Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by AlanDistro, Aug 12, 2012.
They also had What Goes On and One After 909 they could have re-done.
On 'Love', there's a straightahead no-frills remix of 'Help!' which gives a good idea of what a modern stereo remix of the two albums would be like. Nice.
Not quite 'straightahead' - IIRC, George's lead guitar has been double-tracked left and right by copying phrases from other choruses.
And rightly so.
Whoops absolutely right - my bad, thanks for correcting
"Leave My Kitten Alone" is a cover and Billy J. Kramer had already recorded "I Call Your Name" in 1963. Not to mention that The Beatles had already released their version in the USA on "The Beatles Second Album" and later in the UK on the "Long Tall Sally" EP".
I already recanted above about the "Leave My Kitten Alone" mistake - see my post right before yours, which I guess you didn't take the time to read.
Re: "I Call Your Name" - the points you make don't really make any sense to me.
First, US albums don't interest me and are frankly irrelevant here since BFS was UK only - so how could that possibly matter to a UK audience that the song was released on a US album hardly anyone in the UK would have even known about let alone heard?
And l am fully aware that "I Call Your Name" was on LONG TALL SALLY, but that's beside the point. Also beside the point is that Billy J. Kramer had recorded it (so what? The Stones also recorded "I Wanna Be Your Man" and so did the Beatles - your point?).
The point I was making that if the Beatles were really that worried about saving up originals so that their next LP would include originals alone they likely would have saved "I Call Your Name" for BFS and used another cover to fill out LONG TALL SALLY.
Basically I simply don't see why people obsess on the issue that BFS had a lot of covers, so that must be some indicator of slipping. So there were covers - so what? They were well chosen, fit with the overall feel of the LP and the Beatles made them their own...and, as I was getting at above, they were cranking out originals like crazy simultaneously but just had them earmarked for other things, rather than worrying about what people would think if their next LP included some covers.
I'd never really thought about it before, but I suppose The Beatles COULD have done their versions of some of the 'give away' songs they'd written in 1963/4 for Beatles For Sale- it would have been nice to hear a Beatles version of 'I'm In Love', 'It's For You', 'From a Window', 'I Don't Want to See You Again'- slap on the new single, and there we are, a full album of Lennon/McCartney songs again!
But in any case, the 8 original songs on Beatles for Sale are largely the best they'd done up to that point- a weak album it ain't!
Sorry, teacher. Next time, I will pay attention to every post that is discussed in class.
I had mis-read your comment about "original songs already recorded". Hence the reason I mentioned "I Call Your Name" which was already out a year earlier by Billy J. Kramer and the Beatles rendition had been available in the US and UK for many months. I thought you had written that it was one in the works in late 1964. I didn't see the "Kitten" responses until after as I was meandering around the forum. So, yeah. I missed them.
Remember, the Beatles always tried to give the fans "more value for their money". That's why "I Feel Fine" and "She's A Woman" are separate entities. Perhaps they didn't want to release an EP ("LTS") with all covers? I have also wondered why they never bothered to take some more of the tunes they gave away and used them instead. Maybe they didn't want to step on too many toes?
As I stated in my earlier post, no matter how you look at it- obsessing or not- "BFS" was a throw back to 1963 and yes, the issue is the cover tunes. I don't think fans believe they were slipping but again- after the all original "AHDN"- many people site that as the main issue. I don't. I also wrote that I love the LP. One of my all time favorite album jackets too.
If the US albums are irrelevant in the UK, do you ignore the "Magical Mystery Tour" LP and stick to that awkward-but-still-neat double-EP?
Can someone explain what exactly Sir George did with the stereo image of Rubber Soul in 1987?
It seems like he left the LEFT channel placement as it was on the 1965 mix. On the right channel, he moved the lead vocal track towards center but left the fourth track containing backing vocals on the far RIGHT. Is that the general summary of the 1987 remix?
Listened to the Help! 1965 stereo mix today, and as always I liked it fine, never thought it sounded unbalanced. RS maybe I'll listen to again tomorrow, haven't heard them for a couple of years, let alone on the new setup I have now. I knew I would like Help! fine, but I find the mono Rubber Soul to really rock best of any stereo mix.
One of the highlights of the 09 reissue series for me was the bonus bundling of the original stereo mixes of Rubber Soul and Help! on the mono discs. My first exposure to these albums was through borrowing my friend's father's copies as a kid in the mid 80s and copying them to cassette which I listened to endlessly.
A couple of years later, I get a CD player for Christmas, ditch the tapes and buy up the back-catalogue on CD. Getting hold of the original mixes again was a genuinely moving experience - it was like welcoming back a couple of much missed friends. The 87 mixes simply don't compare for me, regardless if the limitations and quirks of the originals.
Does anyone else get the impression that, in the 1965 RS stereo mix, the barest fraction of a second is lopped off the opening of "Norwegian Wood"? Or is it just me? (I don't notice it on the mono or the 87 remix).
Well, according to Ryan and Kehew's "Recording the Beatles" in 1965 one of four new Studer J37 tape machines was installed in the control room of Studio Two.
I'm not saying the LPs are irrelevant NOW what I was saying is in 1964 essentially nobody in the UK had any idea that the US albums even existed, let alone what was on them, and therefore they are irrelevant to THIS DISCUSSION.
The same applies in the US as well. None of us Yankees had ever heard of the UK LP's. There are still many who ask why they can never find "Beatles '65" etc. on CD and I wind up having to tell them the entire story- including the Capitol boxes. When I discovered the UK albums, I was like a kid in a candy store.
that's what it sounds like to me
i love the 87 remix of help but 65 stereo mix of rubber soul
Lennon's lead vocal on 'Dizzy Miss Lizzy' did NOT need to be smothered in digital reverb; I find it absolutely unlistenable. If ever there was a singer that didn't need it and a song that didn't need it.................The 2009 stereo CDs of 'Help!' and 'Rubber Soul' are spaces in my Beatles CD collection I'll never fill.
You're right, and it sounds GORGEOUS!
Odd, back in the vinyl era, I never felt a drop in sound quality with Help (the album). Before CD's, I thought the Beatles catalog sounded consistently good.
i never could get into the 65 stereo mix of help
I have the original 1965 mixes on the records in my early(1978) Dutch Blue Box (Help:YEX 168-1Y/169-1Y,Rubber Soul:YEX 178-2Y/179-2Y)and these sound excellent.
IMHO everything else that came later sounds/is inferior!
I have that same Dutch pressing of Help! It does sound wonderful.
I'm sure the only reason George Martin felt the need to remix the 'Help!' album was that he didn't do the majority of the original stereo mixes. Fine, remix it - just DON'T smother everything in crap sounding digital reverb. Absolutely no need to do that. BTW, if he thought the original stereo mixes weren't good enough, why didn't he do new mixes at the time?. It's not as though stereo mixes hadn't been rejected before then.
Separate names with a comma.