JSngry Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 (edited) Some of the songs on HDN go on a little too long though,,a return to a bridge that wasn't really needed, a repeat of a verse with no new lyrics that served no purpose other than to add a few seconds to play time...little things like that...three was definitely some growing pains to be had yet, and making a record of the perfect length for a song was not one where they always came out triumphant, at least for a while "I Should Have Known Better" is a prime example..make it a 16 bar guitar solo, come out of that to the bridge, take it home, badda boom badda bing, nice and clean like a washing machine. That 2nd A-Section of vocal after the 1st A guitar solo drags the "record flow" down, disorients it, makes it feel like you got to point C but forgot something and had to go back to point B to pick it up... Nothing really ugly, but definitely not perfect, either. And perfect they could ofttimes be, and ast 65 rolled into 66, something they increasingly became. But see, that's one thing Brian Wilson was an ace at. Beach Boys records were never too long, never fillered out wiuth an extra 8 or 16 bars. Hell, most of the BBs pre Pet Sounds hits we 2:30 ot less, sometimes only a sec or two over or under 2:00 flat... It was a good time to listen to the radio, that's all I can say. Everybody was in sync and on the same page. Edited September 21, 2009 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 They were smart enough to know when something wasn't going well ("That Means A Lot", "If You've Got Trouble") and to cut their losses. Sorry, but "That Means A Lot" is about a thousand times better than a clunker like "Tell Me What You See." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I prefer "Rubber Soul" to "Revolver." Just holds up better as an album to me. Pepper's does too, and it may be my very favorite. I like bits of the later ones very much, but not whole albums as much. I think finally enough time passed after my hearing Beatles way way way too much (they were THE SHITTE while I was in boarding school, everytime someone was playing records, someone tryied to put a Beatles one on, and when I returned from Africa all over the Cleveland airwaves) to enjoy them again. Whew! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Jim's point about length is one that struck me a few days ago. The songs had always seemed longer to me (as I remember them) and I was surprised at the length, which says to me that they were a perfect length. The goal of delivering a message in any medium should be just enough, no more, no less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I agree, for the most part, with the whole length issue. I've always thought that "She Loves You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" could have been cut down. The version of "She Loves You" on "LOVE" is just about perfect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Up until last week, Abbey Road had been my unequivocal favorite. It still may be, but The White Album vaulted up separate notches with digital remasterings. Its now up there with Abbey Road, in my book, even if its far less of a cohesive album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold_Z Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I probably bought the Sgt Pepper lp I have in the late 60s. It's in stereo and I take good care of my vinyl - it's still pristine. I finally heard the Purple Chick "Sgt Pepper" mono version. Gotta say I dig it better. More "presence", better bass, etc. Any word on how the new releases compare withe Purple Chick stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Up until last week, Abbey Road had been my unequivocal favorite. It still may be, but The White Album vaulted up separate notches with digital remasterings. Its now up there with Abbey Road, in my book, even if its far less of a cohesive album. Abbey Road has always been my favorite. I think it displays more "musicianship" than any other Beatles album. This is followed by Rubber Soul (US version) and Sgt. Pepper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 ahhh, I think they went soft on Abbey Road - too pretty, never could listen to that one - the White Album was always, to me, their pinnacle - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 ahhh, I think they went soft on Abbey Road - too pretty, never could listen to that one - the White Album was always, to me, their pinnacle - Abby Road has always struck me more as a George Martin creation then anything else. Now, as a late comer to the game, I'm probably way off on my Beatles history, but didn't the Beatles just leave it to Martin to put together side two, and pretty much left the scene? I'm not overly enamored with side one either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I actually don't know; the problem with that album for me is that it comes off as all soft focus - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I actually don't know; the problem with that album for me is that it comes off as all soft focus - I think it kicks butt. I had a music humanities teacher at Columbia that analyzed side two for us. He compared it to the way that Haydn strung together themes and melodies. It may be a bunch of unfinished songs strung together, but the way in which it's done is pure genius. For the first time, Paul's bass playing really sounds great as well. And no, side two was not George Martin's creation. He may have suggested that they string the unfinished bits together, but in the end, the musicians made it happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjarrell Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I probably bought the Sgt Pepper lp I have in the late 60s. It's in stereo and I take good care of my vinyl - it's still pristine. I finally heard the Purple Chick "Sgt Pepper" mono version. Gotta say I dig it better. More "presence", better bass, etc. Any word on how the new releases compare withe Purple Chick stuff? The PCs sound swell, but the new remasters? There's stuff you just can't hear on the needle drops that are plain as day on the stereo discs. And that's not the answer I want to give- the PCs are way cheaper than the mono box. If you know what I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I didn't know that Tom Hayden composed - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I didn't know that Tom Hayden composed - I was referring to Pat Haden! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I actually don't know; the problem with that album for me is that it comes off as all soft focus - I think it kicks butt. I had a music humanities teacher at Columbia that analyzed side two for us. He compared it to the way that Haydn strung together themes and melodies. It may be a bunch of unfinished songs strung together, but the way in which it's done is pure genius. For the first time, Paul's bass playing really sounds great as well. And no, side two was not George Martin's creation. He may have suggested that they string the unfinished bits together, but in the end, the musicians made it happen. You are correct. Martin was not the musical force behind side two. That was Paul. The idea was that each side of "Abbey Road" was "directed" by either John or Paul. John did side one (which was the more conventional "rock and roll" side) and Paul did side two (which contained the suite). The idea was that after the "Get Back" debacle, the Beatles wanted to return to the studio and make an album "like they used to." They called George Martin and asked him to produce, which he agreed to do on the condition that they allowed him to actually PRODUCE the album. Meaning that they would lay their egos aside and work together. The "John's side/Paul's side" idea was a compromise that allowed them to make the album without arguing over "creative direction." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I probably bought the Sgt Pepper lp I have in the late 60s. It's in stereo and I take good care of my vinyl - it's still pristine. I finally heard the Purple Chick "Sgt Pepper" mono version. Gotta say I dig it better. More "presence", better bass, etc. Any word on how the new releases compare withe Purple Chick stuff? The PCs sound swell, but the new remasters? There's stuff you just can't hear on the needle drops that are plain as day on the stereo discs. And that's not the answer I want to give- the PCs are way cheaper than the mono box. If you know what I'm saying. I've basically used the mono material from the Purple Chick remasters to make my own version of the Mono Box. I now have all 12 albums in mono (complete with cover art that I worked on last night) and the "Mono Masters" two disc set. I also assembled a copy of "Yesterday...and Today" to complete my Capitol albums collection. The PC remasters include US stereo and mono mixes of much of the material on that album... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I probably bought the Sgt Pepper lp I have in the late 60s. It's in stereo and I take good care of my vinyl - it's still pristine. I finally heard the Purple Chick "Sgt Pepper" mono version. Gotta say I dig it better. More "presence", better bass, etc. Any word on how the new releases compare withe Purple Chick stuff? The PCs sound swell, but the new remasters? There's stuff you just can't hear on the needle drops that are plain as day on the stereo discs. And that's not the answer I want to give- the PCs are way cheaper than the mono box. If you know what I'm saying. Yup, I've been revisiting the Dr. Ebbetts and Purple Chick monos for the past week or so, and picked up a couple of stereo remasters in the meantime. Though I was comparing 2 different mixes for sound quality which isn't advised or the least bit scientific, I decided based on what I wasn't hearing on the needle drops and what I could hear on the remasters that doggone it, I'd better put in a pre-order at Amazon for the mono box. Which I did - I caved. Also see Dr. J's post from a couple of weeks ago as he has experience playing the the mono & stereo LPs. I'm keeping all the needledrop CD-Rs though, just to have more ways of playing the music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 I still think the new stereos (well, I only have Revolver) are missing mids - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Some of the songs on HDN go on a little too long though,,a return to a bridge that wasn't really needed, a repeat of a verse with no new lyrics that served no purpose other than to add a few seconds to play time...little things like that...three was definitely some growing pains to be had yet, and making a record of the perfect length for a song was not one where they always came out triumphant, at least for a while "I Should Have Known Better" is a prime example..make it a 16 bar guitar solo, come out of that to the bridge, take it home, badda boom badda bing, nice and clean like a washing machine. That 2nd A-Section of vocal after the 1st A guitar solo drags the "record flow" down, disorients it, makes it feel like you got to point C but forgot something and had to go back to point B to pick it up... Nothing really ugly, but definitely not perfect, either. And perfect they could ofttimes be, and ast 65 rolled into 66, something they increasingly became. Don't know if I agree or disagree, but I do know one thing: I wish the fadeout of "I'll Be Back" went on for another.... oh, say two hours! I love that back and forth between the A and the A-minor. YMMV, of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 They were smart enough to know when something wasn't going well ("That Means A Lot", "If You've Got Trouble") and to cut their losses. Sorry, but "That Means A Lot" is about a thousand times better than a clunker like "Tell Me What You See." Eh, I like 'em both equally. Truth be told, I've REALLY been enjoying (what would be referred to in the old days as) side two of HELP! I don't know if it's the remastering or whatever, but SOMETHING is causing me to enjoy these songs like never before. All I know is: when I heard the first CD of HELP years&years ago, it was my first time to hear "Dizzy Miss Lizzie," and it seemed to me waybackthen that song should've leapt outta the speakers. The Capitol Box almost got it right; it wasn't perfect, but miles better than the old '87 CD. This issue got it right on the nose! That guitar riff screeched outta the speakers and Ringo's crashing thunder 'bout blew out the windows! In other words, what I was expecting 22 years ago!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porcy62 Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 Damn!!! I almost did it!!! Can't believe it! I was buying some books on Amazon and all this remastered stuff was on every page I looked at, I couldn't resist. At the end I bought them, mono and stereo. Fortunately I was in time to modify the order and I cancelled them. Now I am going to spin my mono White Album, pressing no. 0005734. Amazon is a risky business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasing the Korean Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 They were smart enough to know when something wasn't going well ("That Means A Lot", "If You've Got Trouble") and to cut their losses. Sorry, but "That Means A Lot" is about a thousand times better than a clunker like "Tell Me What You See." Eh, I like 'em both equally. Truth be told, I've REALLY been enjoying (what would be referred to in the old days as) side two of HELP! I don't know if it's the remastering or whatever, but SOMETHING is causing me to enjoy these songs like never before. All I know is: when I heard the first CD of HELP years&years ago, it was my first time to hear "Dizzy Miss Lizzie," and it seemed to me waybackthen that song should've leapt outta the speakers. The Capitol Box almost got it right; it wasn't perfect, but miles better than the old '87 CD. This issue got it right on the nose! That guitar riff screeched outta the speakers and Ringo's crashing thunder 'bout blew out the windows! In other words, what I was expecting 22 years ago!!! I always loved the US version of Help; great Beatles tunes, Indian source music and spy jazz underscore. It is a pretty perfect album in that delirious, schizophrenic style of 60s soundtracks. I always thought side two of the UK Help album was a mish-mash, with several weak cuts. I never could even get through the whole thing. It would have been much better, IMHO, if they had dumped "Act Naturally," "You Like Me to Much," "Tell Me What You See" and "Dizzy Miss Lizzie;" and replaced them with "Yes It Is," "I'm Down," "That Means a Lot" and "Wait." IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 this is prolly best posted in the "Mosaic on Steroids" thread but, anyone buy the "Box of Vision"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.W. Posted September 21, 2009 Report Share Posted September 21, 2009 this is prolly best posted in the "Mosaic on Steroids" thread but, anyone buy the "Box of Vision"? Prolly? I'm just a simple non-native English speaker - what does that mean? 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.