It sounds like John played that bass with a drum stick instead of a pick.
John plays bass on this?
What is the sound at 3:02?
It’s on the second guitar track
John plays bass on this?
Lennon also played bass on "Back in the USSR". According to McCartney George played bass on "She said, she said" on the earlier "Revolver".Yes, on that song only. But don't ask me why. Maybe Paul called off sick that day.
Interesting, the Beatles trivia just keeps on coming.
One thing about that song that always makes me go – What?
What is the sound at 3:02?
It’s on the second guitar track and I guess it’s a guitar but to me it always sounded like a train trying to stop. I looped it last night and I still can’t figure it out.
But Paul’s vocals – jeeze what a set of pipes he had then.
I think he means the second track, which is a guitar track.I'm trying to find it, but the second guitar track is only 1:45. How can there be something on it at 3:02???
Lennon also played bass on "Back in the USSR". According to McCartney George played bass on "She said, she said" on the earlier "Revolver".
Actually, there was alot of instrument swapping in the Beatles, McCartney knocking out the "Taxman" solo for example. McCartney plays drums on a few tracks on the White album, Lennon turns up on lead guitar quite a bit and bass on "The long and winding road" and if anyone is really that interested in who played what, when, Ian McDonald's "Revolution in the head" gives all those kinds of details as well as being a sooooooperrrrrb book. Take it on a long flight or train journey.
Interesting, the Beatles trivia just keeps on coming.
One thing about that song that always makes me go – What?
What is the sound at 3:02?
It’s on the second guitar track and I guess it’s a guitar but to me it always sounded like a train trying to stop. I looped it last night and I still can’t figure it out.
But Paul’s vocals – jeeze what a set of pipes he had then.
The way they used the four tracks is really interesting.
The BGV are on the main vocal track.
.
McCartney says that he read an interview with Pete Townshend in which he said that the Who's upcoming single {probably "I can see for miles"} was the loudest, dirtiest most raucous song they'd yet done, so he was really looking forward to hearing it. When he did hear it, he was really disappointed, thinking it was actually quite tame, so he determined to write a song that was really sonically dirty, messy, raucous, wild and bombastic.What a mess
You could almost have been talking about "Helter skelter".You ever wonder what kind of reviews some of the biggest songs in rock history would get here in the MP3 Clinic if being heard for the first time?
I often hear tunes and notice things that, if it was just some home-recorder posting it, would be shot down right away.
"Stairway" to Heaven" is way too long and the drums don't come in until about 5 minutes into the tune. I'm sure some of our "experts" here would be telling the OP that it's a long, boring song (I realize many people think it's a long boring song anyway) and that it has to lose about 2 minutes to ever become a hit. Those flutes are really corny, too. You might want to try another patch, like an organ or something, but the flutes gotta go.
"I am the Walrus". That electric piano at the beginning is way too distorted and so are the vocals. You need to re-track those. The fade-out's way too long and gets really noisy. Remove some of those tracks, will ya?
I was going to post 4 or 5 other examples, but you get the point. Just look at the guitar "solos" Neil Young gets away with. If anyone posted any of that, they'd get laughed off the board.
So, my point is....I have no idea what my point is....I guess it's that, once you're an established star, you could put out crap that an un-known home recorder would be told "This sucks"
I've never come across a good review of "Helter skelter" as far as I can recall. It's like one of those songs that critics revile but musicians and likers of the group love to headbang to.I wasn't trying to say that the songs we consider to be classics actually suck. On the contrary, I was trying to say that, given a little "rep" leeway, many people that are so-called nobodies might be considered geniuses if formulas and over-critical analysis didn't get in the way, which often happens here.
And I'm not ranting against anything that goes on here. This was really just a passing thought that popped into my mind while listening to "Rocky Racoon" and thinking "Man, if I posted this tune, I'm sure it would get crucified for the mix, the vocal performance, etc..." But it's an AWESOME little ditty.
When they did the first three takes, one version was nearly 11 minutes, one was nearly 13 and the third was over 27 minutes long ! But with "Revolution 9" on the album, it was felt that it had to be cut down to 'regulation' length. If you ever listen to the third 'Anthology' album, there's a 3 minute snippet of the 27 minute version and it sounds so bleedin' lame ! I'm sooooo glad it wasn't released. On the chorus, McCartney sings "Helter skelter, hell for leather...".The way they used the four tracks is really interesting.
The BGV are on the main vocal track.
So they had to have all those recorded and ready and mixed just right before the main vox was recorded.
But with only four tracks what did they do first?
Did they do a whole song scratch track then record over it?
I thought I read once that this song is really like 9 minutes long.
It hurts my infinite tracks head to think about it.
Be a good boy for old Santa Clueless, now....Hmm Revolution in the head I see a stocking stuffer.
Not necessarily. It depends on how these 4 tracks were obtained. Like why are there drums on the guitar track? They may have been combined somewhere through the years and this is what's left.
mccartney says that he read an interview with pete townshend in which he said that the who's upcoming single {probably "i can see for miles"} was the loudest, dirtiest most raucous song they'd yet done, so he was really looking forward to hearing it. When he did hear it, he was really disappointed, thinking it was actually quite tame, so he determined to write a song that was really sonically dirty, messy, raucous, wild and bombastic.you could almost have been talking about "helter skelter".
i read that too somewhere
i've never come across a good review of "helter skelter" as far as i can recall. It's like one of those songs that critics revile but musicians and likers of the group love to headbang to.
When they did the first three takes, one version was nearly 11 minutes, one was nearly 13 and the third was over 27 minutes long ! But with "revolution 9" on the album, it was felt that it had to be cut down to 'regulation' length. If you ever listen to the third 'anthology' album, there's a 3 minute snippet of the 27 minute version and it sounds so bleedin' lame ! I'm sooooo glad it wasn't released. On the chorus, mccartney sings "helter skelter, hell for leather...".
When they did the released version, the band had just discovered that emi had a new 8 track machine that was secretly being tested and they 'nicked' it without anyone knowing for some of the latterly recorded tracks on the white album. Whether this was one of them isn't clear but they tended to get the music down first then record the vocals. They don't appear to have gone the 'scratch tracks' route much, if at all, unlike us in the homerecording world, where it's often a necesity. They did do lots of overdubbing and re~recording of parts though. Sometimes, lead and backing vocals were done simultaneously, sometimes not. I've long felt that lennon and harrison in particular had voices just made for backing vocals, especially with a bit of adt on them. true dat - their harmonies are quite loverly
one of the outstanding features for me of beatles songs throughout the 60s is that because they worked within strict limitations that didn't apply to many of their contemporaries that used independent studios, they feature all kinds of innovations and balancing, stuff that simply didn't apply once 8, 16 and 24 track came along. Being so limited affected the way they worked and the order they recorded in but also contributed towards their unique sound because the whole is really so much more than the sum of the parts. ha - yeah - i tried mixing the sgt peppers tracks. What was i thinking?
Yeah, track sharing is something I've had to make lots of use of with an 8 track portastudio ! One becomes a very decisive individual with it, as well as a mixing gymnast {sadly, as opposed to genius !}A guitar track would suddenly have the orchestra come in.
With only four tracks they had to plan well and be damn sure what they bounced was “it”.
I would love to buy this one but it's over £221 on ebay. It was going for $100 when it first came out but I'm loath to spend that kind of money on a book. This one however, is one of five or six utterly priceless books on the band in the studio. Sometimes, they turn up reasonably priced.I need to get that book Recording the Beatles.