Teasing the Korean Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Just finished 'Help' I'd always assumed the 'approximate' tunings were a fault of off-centre disc pressing or rushed CD mastering. But I still hear some dodgy instrumental intonation on these recordings. The falling arpeggios after the initial verse on the title track, for example. Just sounds a bit flat to me. Did you ever notice on "You're Gonna Lose That Girl" how flat the opening vocals are in relation to the piano underneath? Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Just finished 'Help' I'd always assumed the 'approximate' tunings were a fault of off-centre disc pressing or rushed CD mastering. But I still hear some dodgy instrumental intonation on these recordings. The falling arpeggios after the initial verse on the title track, for example. Just sounds a bit flat to me. Did you ever notice on "You're Gonna Lose That Girl" how flat the opening vocals are in relation to the piano underneath? Yes! This evening! I'd have thought George Martin - with his reputation - would have dealt with that. Maybe he was guilty of assuming a pop audience wouldn't notice. Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Consumer-grade digital audio programs today have functions that are light years beyond those of top shelf analog equipment back then. Nowadays, musicians obsess over every little detail, using auto-tune, punch-ins, etc. In the 60s, they didn't even bother tuning their instruments before they rolled tape. And I love those records for that very reason. "I Got You" by James Brown is totally out of tune. The horns, guitar, and bass don't match up. Paul's voice cracks in "She's a Woman." Things were so much more real back then. Quote
JSngry Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 That and the fact that pop records back then were made on fairly rigid timetables. That would soon change... But apparently somebody knew something was wrong... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSPmb0a5vZA The lead-in to that first bridge is simply marvelous, and more than a little reminiscent, not in a "copycat" way but more of a "great minds thinking alike" type way. Quote
Brad Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Consumer-grade digital audio programs today have functions that are light years beyond those of top shelf analog equipment back then. Nowadays, musicians obsess over every little detail, using auto-tune, punch-ins, etc. In the 60s, they didn't even bother tuning their instruments before they rolled tape. And I love those records for that very reason. "I Got You" by James Brown is totally out of tune. The horns, guitar, and bass don't match up. Paul's voice cracks in "She's a Woman." Things were so much more real back then. Which is probably why it takes year for a group to get a record out nowadays. Quote
JSngry Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 punch-ins Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records... Quote
Teasing the Korean Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records... Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level. Edited October 4, 2009 by Teasing the Korean Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records... Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level. Most jazz records, however, still seem to get recorded pretty quickly. Except for Verve recordings where it takes ages to get Herbie Hancock/Sting/Peter Gabriel etc to phone in/e-mail/upload their parts. Quote
JSngry Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records... Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level. Yeah, I agree. Quote
felser Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records... Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level. Most jazz records, however, still seem to get recorded pretty quickly. Except for Verve recordings where it takes ages to get Herbie Hancock/Sting/Peter Gabriel etc to phone in/e-mail/upload their parts. So many of them are on such a tight budget compared to the pop releases, due to the diminished sales expectations. There's a lot of jazz stuff from the 70's that, much as I like it, could have benefitted greatly from more preparation and more recording time. Muse, Strata-East, Tribe, Black Jazz a bunch of that stuff is wonderful but in places overly ragged clearly because of the rushed nature of the thing. Consider something like Mtume's 'Alkebu-Lan' or the Muse Clifford Jordan's, and how that is so much less than the sum of the parts seemingly should be. But with the underlying economics, I'm sure that's the best they could do, and I'm sure glad they did it. Chuck could probably speak to this phenomenon well. Quote
JSngry Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 The Mtume thing was recorded live, wasn't it? Quote
JETman Posted October 4, 2009 Report Posted October 4, 2009 Plenty of punch-in's on those old Beatles records... Yes, but they're much easier to do now. You can easily assemble a master take of a track digitally using bits and pieces of things. My point was digital technology allows you to obsess to a whole new level. Most jazz records, however, still seem to get recorded pretty quickly. Except for Verve recordings where it takes ages to get Herbie Hancock/Sting/Peter Gabriel etc to phone in/e-mail/upload their parts. So many of them are on such a tight budget compared to the pop releases, due to the diminished sales expectations. There's a lot of jazz stuff from the 70's that, much as I like it, could have benefitted greatly from more preparation and more recording time. Muse, Strata-East, Tribe, Black Jazz a bunch of that stuff is wonderful but in places overly ragged clearly because of the rushed nature of the thing. Consider something like Mtume's 'Alkebu-Lan' or the Muse Clifford Jordan's, and how that is so much less than the sum of the parts seemingly should be. But with the underlying economics, I'm sure that's the best they could do, and I'm sure glad they did it. Chuck could probably speak to this phenomenon well. The stuff recorded in the 70s on labels like Muse also suffered due to the rubber-bandy sound of a double bass fed through an amp, and due to poor recording techniques overall. I find that these things sometimes take away from the quality of the music, and permanently lock it into another time period far far away. Quote
Alexander Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 A couple of things that have been pissing me off a bit about "Revolution In the Head": One) As I said before, MacDonald is a bit on the grouchy side and he has a tendency to come down hard on some songs in a way that I think is unwarranted. I especially find his dismissal of "Helter Skelter" to be completely wrongheaded. I think the Beatles do pretty GOOD proto-metal. What it comes down to (as is revealed in his text) is that MacDonald doesn't LIKE metal and sees no redeeming quality in it. That's fine, of course, but it queers his argument a bit, I think. Two) Some of his factual errors are distracting. The first, mentioned here, is saying that either Ringo or George sang the "Dennis" part on "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" when it is OBVIOUSLY Paul. I've never heard it any other way, nor have I ever met anyone who thought otherwise. It sounds like Paul. Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton. Quote
JSngry Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 Alan King was a main change on Capitol Quote
felser Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 The Mtume thing was recorded live, wasn't it? Yes, live at the East and clearly underrehearsed/underprepared. Quote
felser Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 What's wrong with nostalgia anyway? Me, I listen to what I want to listen to at any given time, and don't much worry about what proporton of the reason is "nostalgia" and what proportion is "quality" (surely both are involved in many ways, as are many other factors at other times, like "trendiness"). If I'm enjoying it, I'm enjoying it. It's my collection, my time, my enjoyment. Bit of a silly argument overall to me, and pretty elitist/snobby. Quote
Jim R Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton. Hmm... I think most of your corrections make sense, but it was Freddie King that was a major influence on Clapton (not necessarily to the exclusion of Albert, but Clapton has made it very clear that Freddie was a huge influence on him). Anyway, this whole thing sounded like a string of incorrect assumptions, so I just did a little online searching. It appears that it was Harrison, not Clapton, who dubbed the guitar "Lucy". The Gibson website suggests that Harrison named it after Lucille Ball... the iconic redhead... (?!). At this point, I'm prepared to NOT believe anything I read about this story. The guitar in question was originally a goldtop owned by Rick Derringer, who had it refinished in red. Clapton got it from Derringer, and then gave it to George. Quote
Brad Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 Isn't Lucille what BB called his or do I have that wrong? Quote
Jim R Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 Isn't Lucille what BB called his or do I have that wrong? You have that right. Quote
Cliff Englewood Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 A couple of things that have been pissing me off a bit about "Revolution In the Head": One) As I said before, MacDonald is a bit on the grouchy side and he has a tendency to come down hard on some songs in a way that I think is unwarranted. I especially find his dismissal of "Helter Skelter" to be completely wrongheaded. I think the Beatles do pretty GOOD proto-metal. What it comes down to (as is revealed in his text) is that MacDonald doesn't LIKE metal and sees no redeeming quality in it. That's fine, of course, but it queers his argument a bit, I think. Two) Some of his factual errors are distracting. The first, mentioned here, is saying that either Ringo or George sang the "Dennis" part on "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" when it is OBVIOUSLY Paul. I've never heard it any other way, nor have I ever met anyone who thought otherwise. It sounds like Paul. Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton. I agree with your first point, Macdonald does not like the fact that somewhere in the 60's, "Pop" turned into "Rock" and to an extent he has a point, that "Rock", although some of it is excellent, did produce some real shite full of really lazy, excessive noodeling. However after listening to "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" a few times I am starting to come around to the idea that it's George. It's just there are a couple of words that really don't sound like Paul's voice, even Paul doing a bad impression of someone. I'm nearly sure anyway. Quote
Cliff Englewood Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 Another one I picked up is in a footnote to his analysis of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" when he says that Clapton named his red Gibson Les Paul "Lucy" in emulation of Albert Collins. I don't know if Albert Collins ever named his guitar anything, but I DO know that Albert King had a guitar named "Lucy" (see his Stax recording "I Love Lucy") and that Albert King was a major influence on Clapton. Hmm... I think most of your corrections make sense, but it was Freddie King that was a major influence on Clapton (not necessarily to the exclusion of Albert, but Clapton has made it very clear that Freddie was a huge influence on him). Anyway, this whole thing sounded like a string of incorrect assumptions, so I just did a little online searching. It appears that it was Harrison, not Clapton, who dubbed the guitar "Lucy". The Gibson website suggests that Harrison named it after Lucille Ball... the iconic redhead... (?!). At this point, I'm prepared to NOT believe anything I read about this story. The guitar in question was originally a goldtop owned by Rick Derringer, who had it refinished in red. Clapton got it from Derringer, and then gave it to George. Excellent bit of guitar based sleuthing there, likewise, I never remember reading about Albert Collins calling his axe anything at all, a bit strange Macdonald would make such a big goof there. BTW, I wish someone would give me a vintage Les Paul. Quote
Van Basten II Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 What's wrong with nostalgia anyway? Me, I listen to what I want to listen to at any given time, and don't much worry about what proporton of the reason is "nostalgia" and what proportion is "quality" (surely both are involved in many ways, as are many other factors at other times, like "trendiness"). If I'm enjoying it, I'm enjoying it. It's my collection, my time, my enjoyment. Bit of a silly argument overall to me, and pretty elitist/snobby. Nostalgia is ok until it stops economically to develop current music, the popular music scene here is invaded by young singer and artist , talking about fm radio, doing (quite often very bad) covers of songs done in the 60s and the 70s , if you add the mix of real retro songs put in the mix, there is little time to give airplay to new songs created today. But on a personnal basis there is nothing wrong with it. Quote
Alexander Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 Isn't Lucille what BB called his or do I have that wrong? Yes, but Albert King called his guitar "Lucy." Again, I direct your attention to his Stax recording "I Love Lucy," particularly the line: "Lucy made me a star. I know what you're thinkin'. The Lucy I'm talkin' about is my guitar..." Quote
A Lark Ascending Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 Talking of Lucys, does anyone else feel totally let down by the chorus of 'Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds'? I can still remember first hearing Sgt Pepper in early 1973 after having read in so many places of its legendary status. I was really hooked by the dreamscape of the verse; but I just couldn't believe how dull the chorus was, losing all the magic set up so far. Put me off the whole record for several years. In fact there's probably a whole thread in songs with great verses let down by crass choruses! Richard Thompson...one of my favourite musicians...has a weakness here. Quote
sjarrell Posted October 5, 2009 Report Posted October 5, 2009 I don't think John was pleased with the chorus either. Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.