Helter Skelter tracks

You are right. Ugo.

It sounds like John played that bass with a drum stick instead of a pick.

Lots of noise near the end of the drum track. It sounds like overhead mics only. And Andrew was right. Ringo was a "basic" drummer at best. But then, he is far richer than I am, so I guess he wins.

(I see the Rolling Stones tracks were taken down due to copyright claims by MTV and ABKCO Records.)
 
Last edited:
The beatles had a right handed 6 string Fender precision bass, strung just like a guitar, so John and George could play bass when McCartney did leads, or played piano.

John played bass on "Let it Be". (and if you listen closely to the album version, you can hear several places where they dropped the bass in the mix cuz John played wrong notes.)

George played bass on a couple songs later on, also.
 
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.
 
John plays bass on this?

Yes, on that song only. But don't ask me why. :confused: Maybe Paul called off sick that day.
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.

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???
I think he means the second track, which is a guitar track.
I've always loved that sound at 3.02 ! It's a guitar chord. This is a mad far off theory but here goes; apparently, the Charles Manson 'family' became obsessed with the White album and used to listen to it incessantly, five tracks {"Revolution 1", "Revolution 9", "Blackbird", "Piggies" and "Helter skelter"} in particular. Manson and a number of the group were musicians {it's a shame it wasn't tunes they murdered.....} and they reckoned there was this weirrrrrd chord that turned up in those 5 songs which when put together amounted to evidence that the Beatles were talking to them........Anyway, since '78 I've reckoned that noise is that chord ! It's a daft theory, but a great chord.
Actually chords like that turned up in heavy rock from time to time. Right at the end of Trapeze's "Jury", there's a similar kind of thing.
 
Thanks gt – I can’t hear the sound from here but I believe you have it nailed. I agree it is a guitar chord but man what a sound.

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.
 
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.

Check out the movie Let it Be - George plays bass on Two of Us.

Hmm Revolution in the head I see a stocking stuffer.
 
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.

Playing this song live and depending on the guitar I had, I use to get that effect at 3:02 by either strumming real fast above the nut or below the bridge with heavy verb.









:cool:
 
The way they used the four tracks is really interesting.
The BGV are on the main vocal track.
.

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.
 
What a mess:)
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 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"
You could almost have been talking about "Helter skelter".

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.
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.



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.
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.
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.
 
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.

True.
The tracks that came around a while back from Sgt Peppers had similar set ups.
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 need to get that book Recording the Beatles.
 
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?

1234567890
 
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”.
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 !}
I need to get that book Recording the Beatles.
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.
 
You may be a lover but you ain't no dancer !

One of the things that these kind of 'deconstructions' demonstrate is that the entirety of sound in a recording is so much more than 'the sum of the individual elements', even when we dig particular parts like solos or impassioned vocals or whichever.
I was a thieving 14 year old on the verge of expulsion doing illegal recordings at school with electricity when I first heard "Helter skelter". I was doing a naughty cassette to cassette copy {the white album was the last of the Beatle LPs I heard}, hoping I wouldn't be busted by teachers, nurses or prefects and Helter skelter was like an electric shock to my system....

CCCRRRRWWWWW ! !

It didn't change my life.
But I loved it from the kick off, those strange guitars, Ringo's boofing drums, the scream at the end of "I've got blisters on my fingers !" (Tradition and McCartney says it's Ringo ~ Lennon on bass would seem just as likely). Those tape copies {one shit cassette to another} had virtually no bass on them so it was years before I was able to hear McCartney's Beatle bass playing. He was pretty good {!}, I can see why Lennon thought he was "one of the most innovative bass players to play bass". I always thought his bass sounds on the White album were great, especially this one. Then years after I got used to it, I discovered it was actually Lennon on bass. The raw track of the bass sounds wickedotious to me, I love that sound. I'm so glad I've heard all the individual rawness of these tracks.
But it's the entire piece that I still love. Replete with all it's roughness and things that often some homerecorders would say are a no~no. Bleed all over the place. Bass that sounds so clicky, it could almost be a tuned percussion instrument ! Shitty played sax {Lennon} and trumpet blown here and there {by their late roadie, Mal Evans} with no real purpose within the song. The drums on their own don't seem anywhere near as imposingly powerful as they do within the final mix. It is however, my favourite Ringo bit of drumming.
Yet it all works when put together. Because I heard this track early on in my musical life, I've always raised a quizzical eyebrow at those that maintain the Beatles played only girly pop and never rocked as hard as the Stones.
 
Back
Top