"I originally chose the White Album, but then I thought, no, the White Album probably is my favourite Beatles record, but Sergeant Pepper is one of those records that everybody had and you heard it so many times that I didn't imagine I could ever possibly come back to it. But I have a librarian in me; some of the Wire things I've done I've made out of sources, to recreate something, and because EMI were so diligent about keeping all of the original material they were able to go back to the original 4-track tapes, put them all into Pro Tools sessions, get them all lined up and then start playing it back in a way that it was never played back. Because of the methodology of bouncing tracks- you'd record to a 4-track machine, then bounce it to another 4-track machine and whatever- by the time you'd gone seven or eight generations you're losing all of the top end on the original recordings. There isn't that kind of clarity there. There's clarity to Revolver that isn't in Sergeant Pepper because of all the layers of recording. And one of the remarkable things about the remaster of Sergeant Pepper is that clarity comes back with a vengeance. So the first thing that you can say about it is it actually sounds a lot more like Revolver than you ever imagined it did. And the second thing is they're right there in the room with you. It's completely present. The original recording was obviously really good. They were recording in Abbey Road with high end engineers. So what had sounded a bit mushy and indistinct is very clear. There are some things that I don't agree with. I don't like any of the tracks so much where they put the drums on one side because I hate that stereo picture, but they had their reasons for doing it. They tried to be as true as possible to the original mixes; that's the other thing, so you don't have a sense that this is a redo. You just have a sense that here's an ancient artefact that had been covered in grime and somebody's just cleaned all the grime off, and there you see the shiny thing in front of you."

"I got four, and there’s one more. It’s a biggie. And again, this is one that’s maybe a little bit of a stretch in terms of it being a con man movie, but I actually don’t think so. It’s F for Fake. If I was numbering these, this might be number one. It’s a movie that’s really hard to define. It’s pretty commonly termed a filmic essay by Orson Welles on the subject of fakery, but it’s a lot more than that. It’s so many things. I don’t even know how to start talking about it. At its essence, it is about what we were just talking about. It’s about the charlatans and fakery and the notion of fake versus real, and the notion of the con versus legitimacy, I guess. And he just digs into that pretty deeply. And also in a way that’s so incredibly entertaining. The way that the movie’s cut, also, you would think that, today with our shorter and shorter attention spans and our notions of fast cutting, you would think that the way that Orson Welles, the style in which he cuts this film, would be easily absorbed by us. But I actually… You know, I have friends of mine who are much, much younger than me. You know, it actually took a second viewing to kind of absorb the film. I mean, it really is still pretty insane, the abstract way that Welles cut this whole thing together and made the whole together work. I feel like he’s absolutely self-aware; that’s part of the act. That’s what’s fun. And that’s why that opening sequence in the train station, you see him putting on that character and very much doing the… You know, I think he’s aware of it. I think he’s also aware that it’s kind of funny, that that’s part of the gag, you know, is pretending to be somebody you’re not, putting that on. Putting on that big cape and that big hat, and being that guy. And, you know, if you’re Orson Welles, you can pull it off."