The Beatles - Bootleg Recordings 1963, "release" (part 5)

George bought a 4-track recorder to record at home and that's what the demos were recorded on. The fact that a lot of the songs have double-tracked vocals and instruments beyond basic acoustic guitar suggest they used 3 to 4 tracks.

The only know mixdown, apart from Anthology, is the mono one that has been bootlegged a lot.

Now exactly how certain things were presented on Anthology goes to Martin & Emerick. You can't judge the content of any of the Beatles multitracks by their work. They made huge mistakes like mixing things to reverb-laden mono when the bootleg versions were wide clean stereo.

 

Do these demos only feature one Beatle per song? No others help with percussion or anything?

 

I know I hear Ringo singing on Bungalow Bill, pretty sure you can hear others throughout, but Ringo is so obvious.

 

What I would give for all the demos in that quality... That would be the best new release ever

 

George mentioned in a print interview sometime between "Cloud Nine" and the Anthology that he had a 4-track tape of acoustic "White Album" demos that would make a "great bootleg".

 

Here's an upcoming unofficial release the download was pre-empting:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Work-Progre...&qid=undefined&sr=1-1&keywords=paul+mccartney

 

Very interesting. I wonder if this set will include the leftovers that didn't make the iTunes album's cut.

 

I'm ebaying a lot of European cd's and box Sets from the 90's soon, if anyone's interested.

 

It would make a pretty outstanding official release too. The bootleg as-is ranks pretty highly in the Beatles canon to me. To hear everything with sound akin to the handful of Anthology tracks of this material... *shutter*

 

That's the same "label" that did the "I Saw Her Standing There" release last year. Wonder what will be on this one.

 

What was on the "I Saw Her Standing There" release last year?

 

As of this moment, it's #302 on Amazon's bestsellers. I was not aware that they sold bootlegged material.

 

Thats kinda the point - its not a bootleg anymore because copyright lapsed for some 1963 outtakes that weren't released by Apple. Expect breakdowns of Misery and I Saw Her Standing There aplenty! And some Hold Me Tight and Don't Bother Me outtakes.

 

You can call it what you'd like but it's still a bootleg in my eyes. Don't get me wrong...I'm still interested to hear it but there's no getting around the fact that it will consist of 'hijacked' material.

 

Legitimate bootleg, maybe?

In theory this label will be having to pay publishers for the use of the songs. But Apple really should have just released everything that was on boots then none of these would be out there! It'd be interesting to find out how much money a small label can make from a release like this.

 

Rob, its *not* hijacked. The law says public domain. Perfectly legit.

 

Tracklisting for LP version...

Record 1 Side 1 1. There's A Place - Take 1 2. There's A Place - Take 2 3. There's A Place - Take 4 4. There's A Place - Take 10 5. There's A Place - Take 76. I Saw Her Standing There - Take 4 7. I Saw Her Standing There - Take 5Side 2 1. I Saw Her Standing There - Take 6 2. There's A Place - Track 2 Take 11 3. I Saw Her Standing There - Track 2 Take 10 4. Misery - Take 25. Misery - Take 4 6. Misery - Take 6Record 2 Side 1 1. From Me To You - Take 3 2. From Me To You - Take 4 3. From Me To You - Take 7 4. Thank You Girl - Take 4 5. Thank You Girl - Take 116. Thank You Girl - Take 12 7. From Me To You - Track 2 Take 8Side 2 1. Hold Me Tight - Take 22 2. Hold Me Tight - Take 24 3. Hold Me Tight - Track 2 Take 28 4. Don't Bother Me - Take 10 5. Don't Bother Me - Take 136. Don't Bother Me - Take 12 7. I Want To Hold Your Hand - Take 9Record 1 All Tracks Recorded 11th February, 1963 Record 2 Side 1 Recorded 5th March, 1963 Record 2 Side 2 Tracks 1-6 Recorded 12th September, 1963Record 2 Side 2 Track 7 Recorded 17 October, 1963All Tracks Words & Music By John Lennon & Paul Mccartney, Except, Don't Bother Me, By George Harrison

 

Fairly confident this would have been sourced from the Anthology DVD or VHS....

And these were failed attempts at overdubbing on the released take. Not sure what the law says here but an interesting question raised....

 

I am quite familiar with what the law says. Legally, the people involved with the production of this disc are probably "in the clear." I'm still free to call it whatever I'd like. That law is crap and this is "hijacked" material. However, that doesn't mean I do not want to hear it.

 

Absolutely...I've had the boot for ages and I love listening to it as a acoustic version of my favorite Beatles album in its own right. And it sounds great as far as home demos from the Beatles do...if they released them all in the same quality as in Anthology 3, that would be immense!

 

I love the Esher demos on A3 and been waiting for Apple to release a disc full of them since I got A3 in early 2000s. I sure hope all these tapes exist and have by now been transferred to hi-res digital for future use (hopefully near future!).

 

The difference in SQ between what has been circulating for years and what was released on A3 is one of the greatest sources of hope I have for a future addition to the official Beatle catalog.... I want to get my hands on more from that source!

 

You are, of course, free to call it whatever you like. However, the concept of works of art moving out of copyright and into public domain has been around since the mid 17th century and exists for a number of very compelling reasons far beyond the ability of some makeshift record label out of a guy's garage being able to release other peoples recordings.

When you create art you do it with the knowledge that you have a set amount of time to make money off of it and that, after that set amount of time, it belongs to society as a whole for a number of purposes, including inspiring further creative works by other members of society, scholarship, and preservation.

Why Public Domain Matters (duke.edu)

 

Or you can hire a bunch of lawyers and lobbyists and get the law rewritten for your benefit.


Right kids???

 

The concept has become especially perverted here now that Hollywood is married to DC.

Patents on drugs that companies spend millions and millions of dollars developing expire after 20 years. I don't see why copyright on a recording some dudes spent 3 minutes making should go on in perpetuity. The underlying song is still copyrighted and publishing royalties still must be paid on any release or public performance. You had 50 years to profit off of that breakdown take of Misery if you wanted to.