vocal on Kansas City and the album seems (in parts) to be much a much earlier example of folk-rock than other candidates. For all of the misgivings some have about it, it is also, for me, completely free of stinkers. I'd rather listen to Mr Moonlight and Baby's In Black than Michelle (Rubber Soul) or Yellow Sub (Revolver) or Maxwell's SH (Abbey Road).

Vote 1. Beatles for Sale.

Mark Knopfler has been featured in a few threads and it got me curious about his brother David. In one sense, he hasn't done too badly... lots of albums made, including a compilation. Wondering if there are, in fact, major David Knopfler fans out there. What is his music like? Then I got to thinking about other siblings: Tim and Neil Finn who are pretty much equal I think and then to James Taylor's brothers who also made records. What has become of Mike McGear - Paul McCartney's brother who had a hit with Lily The Pink? How does Simon Townshend feel about playing in The Who? Delighted at his good fortune or champing at the bit?

I notice that GP rarely turns up in the pages of Word. He releases material quite regularly, definitely has a moment (perhaps two) in the sun. I often wonder whether the relationships between the artists and gatekeepers are just so crucial in determining the coverage. Certainly, I can't imagine that a GP special issue would move many copies. I used to regularly check in at his web site but his manner I find off-putting. Like many 'artists' he seems to feel obliged to provide comment on things about which he has little idea. Interestingly, I hear this in his music too which rather than being kind of "tough and uncompromising" is actually just finger wagging and moralistic. So is GP in the dog-house and are there others who are on the permanently uninvited to Word's pages list?

Watched Amazing Journey today ( the 2 hour doco made in 2007). I always like reading about The Who more than listening to them at length. Whenever I hear those early singles (Can't Explain, Miles, My Gen etc) the sheer power of the band still seems impressive. But is there another great band that had such a short run or were such a long time ago but somehow kept lingering? I'm thinking that Whos Next was the last great thing from them. I like some of Townshend's solo work but only one album "Empty Glass" really approaches 'greatness' (however one measures it). It is interesting that Townshend has not had another really fruitful period and there has never been a really strong comeback from him or the band overall despite the 2006 release Endless Wire. They have put a lot of energy into revisiting old work and concepts such as Lifehouse and Quadrophenia. Of course, this is just my view from Australia, in the UK it might feel rather different.

I just finished Geoff Emerick's memoir "Here, There and Everywhere" (foreword by Elvis Costello)which deals with his time as the engineer for The Beatles. It is a truly strange book; it does have quite a lot of interesting stories but is stunningly ungracious in parts. He hardly has a good word to say about George Harrison who occasionally produces "surprisingly" good guitar solos but on the whole is described as dour and ham-fisted. Emerick regards Lennon as a gifted song-writer but fairly clueless in other aspects and despite his gratitude towards George Martin for hiring him has hardly a good word to say about Martin as a producer.

It is the writing which is most appalling, particularly Emerick's attempts to use direct dialogue which never seem real. Instead, every piece of dialogue feels like a caricature (eg - Ringo: "Come on, Paul, you know how much I hate drum solos").

Wondering how many out there in the Word community have read the book. I don't recall reading a review but I imagine that there were some. I admit to being quite amazed at the amount of negativity Emerick has towards Starr, Lennon and Harrison and irritated by the overuse of the vertical pronoun as he describes the contribution that he himself made towards the Beatles sound.