Teasing the Korean Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Didn't know that. But being rushed doesn't mean that those around them in production were not treating the sessions rather more seriously. I didn't mean to imply that. I just think it's interesting that one of their most loved albums was a complete rush job. The only place it really comes through are some occasionally sloppy vocal harmonies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I'm just intrigued as to when those controlling them started to see them as more than a fly-by-night pop band. There's so much mythology surrounding the band it becomes all too easy to recall how 'you always knew they were something different, something deeper'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I'm just intrigued as to when those controlling them started to see them as more than a fly-by-night pop band. There's so much mythology surrounding the band it becomes all too easy to recall how 'you always knew they were something different, something deeper'. There's so much revisionist history with involving them that it's hard to tell. Based on the number of clunky edits and mistakes on their 1963 recordings, I think it's safe to assume that they weren't taken too seriously prior to 1964, at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 (edited) I'm just intrigued as to when those controlling them started to see them as more than a fly-by-night pop band. There's so much mythology surrounding the band it becomes all too easy to recall how 'you always knew they were something different, something deeper'. There's so much revisionist history with involving them that it's hard to tell. Based on the number of clunky edits and mistakes on their 1963 recordings, I think it's safe to assume that they weren't taken too seriously prior to 1964, at least. Think I read where the Beatles themselves thought that they had a run of three years, and after that, it was downhill. I think here is where Rubber Soul takes on great importance. Here is where the Beatles realized that with this album, they positioned themselves for the future, and now as the "voice of a generation," they actually had a future that was without precedent in the history of Rock. 1966 is the year that everyone realized that the Beatles were different, and that the future had tremendous possibilities. PS: Geesh! I think I used the word future more than enough! Sorry... Edited October 11, 2009 by Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 There's an excellent book called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" by Mark Lewison that discusses the technical issues involved and George Martin discusses the importance of Rubber Soul "For the first time we began to think of albums as an art on their own, as complete entities." The author of the book suggests that Rubber Soul was John's album and Revolver, Paul's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 There's an excellent book called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" by Mark Lewison that discusses the technical issues involved and George Martin discusses the importance of Rubber Soul "For the first time we began to think of albums as an art on their own, as complete entities." The author of the book suggests that Rubber Soul was John's album and Revolver, Paul's. I was given the Lewison book for a Christmas/birthday present (I was born in late December) when I was about 18. I love it. I've returned to it often over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 1966 is the year that everyone realized that the Beatles were different, and that the future had tremendous possibilities. Respectfully, I do not feel that this is accurate. While these albums largely helped to usher in the counter culture, there was a perception at the time that the Beatles had hit their peak, and there was even speculation after Revolver that they may split up. Rubber Soul and Revolver may have become legendary in retrospect, but at the time, each was largely viewed as another Beatles album. The notion that rock could be "art" was still a year or two away. There is a fascinating piece in the London Times Sunday supplement from September, 1966 that really provides a sense of how the Beatles were perceived at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I've always thought the guitar intro to I feel fine was one of the great rock 'n roll riffs. Thank Bobby Parker. You can hear part of the "Day Tripper" riff in this tune also. Yeah, but the first thing I hear there is "What I Say" extrapolated out...it's all one big gigantic musical gene pool... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 There's an excellent book called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" by Mark Lewisohn ... This one? Used copies are offered for one or two hundred dollars on amazon marketplace in Germany ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 (edited) There's an excellent book called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" by Mark Lewisohn ... This one? Used copies are offered for one or two hundred dollars on amazon marketplace in Germany ... Yes. Wow. I bought it because it was remaindered at Borders for a few dollars. There's an preface which explains that a young man working at Abbey Road got cancer. To keep himself busy during chemo he listened to all the Beatles tapes and catalogued them which made the book possible. He died after finishing the catalogue and people at the studio made sure that the book got published so that his work would be completed. Edited October 11, 2009 by medjuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 1966 is the year that everyone realized that the Beatles were different, and that the future had tremendous possibilities. Respectfully, I do not feel that this is accurate. While these albums largely helped to usher in the counter culture, there was a perception at the time that the Beatles had hit their peak, and there was even speculation after Revolver that they may split up. Rubber Soul and Revolver may have become legendary in retrospect, but at the time, each was largely viewed as another Beatles album. The notion that rock could be "art" was still a year or two away. There is a fascinating piece in the London Times Sunday supplement from September, 1966 that really provides a sense of how the Beatles were perceived at that time. Is the LT supplement on the web? I can't seem to find it. That would be interesting to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Is the LT supplement on the web? I can't seem to find it. That would be interesting to read. Not sure. I think I have an electronic version someplace, and if I can find it, I'll post it, technology allowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) There's an excellent book called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions" by Mark Lewisohn ... This one? Used copies are offered for one or two hundred dollars on amazon marketplace in Germany ... There's two different entries for this one at Amazon US, one over $300 and a paperback $75. I sold one on Amazon (the used shop where I work had a copy) a few months back for $40. (I wish I hadn't, I'd love to read it now!) It looks like the new Beatlemania has driven up the price. Edited October 12, 2009 by sjarrell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted October 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I have the Complete Beatles Chronicles, by Lewisohn. Is this one substantially different than that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 1966 is the year that everyone realized that the Beatles were different, and that the future had tremendous possibilities. Respectfully, I do not feel that this is accurate. While these albums largely helped to usher in the counter culture, there was a perception at the time that the Beatles had hit their peak, and there was even speculation after Revolver that they may split up. Rubber Soul and Revolver may have become legendary in retrospect, but at the time, each was largely viewed as another Beatles album. The notion that rock could be "art" was still a year or two away. There is a fascinating piece in the London Times Sunday supplement from September, 1966 that really provides a sense of how the Beatles were perceived at that time. Aren't you saying something contradictory here: That the Beatles had hit their peak and that these were just another Beatles album? I remember being really impressed with Rubber Soul and thinking that maybe they weren't just for teeny boppers. It was the first Beatles record I bought. Maybe the only non-jazz record I bought that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I have the Complete Beatles Chronicles, by Lewisohn. Is this one substantially different than that? I'm not familiar with that book so I can't really comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I have the Complete Beatles Chronicles, by Lewisohn. Is this one substantially different than that? I'm not familiar with that book so I can't really comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Aren't you saying something contradictory here: That the Beatles had hit their peak and that these were just another Beatles album? I meant that they'd commercially hit their peak, and that they were on their way out. That was the perception on the part of many, and not my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felser Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I have the Complete Beatles Chronicles, by Lewisohn. Is this one substantially different than that? I'm not familiar with that book so I can't really comment. But you did anyways! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kw21925 Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Got to 'Rubber Soul' night. Apart from being (to my mind) their best collection of songs up to that point (I'd say they go even better in that respect on the next one), the sound quality and general care over things like tuning is much, much better. It's almost as if that up to that point they were still being considered by those in charge as a pop band whose audience would not notice an out of tune guitar; where hear they were seeing the records might just have a longer term future and be reaching an audience beyond teenagers who might expect a little more. Or maybe technology just got better. Do you know that "Rubber Soul" was their most rushed album (aside from the first one)? Marathon sessions with mixing going on in one studio and recording going on in another. "Wait" was a "Help" reject that they dusted off to make the deadline. According to the Lewisohn book, the sessions for Rubber Soul began on October 12, 1965, and the album was released on December 3, in plenty of time for Christmas shoppers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medjuck Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I have the Complete Beatles Chronicles, by Lewisohn. Is this one substantially different than that? I'm not familiar with that book so I can't really comment. But you did anyways! Because I presumed that the question was asked of me. Is here general agreement that these new editions are worth getting even if you have them on cd already? Is the difference that notable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Yes indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Englewood Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 Is here general agreement that these new editions are worth getting even if you have them on cd already? Is the difference that notable? Try the new version of "Abbey Road", I think you will be pleasently suprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kw21925 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Is here general agreement that these new editions are worth getting even if you have them on cd already? Is the difference that notable? Try the new version of "Abbey Road", I think you will be pleasently suprised. I purchased "Abbey Road", "The Beatles", "Revolver" and "Past Masters", and they are all a great improvement over the original 1987 CD's. Id love to hear "A Hard Day's Night", "Revolver" and "Seargent Pepper" in mono, but I'll be damned if I'm going to spend over $200 to get three CD's I want, and 11 that I don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I have the Complete Beatles Chronicles, by Lewisohn. Is this one substantially different than that? I'm not familiar with that book so I can't really comment. But you did anyways! Because I presumed that the question was asked of me. Is here general agreement that these new editions are worth getting even if you have them on cd already? Is the difference that notable? After some further forays, it appears that there were two different versions of the book by Lewisohn (not the "Chronicles" which appears to be a separate volume altogether) but the book on recordings 1962-1970. It appears that you have The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions: the Official Story of the Abbey Road Years, 1962-1970. Is that the exact, full title of the book you have? I thought I read that this is the U.K. released version whereas the volume I checked out from the library today is the U.S. version and titled similarly but just a bit different: The Beatles Recording Sessions: The Official Abbey Road Session Notes, 1962-1970 by Mark Lewisohn and Paul McCartney (There is a several-page interview with Paul McCartney at the beginning of this volume. Its 206 pages and quite large (oversize) with lots of photographs. Does the volume you have pretty much fit this description? I'm just trying to get a handle on whether these are pretty much the same book issued separately. Unfortunately my university library seems to have stripped the original cover and put on one of those standard library jackets, making it difficult to identify. But yes it appears both are currently out of print and thus quite costly. Bummer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_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.