Beatles | 'Taxman' Intro from 'Here, There & Everywhere'?

No, what he's saying is that a first-hand account from someone who was there is far more credible than a pile of speculation, no matter how tall.

The George account may be wrong, he was human, but it's still the best we have unless someone with access to the multitracks can prove him wrong.

 

Why is it Lewisohn admits he got things wrong in Recording Sessions and repeats SOME of those mistakes in Chronicle but you won't admit that he got things wrong.Again,no count-in done on May 16 that had to do with Taxman!!

 

And how do you know this?

 

Look, all this debating is nonsense. I don't care what anyone said or claimed, even one of the Beatles themselves.
The true proof is in the recordings. People's minds can accidentally mistake things after the fact.
Anyone who really knows each Beatles' voices knows that George is clearly doing the "One, two, three, go!" count in from the backing track.
The "fake" added count-in, at least in my opinion, is most likely also George but I think there is a slight possibility it could be Paul trying to imitate George.
There's just no way it's John, regardless of what George originally said.

 

The two loudest words are THREE-FOUR.On the backing track George DOES say "one,two,three,four".

 

Since first listen I've just assumed that the contrived count-in is by John, based I suppose on the impression I had of his character in A Hard Day's Night and Help. It simply seems more his shtick.

It also seems to me that the count-in in question functions as much as an intro to Revolver, the program as a whole, as it does to the individual track "Taxman," part of whose own natural count-in we're allowed to catch as well. On Sgt. Pepper's the prepping of the orchestra at the beginning functions in a similar way. (Which isn't the topic here, I know - that's why I'm not going to go into the really scary dream I had as a kid which began with the Revolver count-in.)

 

No, I'm not say George is right about everything that concerns the Beatles. But it seems quite unlikely he would incorrectly recall a very specific, notable detail about who contributed something to one of his songs, just a few months after he'd recorded it. It also seems unlikely he would lie about it. Unless we have evidence he was incorrect or lying, it makes sense to accept his recollection.

I suppose it's possible that quotation was ghostwritten by someone else. I had my doubts, but I've been reasonably convinced it is genuine. Regardless, if you are going to assert that it's not genuine, the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence supporting that theory. Absent evidence, there's no reason we should not accept it as genuine.

Looking at it from another angle... there is zero evidence that it is Paul McCartney. It does not sound like him, and we have a quotation from George saying it is not him. Given this, it's pretty safe to say it's not him.

 

Although the bit of chat that prefaces 'Listen To What The Man Said' sounds like an impersonation of Dr. John or Wolfman Jack or... Paul has revealed that he was mimicking Leo Nocentelli, lead guitarist of The Meters.

Chip Madinger
LENNONNOLOGY | Strange Days Indeed
EIGHT ARMS TO HOLD YOU | remastered
www.lennonology.com

 

I agree that the fake count-in sounds like George. But I think it's unlikely that he would misremember who was responsible for it at such an early date. If said it 20 years later it would be plausible for him to have forgotten, but not after just a few months. If you think it could be Paul trying to imitate George, why couldn't it also be John trying to imitate George?

 

Because when John Winn released his two books back in 2003 and people went over what he said in them about Lewisohn getting some things wrong Lewisohn in an interview was asked about it and freely admit he got things wrong.He has fairly recently admitted again he got things wrong and got a fair amount wrong.So we must investigate and double check and triple check.
Even Winn got some things wrong in 2003 but then in 2009 released revised editions of his books and tried to correct things.
P.S.-Lewisohn said he was given an impossible deadline to meet and he did the best he could but corners were cut and some of Recording Sessions was a bit of a rush job.

 

We all know that Lewisohn has made mistakes. However, that in itself is not proof of anything regarding Taxman. It's certainly possible that he was originally wrong regarding the date of the count-in, but short of a statement from him to that effect, a raw mix of the session tape, or some other supporting documentation, we don't know for certain.

 

No it's not Paul. Sounds like George to me as well but the evidence says it's John, with some audio manipulation.

 

When the count-in was recorded provides no evidence about who the voice is, so I'm not sure why you're dwelling on that point.

 

The "two, three, four!!!" in the background is the track's official count-in. It's clearly been picked up by the instrument mics. George's slow count in over the top, is close mic'ed would have been done during the vocal overdub stage (probably as a joke while waiting for his part to come in). So in the mix, that channel was left that channel open and the guys must have liked how it sounded.

That's my theory anyway.

 

No, it's not possible Because there was just one track left as the live recording occupied three tracks.
Track 1: drums, bass
Track 2: two guitars
Track 3: John's vocal

The last track features the piano overdub and also ride cymbal overdub (the last verse only).

 

Well, I'm 100% sure the fake count in IS Paul
Especially, the last "two" before the band kicks in is so obvious to me.

 

Could the count-in have been done by an 8 year old Bruce Foxton?

 

I assume that is based solely on your opinion that it sounds like Paul, since there is no objective evidence that it is Paul. Your opinion is puzzling to me, since I do not think it sounds a bit like Paul. As I noted, the intonation and particularly the nasality of the voice make it sound quite like George to me.

Regardless, I'm not willing to elevate my voice-identification skills above the direct testimony of one of the participants, particularly in a case where the person is clearly not speaking in his natural voice. To claim 100% certainty of an assertion that is not supported by evidence, but in fact contradicts the available evidence, does not make sense.

 

I agree that it would make no sense for George to lie about it in 1966 or to be wrong.

Not as sure I agree that it wasn't ghostwritten. I could easily see that various staff would write "quotes" rather than bother the musicians themselves.

The "Beatles Monthly" statement is the most concrete evidence we have and I think it makes John the default answer based on what we know.

But I don't think it's really proven. Just have too many doubts that George's quote is actually from George!

If George really did say the quote, though, I'm in "case closed" territory...

 

The Beatles Monthly statement is the only concrete evidence we have, as far as I know.

It's certainly possible the statement might be ghostwritten and not directly from George. But nikh's comments about how the magazine was assembled have persuaded me that is not likely. Absent any evidence to the contrary, it makes sense to presume the statement is genuine.

The count-in still sounds like George to me, so I would not be shocked if that quotation was somehow called into question someday. But at this point, the only evidence we have says that it's John, so I'm going with the presumption that it's John.

 

As will I. Just leaving the door open for the possibility it's incorrect.

If we had circa 1966 footage of George saying it was John, that'd be one thing. The potential ghostwriting aspect just makes it a wee bit less certain!

 

I always thought it was Paul doing the overdubbed count-in. This could reach the giddy heights of the A Day In The Life “Ahhh” debate...

I also wouldn’t trust that the Beatles Book Monthly quotes are attributable to the band themselves...

 

The quotations in there are (at least in some cases ) clearly paraphrased and/or slightly reworded. When you introduce an element of rewording into things, there is always potential for inaccuracies to creep in. So yeah, I agree that it can't be taken in the same light as say, a direct quotation in the NY Times. But Nikh has more insider knowledge than us, and says that the factual information in the magazine was at least derived directly from the Beatles, even if the syntax is not always 100% theirs. I'd sure like this quotation to be disproven, because my ears say it's George and it would be gratifying to find out my voice identification skills are correct. But absent any evidence disproving the quote, I think we have to proceed on the assumption that it's genuine. Rejecting factual evidence that doesn't comport with what a person would like to be the truth is quite popular these days, but I'm not willing to engage in it.

 

and yet, as I pointed out before, there's George coughing (so Dhani says) between"four" and "one"... This to me would be enough proof it isn't George

 

What evidence is there that the electric rhythm guitar throughout HTE isn't John? Indeed, the second electric guitar that enters in the bridge (after "I need never care") is strongly suggestive of George, given the difference in tone, style and the fact that it's a lead break.