Log In
Register
1.36pm
14 October 2009
Offline
I know a few of you on here have read or are reading these books. I thought I'd share a few comments as I read through them.
I'm currently on the first book and although, as already pointed out, a lot of the analysis goes over the head on non-musical folk who cannot read or undestand musical quotation (like me), I am enjoying his breakdown on who played what and how the songs were mixed etc.
So far I'm only up to the end of 1964 and was beginning to think this man has really done his research and then I came across a gaping error he made! He has been very particular on the assignement of what was placed on each track during the recording process but he has either overlooked or missed an overdub on Things We Said Today . There is no mention of the acoustic guitar intro beats that also reappear throughout the song. We know these were added separately as they appear on the Love album isolated.
He also doesn't seem to point out the mistakes that were made on certain recordings, which I find a bit odd given the intricate detail he goes in to. i.e. John's missed guitar strums on She's A Woman .
So am I being too picky here or do other share my wonder?
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
2.29pm
31 March 2008
Offline
I don’t know if you’re being too picky. I think the books are absolutely incredible, though like you I’ve not read them all. I’ve been dipping in and out of them since Christmas, though I’ve read properly up to around 1963.
I think regardless of the odd omission you’ve got to admire the depth of research he did. My enjoyment wouldn’t be impaired by knowing he hadn’t mentioned an acoustic guitar overdub. Perhaps he simply didn’t notice them – the books were written before Love came out. There are a few other things (can’t remember what right now) that I thought he’d comment on and didn’t, but you can’t have everything.
I hadn’t heard of these books until relatively recently. Someone kept leaving comments on my song articles pointing out line-up errors, and cited Everett as his source. It wasn’t until I looked them up on Google Books that I realised how great they were. I can see why they didn’t have the popular reach of an Ian Macdonald or Mark Lewisohn book, but I’d say they’re just as essential if you really want to understand how the songs were written and recorded. The fact that I’ve never seen them in UK bookshops is disappointing.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
3.04pm
14 October 2009
Offline I resisted the temptation to dip in and out and decided to start from the beginning and work through. I thought I knew so much about their recordings but I've learned lots just reading up until the 1964 songs! As you say, great books.
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
4.34am
So far I’m only up to the end of 1964 and was beginning to think this man has really done his research and then I came across a gaping error he made! He has been very particular on the assignement of what was placed on each track during the recording process but he has either overlooked or missed an overdub on Things We Said Today .
So far I’m only up to the end of 1964 and was beginning to think this man has really done his research and then I came across a gaping error he made! He has been very particular on the assignement of what was placed on each track during the recording process but he has either overlooked or missed an overdub on Things We Said Today .
Point of interest here, back when the Beatles did all the recordings at Abbey Road Studios, and elsewhere the recording sheets where a afterthought. A lot of information was left out because at that time they thought that it real didn’t matter. No one at that time thought that their would be a long term legacy and that the Beatles would last maybe four years at tops. I read that both Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick would have done better records on the session logs had they known that the Beatles would change the face of music and leave such a huge legacy.
My point here is that a lot of people speculate about the recordings and make mistakes based on their own judgment of what they hear. The idea of four rhythm tracks bounced down to another four track where more instruments or vocals where added as overdubs is a correct assumption in most of their recordings after 1964 ( the start of 4 track recordings “I Want To Hold Your Hand ” and “This Boy “) . But when it comes down to what instruments or vocals going on to what track after the initial instrument bounce down can be reported incorrectly at times. Everything before 1964 ( four track start point), as listed above) is done live on either single or twin track with minimal amounts of overdubbing , but sometimes a lot of tape editing ( “She Loves You “)
Everything on the Abbey Road Album was done on a eight track console/tape machine, including four songs on the White Album . This is the Eight Track start point.
The Let It be/ Get Back sessions where done on two (2) four track Redd-51 consoles with the Studer four tracks in a eight track configuation
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
7.42am
14 October 2009
Offline If only they had recorded all the details……what a book THAT would have been to read! Oh well……..
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
10.43am
31 March 2008
Offline Minor correction – I Want To Hold Your Hand was recorded in October 1963, and released in the UK/US in November/December that year.
John S – there's some speculation that Sie Liebt Dich was a re-recording of She Loves You , as they couldn't find the original multitrack (or it wasn't usable). Any thoughts on that? I confess I've not listened closely enough to it to tell, but I suspect you have.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
5.57pm
Joe said:
Minor correction – I Want To Hold Your Hand was recorded in October 1963, and released in the UK/US in November/December that year.
John S – there’s some speculation that Sie Liebt Dich was a re-recording of She Loves You , as they couldn’t find the original multitrack (or it wasn’t usable). Any thoughts on that? I confess I’ve not listened closely enough to it to tell, but I suspect you have.
Regardless, 1963 or 1964, dates and times to me are kind of pointless but the actual start point of the Beatles using the four track desk (REDD-51 or REDD-47 ) with the Studer and or Telefunken 4 track machine is the actual start point where the Beatles recordings started to progess. That starting point is the recording sessions of “I wanna hold you hand” and “This Boy ” and is a very important time in music history in my opinion
“Sie Liebt Dich ” is a total waste of magnetic tape in my opinion
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
9.03am
14 October 2009
Offline Joe said:
Minor correction – I Want To Hold Your Hand was recorded in October 1963, and released in the UK/US in November/December that year.
John S – there's some speculation that Sie Liebt Dich was a re-recording of She Loves You , as they couldn't find the original multitrack (or it wasn't usable). Any thoughts on that? I confess I've not listened closely enough to it to tell, but I suspect you have.
I cannot understand how anyone can think the backing track to She Loves You and Sie Liebt Dich are the same! They are totally different!
The 'giveaway' is Lennon's “chanking” guitar……it simply doesn't do that is the German release.
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
5.39pm
I cannot understand how anyone can think the backing track to She Loves You and Sie Liebt Dich are the same! They are totally different!
The ‘giveaway’ is Lennon’s “chanking” guitar……it simply doesn’t do that is the German release.
Listen to “She loves you” through a real good pair of headphones , very LOUD and you can tell the song was created from editing of different takes or parts where dubbed over to fix mistakes. The song its core was done on either a single (delta) mono track or twin tack machine using the REDD-47 tube console in studio two. It appears that the vocals on “Sie Liebt Dich ” are vocal overdubs to the rhythm tracks of takes. Abbey Road Studios, would make rhythm takes, then during the over dubbing process (if any), that take would then would be copied ( tape generation, loss of tape hiss and noise) to another tape machine in case a mistake was made to the original session. They then had the original to redo the process if someone screwed up. This sounds very labor intensive but remember Abbey Road Studios in the early sixties was very archaic compared with other studios in the Uk and the United States. Most of the equipment was designed by EMI Hayes with the idea that it would be tested at the studio at the address of 3 Abbey Road . Guess who they used to test that new equipment out? The timing was just right to see how well that equipment would work and if it lived up to the standards of the people who ran EMI. When you think about the early Beatles recordings ( before 4 track start point) you have to think simple and dont over complicate what you think you hear. It’s important to think of the songs as done live with a minimal amount of dubbing, but at times large amounts of editing to create the experience you hear.
John Senchak Beaolgist john@antihotmail.com
5.48pm
14 October 2009
Offline Yes, I've always known it was edited together from various takes. In fact they fixed a really bad edit in the Remasters very well. What I'm saying is there is no way the edited backing track (vocals or no vocals) are the same for each recording. I would therfore imagine at the time of making Sie Liebe Dich they STILL had the master tapes……..
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
9.34pm
mjb said:Yes, I've always known it was edited together from various takes. In fact they fixed a really bad edit in the Remasters very well. What I'm saying is there is no way the edited backing track (vocals or no vocals) are the same for each recording. I would therfore imagine at the time of making Sie Liebe Dich they STILL had the master tapes……..
Right because once the one or two instrumnets tracks (rythmn) where bounced down to a single track of another machine either for the purpose of overdubbing vocals or to add another instrument, the original tracks where locked in place and couldn't be changed forever. Furthemore, after a while more and more compression and limiting was including and this could not be changed either because it was added before the sound went to the tape machine. Due to the lack of tracks, instruments where locked together for the sole purpose of releasing in mono anyway. It didn't matter to spread tracks across the stereo image because it just wasn't necessary , everyone was listening in mono except the elite few who had HIFI sets. Once four tracks came along you could bounce four tracks, into two going into one track and the other two going to the other, which still gave you two tracks open after the bounce down. This gave the engineer more options because not everything was mixed to one track, then locked in place.
The below is more or less the signal path through the REDD-47(8 microphone input) Redd-51 (10 microphone input) board
microphone~ line amplifier~ limited EQ~ line amplifier~ Microphone faders 1-10 ~ line amplifier out~ outboard compressor or limiter~ line amplifier in~- Multi-track-faders (center four on console) ~- line amplifiers~ echo out or tape machine out
Keep in mind the above is basic, and not very techincal as the actual recording console (either the 47 or 51) was not all that complicated Note,that their where many switches to combine microphone inputs due to the fact that ultimately you are dealing with more microphones then you are with multi-tracks.
Redd-47 console had 8 microphone inputs/ two faders where used for echo out
Redd-51 console had 10 microphone inputs/ with the echo chamber Faders ( in and out) placed in front of the level meters .
The above is key because this is the main reason why the Beatles music can NOT be remixed from main sessions tapes because many of the instruments are locked together and can NOT be changed.
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
3.55pm
14 October 2009
Offline Whatever……I will stick by my original statement and that is the backing track on She Loves You is not the same as the backing track on Sie Liebe Dich! Lennon's guitar is quite simply VERY different both in tome and the way he strums. It's so plain to hear……..
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
5.06pm
mjb said:Whatever……I will stick by my original statement and that is the backing track on She Loves You is not the same as the backing track on Sie Liebe Dich! Lennon's guitar is quite simply VERY different both in tome and the way he strums. It's so plain to hear……..
You are fixated on one Beatles song but you have to look and the grand picture of Abbey Road Studios and what they did for the development of recording music. Looks at the big picture here, from “She Loves you” all the way to Pink Floyd's “Dark side of the moon”. From archaic tube consoles all the way to the development of transistor recordings (TG serious) consoles to around 1975. It's not “What ever” you can't just look at their Beatles music as just songs. You have to go much farther and look at the recording process , and the development of what Abbey Road did to change the face of music forever.
It's like the people who look at sixties music as nostalgia. These people are total idiots and are not taking the music very seriously. Music recordings are history and need to be studied in great detail , not looked at as being a vehicle to remember things by. This is why their is so many books written about The Beatles and if you want to study music you have to start somewhere. The best place to start is doing your history lessons on Abbey Road Studios from 1931 to the late seventies.
You might actual learn something
John senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
“Music is not nostalgia”
5.41pm
31 March 2008
Offline I think someone should be able to discuss just one or two Beatles songs here without being told they're missing the bigger picture. Likewise, a person can analyse the genius of The Beatles' songwriting and performance without caring one jot about tubes, transistors or input paths. The fact is The Beatles helped innovate in so many areas of life, just one of which (and probably the most important, I grant) was studio recording.
Music *is* nostalgia for many. These people aren't “total idiots”; they've just learnt to find joy in something without wanting or needing to know everything about it. Someone outside my window has parked a beautiful Morris Minor car – am I an idiot for admiring it without knowing the history of motoring? I hope not. Would my admiration be enhanced by knowing which spark plugs or carburettors they used in the manufacturing, or what process came before they settled on the final design? I doubt it, as I don't really care about cars.
Likewise, most people don't care about the recording process; they just like The Beatles' music, lyrics, clothes, hair, personalities, films, artwork and anything else that turns them on. The real reason The Beatles were geniuses, and why so many books are still written about them, is that they appealed to millions of people on so many levels. Nobody else before or since has done that.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
5.35am
:
I think someone should be able to discuss just one or two Beatles songs here without being told they're missing the bigger picture.
(agree, but I disagree that if one did the proper research, he or she would have a lot better understanding of the Beatles Music. For years, I use to think that there was more, some hidden data that no one knows about, and in fact I was right. People should know about this information, otherwise they are missing out on a lot of things that put their songs in perspective . This is all I am doing, puting their music in proper perspective because the truth is real out there)
Likewise, a person can analyse the genius of The Beatles' songwriting and performance without caring one jot about tubes, transistors or input paths. The fact is The Beatles helped innovate in so many areas of life, just one of which (and probably the most important, I grant) was studio recording.
(Oh….. but this is where I disagree with you my friend, because the Beatles did a lot of music history, with the least amount of technology, and this is what makes it so amazing. Without the staff at Abbey Road (and Sir George Martin), that great song writing and amazing performances would have never taken place. Something , a passion for music, a desire of being part of something so phenomenally great, that it drove ordinary people to do things that to this day, can be considered revolutional . These people where the Edison's , Alexander Graham Bell's and Tesla's of modern pop recording and it all happened in the UK. )
(Yess it still it hasn't been duplicated and it never will, this is why it should be studied in full because the Beatles are music art on magtic tape, and guess who was controling the canvass, you guessed it the people who worked at 3 Abbey Road )
Turn off your mind, relax and float down stream !
John Senchak Beatlogist , john@antihotmail.com
9.41am
14 October 2009
Offline 8tracktgdesk said:
You are fixated on one Beatles song but you have to look and the grand picture of Abbey Road Studios and what they did for the development of recording music. You might actual learn something
If you read back over this thread you will see that my reference to She Loves You / Sie Liebe Dich is NOT A FIXATION but merely an answer to a comment made by Joe. And I do read and I do learn, so maybe you could try not to be quite so condescending my friend 
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
7.57pm
If you read back over this thread you will see that my reference to She Loves You / Sie Liebe Dich is NOT A FIXATION but merely an answer to a comment made by Joe. And I do read and I do learn, so maybe you could try not to be quite so condescending my friend
Wow, interesting post, but I don't think that I am condescending, but I do consider myself very passionate regarding Abbey Road Studios and how they influenced the Beatles (other other well known groups) recordings. It's not the other way around. Sie Liebe Dich is just what they call a varation of a theme , just the same song or rhythm tracks that are rearranged to appease a certain group, and or trying to obtain a goal (hit record). Many groups in the sixties did this and a a very good example of this is Spooky Tooth who used the the same organ melody in many of their hit songs. Why spend time talking or debating about a song that real doesn't matter, has no real merit, and is just geared for the people in Germany. Wow, the Beatles went back into Abbey Road Studios, did new vocal (in another language) overdubs over rhythm tracks that where edited. Maybe it matters to the people in Germany because they can understand it, but to me it's just a waste of magnetic tape, nothing more, nothing less. It just doesn't matter.
Now if you wanted to discuss a song like Girl well, now I will go on and on about song structure, middle eights, bars, verses , timing refrains, lyrics, and other points of interests. Try me…..
John Senchak Beatleogist John@antihotmail.com
(middle 8's you just got to love them !!!)
4+5=9 Number 9 Number 9
7.07am
14 October 2009
Offline Joe – we should have had our own thread on She Loves You / Sie Liebe Dich. That would have at least pleased John who isn't quite grasping it in this particular one
"If we feel our heads starting to swell.....we just look at Ringo!"
4.12pm
mjb said:Joe – we should have had our own thread on She Loves You / Sie Liebe Dich. That would have at least pleased John who isn't quite grasping it in this particular one
Excuse me….. okay getting back on topic here, as stated before any person who writes a book about the Beatles and didn't work during that period at Abbey Road Studios or was part of their recording process , real doesn't have a clear understanding of how their music was developed. Sure Walter Everett wrote a book about the Beatles, but was he there during the recording process? What he is writing is his own speculation, interpretation, opinion or basing information on other third party research to come up with some type of conclusion about their music. If you are talking about books written by Sir George Martin or Geoff Emerick then you can base what they write as one hundred percent fact, not speculation. I seen to many Beatles books that are one hundred percent crap and don't write in the theory of musicology. The point is that I do grasp it, maybe if more people would read the right books then more people would understand where I am coming from. The point being is that if you want to study the Beatles and have a clear understanding of their music, then you must research Abbey Road Studios first. Who else here is doing it? From the many posts in the forums that I've read , it apparent the admin might know where I am coming from, then again I could be wrong
John Senchak Beatlogist john@antihotmail.com
11.43am
31 March 2008
Offline As for it being a waste of magnetic tape: in Revolution In The Head, Ian Macdonald posits the theory that The Beatles’ unwillingness to re-record any of their other hits in foreign languages essentially ended the practice (which had been common up until then). He cites this as one of their less-acknowledged but nonetheless significant achievements. You may disagree with that, but I’d say it demonstrates why those songs are worth discussing.
“it apparent the admin might know where I am coming from, then again I could be wrong“
Please, call me Joe
As for understanding your points, I do, but if you actually read Walter Everett’s books you’ll find that he’s less interested in the recording process as a central focus. As the titles suggest, he’s primarily interested in their development as musicians, and he uses different methods at various times as appropriate – lyrical, notation, choice of cover versions, recurring musical motifs, recording notes and so on. Now, we know you think the studio is the basis for everything, but as a music theory professor he explores a different (and no less important) angle. Have a look at the books on Google and you’ll see that they’re more than worthwhile:
[edit: links no longer available]
Any decent historian can illuminate a period from the past without having been there. That’s why they’re writers. They can use the same research tools and read the same books that you may have done, and carry out extensive interviews to get to the story. That’s what the writers of Recording The Beatles did, and that’s what Walter Everett did too. George Martin and Geoff Emerick were incredible in the studio, but they’re not great writers. It’s true that there are a lot of crap Beatles books out there, but to say every one that doesn’t focus on the studio is worthless is massively missing the point.
Anyway, I guess you’ve established that you think the studios should be the starting point for any discussion. But to keep coming back to it time and time again might inhibit others from joining in what might otherwise be a varied discussion. This is a forum for everybody, not just for musicians, studio staff or historians (amateur or otherwise), and I wouldn’t want to keep covering the same old ground unless it’s directly relevant. Would that be OK?
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
2 Guest(s)