Beatles Cover

Pretty nice job guys. Thats a pretty ambitious cover! I would slow it down a bit. Your chosen tempo loses some of that "sleepy" feeling.

Twist
 
very nice, I loved the beat!

If you guys don't know it, there's a cover of this tune by Suggs, the former singer of Madness, in ska style. Check it out.

Cheers, Andrés
 
...good job

hey that was cool. Revolver is one of my favorite albums.
I dunno if it's the best album of all time as has been voted recently, I like Rubber Soul even a little better, but what the heck, anything by the fab four is awesome.

I agree that the tempo may be a little fast, but the backwards guitar fit nicely, like the original. It's good to hear a vocalist doing Beatles without trying to sound like Lennon. I get tired of hearing Americans pretend to be British when they do Beatles covers. For me it ruins it. Like those American punk bands who copped brit accents to be more "punk" - it's just not legitamate.

But this doesnt pretend ot be Lennnon from the grave,
It's honest to my ears.

good job. It's rewindable.
 
Being a Beatles fan, had to check it out :-)

Not bad. A couple of things, though. I too thought it was a little too fast. I don't mind a changed tempo in a cover, but it really does lose the sleepy feeling. I would also watch the pitch on the vocals. For the most part it's pretty on, but the main has a tendancy to go flat on the higher parts ("yawwwning"). The background vox might sit better in the mix if they were a bit softer, and perhaps with a tiny touch more reverb.

The main thing I didn't like was that too much was taken from the original. I'm of the opinion that a cover should say something new about a tune. The same bg vocals, bass break, backwards guitar, etc... it all seemed to much for me. I would rather have heard something totally different thrown in.

Still, it's a fun little number. Keep up the good work.
 
Very, very, very cool. The lead vocal sounds pretty good. What was the chain on that? I agree that the backing vox was a bit too forward. God, I love the Beatles.
 
yeah I don't mind covers that stick to the original pretty closely...

I thought the backing vocals had some pitch/tone issues..

esp on "and afterall..I'm only *sleeeeepping**"

the choice of harmonies there could have standed to be a bit closer to the original...too much emphasis on that lower part (which wavers in pitch).

All in all this sounds cool...enjoyable to listen to.

God, I love the Beatles. Revolver was voted the "best rock album" ever by CNN - is that what someone was reffering to earlier? In second place they had Radiohead with The Bends..

Personally I think Revolver would be down on my list a tad...White Album, Sgt. pepper, and Abbey Road...all beating it out. I dig "The Bends" though...I have no problem giving that a top 3 placement...

Oh, by the way - The Vines did a great cover of this on the I Am Sam soundtrack. Good covers all around on that one...I hate the Vines, bunch of ass clowns. But they did a good job on this one.
 
Thanks for the replies fellas,

Yeh we tried to stick pretty close to the original as possible - and really only did the backwards guitar to see if we could............

But you're right about the vocal tuning issues - We recorded it at tukkis' studio so i slept over that night - and I woke up the day we were recording the vocals with a cold, but it had to be done, so i did it.

Wes, I am aware of the vines' cover and i love it! I reckon the vines' rock the set, they're brave enough to try something different and succeed! (plus they're aussies!)

About the tempo, we originally wanted to do it as fast as the vines' version, but then the drummer musta drunk too much coffee or something! hahahahah

TrackRat - the vocals were recorded on a rode NT1000.

thanks alot

yiordanaki
 
i really dug this....great job.....vocals good....(aside from a few minor issues...no pun intended)....lol....that solo was very cool!!!.....i thought the mix was really pretty good...no big huge leap out you problems.......



nice work

jamal
 
Great job,you guy's definitly captured the feel of it.
Vocals sound pretty darn good for having a cold!:D

I liked the backwards git,nice touch.

Enjoyed it,thanks.

Pete
 
yeah dude. this kicks ass. I'd be proud of it.

to echo for the purpose of reinforcement, it's fast and the background vox are a little upfront for my taste. I'd like to hear them with a more ethereal feel. one new one, what's with the sleeping outro? I don't remember that?

damn, now I need a skiffle drummer.

stone
 
Yeh I agree it's too fast
The backround vocals I will add some more reverb to give it a more dreamy sound.

The outro we copied off the vines version.

Tukkis
 
holy cow!!!

at 1:09 i thought "takin my time" was actually one of the beatles!!!

some of the harmonies dont mix very good, like the actual notes are off.

finally REAL drums!!!!

needs reverb or something to soften it, my frind always used to tell me - "There is nothing reverb cant fix!"

well tukkis, yiordanaki...

another great tragedy.

better luck next time


balshazza


ps. dont think that im offending them or anything everyone, im actually related
 
I have to respond to some of these comments and suggestions.

People are mentioning pitchtone issues with the singing.
Put on the song Yellow Submarine. Now is it me or is the first "town" Ringo sings seriously flat and wavering? Could he have redone it? yes,Did he? no. Some of those background harmonies are little off too. Thankk Gawd the Beatles let total perfection take a backseat sometimes. First lesson to learn from The Beatles.

Also, you mention reverb, however in 1966 when they did this album, I don't think they were drenching there harmonies in reverb. Why should a cover version be diluted down with it?
I like the dry approach on this one. Too much reverb out there.
It's an STD as far as Im concerned.
Studio Transmitted Diseases: Reverb-itis.
Too much reverb. Less reverb sounds more like the beatles.
But I guess thats just personal preference.

I do they they should be lowered in the mix though, they do kind of jump out a little too much, but reverb wont fix that, use the fader instead and turn the track down. George Martin did it that way 9 of ten times. he never ran to a Lexicon unit.
Just my opinion, feel free to have a different one. Nobodys right, nobodys wrong.

One last thing, If you're going to do a Beatles cover, I like the approach you guys took by sticking close to the original.
Changing those bass breaks would ruin the song, IMO.

There's nothing I hate worse is when people take the liberty to rewrite a classic song. If you wanna hear The Sex Pistols do a version of Tommy, go ahead, but I rather hearing somebody doing justice toa cover in the tradition of the song, changing it completely can lead to some pretty scary results.

Anyways, just thought some input on the suggestions here....


keep rockin and rollin


.




.
 
very cool! this was great for the most part.. some minor pitch things with some of the 'sleeping' parts, but I enjoyed listening to it.. nice recording too.
 
good stuff.........all i can do is reitterate the back-up vox being off in pitch at times, but not hugely.......fun listen
 
A nice trip in time for me!

Has the Beet'uls flow definately!

Thanks for posting!
Joel
 
Okay,big Beatles fan here,just like the rest of the guys.
Yes it was faster,who cares.
It takes some balls to cover a Beatles tune and you pulled it off.
As far as the staying too close or going to far from the original debate....I guess you have to handle that on a song by song basis.
I will be sharing this with my family and friends,thanks for sharing it with me.
Why this song?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top