lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 28, 2011 12:32:33 GMT -5
Steve posted an article about the Sutcliffe family releasing the above recording supposedly of Stuart singing "Love Me Tender" backed by a band called The Bats in Hamburg. The Elvis song was what Stuart would sing with The Beatles when they played the clubs in Hamburg prior to his leaving the band and his subsequent death, but there was never a recording of him singing it with them, so if this is authentic, it is the only chance to hear what Stuart's voice sounded like on a song. Steve is trying to get confirmation from Bill Harry, or Astrid Kircherr that it is indeed Stuart's voice on this recording. Someone replied to Steve's article that Klaus Voorman and Pete Best have expressed doubt that it is Stuart (they would know), but Stuart's sister Pauline insists that it is.
If it indeed is Stuart, it's another little gem of Beatle History. Stuart doesn't sound too bad, stays in the key with good intonation and his high tenor sound reminds me a little of how George Harrison sounded in those early Hamburg songs that he sang at the clubs.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 28, 2011 13:38:54 GMT -5
Steve posted an article about the Sutcliffe family releasing the above recording supposedly of Stuart singing "Love Me Tender" backed by a band called The Bats in Hamburg. The Elvis song was what Stuart would sing with The Beatles when they played the clubs in Hamburg prior to his leaving the band and his subsequent death, but there was never a recording of him singing it with them, so if this is authentic, it is the only chance to hear what Stuart's voice sounded like on a song. Steve is trying to get confirmation from Bill Harry, or Astrid Kircherr that it is indeed Stuart's voice on this recording. Someone replied to Steve's article that Klaus Voorman and Pete Best have expressed doubt that it is Stuart (they would know), but Stuart's sister Pauline insists that it is. If it indeed is Stuart, it's another little gem of Beatle History. Stuart doesn't sound too bad, stays in the key with good intonation and his high tenor sound reminds me a little of how George Harrison sounded in those early Hamburg songs that he sang at the clubs. sounds like he is playing with Casio chords. hmmm. Too bad the family didn't approach the Threetles during Anthology. If it is really him, yet another what if...
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 28, 2011 13:46:18 GMT -5
There is a lot of doubt online as to whether this is really Stuart. Has anybody read Pauline Sutcliffe's book? She's kind of obsessed with the notion that John kicked Stuart in the head and therefore killed him. So I don't think she's the most objective source as to who is really singing on this clip.
I would really like to see confirmation from Klaus or Astrid. They would know much more authoritatively than Pauline Sutcliffe.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 28, 2011 14:19:26 GMT -5
This seems highly sketchy to me.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 28, 2011 14:36:38 GMT -5
Commenters on YouTube say that this is the guy who sings Love Me Tender in The Birth of The Beatles movie by Dick Clark.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 28, 2011 16:25:30 GMT -5
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 29, 2011 0:14:04 GMT -5
There is a lot of doubt online as to whether this is really Stuart. Has anybody read Pauline Sutcliffe's book? She's kind of obsessed with the notion that John kicked Stuart in the head and therefore killed him. So I don't think she's the most objective source as to who is really singing on this clip. I would really like to see confirmation from Klaus or Astrid. They would know much more authoritatively than Pauline Sutcliffe. According to a comment on Steve's news sight, Klaus has supposedly expressed doubts on the recording. But there is no quote or source for that comment, but obviously Klaus, and especially Astrid would be able to confirm this claim as true or false. And Pete Best (who "supposedly" has also expressed doubt) and Paul McCartney would certainly be in a position to comment on it's authenticity having heard Stuart's singing voice as well as how he sounded in his version of Love Me Tender, when he sang it with The Beatles in the Hamburg clubs. I wish Paul's reps would present him with this discovery as well as the invitation letter found recently in a garage sale he supposedly wrote to a Liverpool newspaper when the band was seeking a drummer to go the Hamburg with the band, to get his comments on both of these items. They do need to be addressed so as to judge their value as additions to Beatle History. Stuart's value as a member of The Beatles has always been judged solely on his ability (or lack of) to play bass. To have an opportunity to hear his singing would be of great value to Beatle historians who never had the opportunity to hear him in the band and have had to rely on outside sources to judge his contributions to the music of the band in that early period of their devlopment. I hope we can get some answers one way or the other to this recent revelation.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 29, 2011 7:31:51 GMT -5
Here's the alleged Sutcliffe version:
Here's the version found in the TV movie 'Birth of The Beatles', it comes up at the 4:42 minute point of the clip:
And someone on the 910 board put together this video offering evidence that it might not be Stuart:
You decide.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 29, 2011 11:12:18 GMT -5
Is it claimed the musical backing is authentic too? That sounds contemporary.
Another Beatles' mystery.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 29, 2011 13:11:49 GMT -5
Is it claimed the musical backing is authentic too? That sounds contemporary. Another Beatles' mystery. I think I read the music underneath was re-mixed or something to make it sound "better". Sort of like what was done to John's Free as a Bird and Real Love for the Threetles re-make's in the 90's? I think. Check Steve's article.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 29, 2011 22:35:56 GMT -5
Is it claimed the musical backing is authentic too? That sounds contemporary. Another Beatles' mystery. See my previous post.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 29, 2011 23:28:49 GMT -5
Is it claimed the musical backing is authentic too? That sounds contemporary. Another Beatles' mystery. See my previous post. Yeah I don't buy any of this. Pauline Sutcliffe = Louise Harrison Caldwell, a hack ripping off her brother's legacy. She just wants money.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 30, 2011 0:15:24 GMT -5
Yeah I don't buy any of this. Pauline Sutcliffe = Louise Harrison Caldwell, a hack ripping off her brother's legacy. She just wants money. David Bedford ("Liddypool") told me it was him a couple of days ago. I don't think it has anything to do with "Birth of the Beatles." The voices are different. And it's not the type of song you can do many different ways. The thing that keeps me from completely doubting it is that the family say they know it's his voice. But it has been 50 years. There are a ton of unanswered questions, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 30, 2011 0:30:03 GMT -5
What is the consensus here on John kicking Stu in the head? Man, the two remained close friends Stu's whole life, Stu only physically parting with John for Astrid. Could Stu forgive a man who could so beat him? Yet, brothers can have vicious fights and love can turn to raging hate and back again to love. I don't know sexually but I would have to think that John and Stu loved each other at least like brothers. John badly battered Bob Wooler and John was the type to fight someone he knew he could whip. Stu seemed pretty fragile. Still, I have never wanted to believe that John could have done that to Stu.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 30, 2011 1:29:29 GMT -5
What is the consensus here on John kicking Stu in the head? Man, the two remained close friends Stu's whole life, Stu only physically parting with John for Astrid. Could Stu forgive a man who could so beat him? Yet, brothers can have vicious fights and love can turn to raging hate and back again to love. I don't know sexually but I would have to think that John and Stu loved each other at least like brothers. John badly battered Bob Wooler and John was the type to fight someone he knew he could whip. Stu seemed pretty fragile. Still, I have never wanted to believe that John could have done that to Stu. John: Given their close relationship, I really doubt it. If he did it to Stu, he could have done it to anyone -- Paul, for example. And there's been no record (that has surfaced) of a brutal fistfight between any of the Beatles that I can recall offhand. Now, if there had been....
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 30, 2011 6:05:44 GMT -5
I very much doubt that John was responsible for the injury which caused Stu's brain haemmorhage.
I doubt even more that this is a genuine recording of Stu's vocals - I doubted it even before I watched/listened to that Youtube link above, where the use of the key and time signature - hardly something the Hamburg Beatles would have come up with - pretty much nail it to a source after Stu's death.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 30, 2011 6:25:14 GMT -5
I'm extremely skeptical that this is Stuart. I'd only be convinced if Astrid confirmed it, and even then I'd have doubts.
As for John kicking Stu in the head, since I don't read all the scandalous books I'm not sure, but I thought I recall reading somewhere that John felt some kind of guilt over it... but I don't know how true that actually is. I've always believed that Stu was injured in a brawl with a gang -- but I seem to recall hearing "somewhere" that John felt he was responsible. (Or am I mixing that "tell-all book" memory with another fairytale about John killing someone else at one time?).
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 30, 2011 9:04:33 GMT -5
In the movie Backbeat it shows John and Stu getting into a fight with some guys outside a pub. John caused the fight because he was being a smart-arse to these guys earlier on inside the pub. They both got beat up but Stu far worse than John, I think this is the same incident.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 30, 2011 10:04:39 GMT -5
In the movie Backbeat it shows John and Stu getting into a fight with some guys outside a pub. John caused the fight because he was being a smart-arse to these guys earlier on inside the pub. They both got beat up but Stu far worse than John, I think this is the same incident. The thug fight that may have led to Stu's death is also recreated in the 'Birth of The Beatles' film, it comes in at the 3:00 minute point of this clip. Revisiting 'Birth of The Beatles' I find it's not as bad a film as its' reputation has led some to believe. Sure, there are inaccuracies, but overall it's not a bad dramatization of the Beatles' early years and makes a good companion piece to 'Backbeat' and 'Nowhere Boy'.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 30, 2011 10:56:31 GMT -5
What is the consensus here on John kicking Stu in the head? Man, the two remained close friends Stu's whole life, Stu only physically parting with John for Astrid. Could Stu forgive a man who could so beat him? Yet, brothers can have vicious fights and love can turn to raging hate and back again to love. I don't know sexually but I would have to think that John and Stu loved each other at least like brothers. John badly battered Bob Wooler and John was the type to fight someone he knew he could whip. Stu seemed pretty fragile. Still, I have never wanted to believe that John could have done that to Stu. John: Given their close relationship, I really doubt it. If he did it to Stu, he could have done it to anyone -- Paul, for example. And there's been no record (that has surfaced) of a brutal fistfight between any of the Beatles that I can recall offhand. Now, if there had been.... That is a very good point. Tigers don't change the colors of their stripes. If John could so beat a close friend like Stu then he might have tried that savagry on Paul or the younger George. No evidence of that. I have not believed the story but that's not to say the guys didn't get in some fights through the years. OldFred, I agree with you that Birth Of The Beatles is very well made and deserves a better fate than what it got. It blew me away years later when I saw it. It was the first of its kind and people got too hung up in the late 1970's on how the actors looked and talked. It was filmed on location too I think. It was not as artsy as Backbeat but so what.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 30, 2011 11:18:06 GMT -5
Here's the alleged Sutcliffe version: Here's the version found in the TV movie 'Birth of The Beatles', it comes up at the 4:42 minute point of the clip: And someone on the 910 board put together this video offering evidence that it might not be Stuart: You decide. After listening to the cut from Birth of The Beatles (I have never seen the film) with the actor who played Stuart singing the song, his voice sounds extremely similar to the supposed Stuart recording. Aside from the fact they have the same vocal timbre in both cuts, the actor's voice has a fast flutter in some of the held notes in the song that is also audible in the Stuart recording. Also the actor had a tendency to sometimes cut short the vowel sound on the words "tender" and the conjunction word "and" so they sound sometimes like "tennder" and "annnd" with very short vowel sounds on the "e" and "a". The Stuart recording has some of the same characteristics, indicating it is very likely the same singer. There are computers today that can compare the two recordings and using the sound waves produced, indicate with pretty good accuracy if the two recordings are from the same human voice. That is easily done and not very expensive. I'm sure at some point Astrid and Paul will get a listen to the recording and give their opinions. Doubts by Klaus Voorman and Pete Best don't bade well for it being authentic. I'm a professional opera singer, so I know singing voices pretty well and the unique characteristics that a voice makes giving it to a particular individual. Having heard the actor in the film now, it sounds like the same guy singing in the supposed Stuart track. So I doubt we have finally heard the real Stuart Sutcliffe. What a shame, because if it were authentic, what a real gem to find after 50 years. PS Isn't the actor who portrayed Stuart in the film still around to be interviewed about this?
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 30, 2011 14:49:06 GMT -5
The actor playing Stu in the film insn't really singing the song, he's miming to a pre-recorded track and someone else is actually singing the song. The band Rain recorded all the Beatle tracks in the movie and Steve mentioned the singers' name in an earlier post on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 30, 2011 16:17:21 GMT -5
You got me wondering about the Birth of the Beatles film so I searched it and came up with this web site called The Video Beat. They have a video called The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl, 1964. It's only $19.99. Is this legit?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 30, 2011 17:34:14 GMT -5
Absolutely not! The only legit live Beatles video material is the Ed Sullivan shows and whatever is on Anthology.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 30, 2011 17:50:43 GMT -5
The two voices on the separate recordings are almost exactly alike in many parts of the song. As lowbasso said they have the same characterics. It sounds like the same voice. Therefore it is definitely not Stewart Sutcliffe. There has never been any talk that this existed before. No record of it no mention in any book. Its just not believeable. And as I said the singers sound like the same person. This is all so ridiculous.
Steve I don't know what you were listening to. They are not the exact same recordings. It could be an alternate take. But its the same person singing. Same pitch same timber same little quirks. It couldn't be anyone immitating Stu because no one knew what he sounded like since he was never recorded before.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 30, 2011 18:10:51 GMT -5
The actor playing Stu in the film insn't really singing the song, he's miming to a pre-recorded track and someone else is actually singing the song. The band Rain recorded all the Beatle tracks in the movie and Steve mentioned the singers' name in an earlier post on this thread. Whoever the singer is in the movie, if he is still living, then an interview should clear this up rather quickly. As would members of the band Rain. The vocal track on the supposed Stuart recording is probably an alternate take remixed to an updated instrument track. I was thinking earlier if that really was Stuart on that recording, he sounds pretty damn good, as good a singing voice if not better than Paul or John had at that point in their early careers. Stuart may have played a lousy bass guitar, but if he could sing like that, hell, I'd have had him out front singing a lot more than just that one number. And he would have made an indellible impression on John, Paul, George, and Pete as a good singer. But alas, none of the group ever mention in the Anthology that Stuart had an especially good singing voice. And Pete's doubts on the recording strengthen that point. For all we know, Stuart may have had a deep baritone voice and was an untrained musician. The voice we hear on this recording (a lyric tenor voice)sounds like it had some training.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 30, 2011 19:50:39 GMT -5
I tend to agree if his voice was that smooth, just make him the darn front man and forget the bass stuff.
But it also is pretty sad that his family would cling to a fake recording to try to cash in on him.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 30, 2011 22:02:41 GMT -5
The two voices on the separate recordings are almost exactly alike in many parts of the song. As lowbasso said they have the same characterics. It sounds like the same voice. Therefore it is definitely not Stewart Sutcliffe. There has never been any talk that this existed before. No record of it no mention in any book. Its just not believeable. And as I said the singers sound like the same person. This is all so ridiculous. Steve I don't know what you were listening to. They are not the exact same recordings. It could be an alternate take. But its the same person singing. Same pitch same timber same little quirks. It couldn't be anyone immitating Stu because no one knew what he sounded like since he was never recorded before. LB: To my ears, it's not the same singer. Like I said, "Love Me Tender" isn't a song you can change tempos on or do a lot of fancy rearranging on.
|
|
|
Post by OldFred on Oct 30, 2011 22:03:05 GMT -5
You got me wondering about the Birth of the Beatles film so I searched it and came up with this web site called The Video Beat. They have a video called The Beatles at the Hollywood Bowl, 1964. It's only $19.99. Is this legit? It's not a legit copy, but Video Beat is known for releasing high quality videos of rare music films and TV specials. The version of 'Birth of The Beatles' they're offering is the European version, which has some nudity, rougher language and more mature themes than in the American version of the film. I placed an order to replace the copy I have.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 30, 2011 22:03:12 GMT -5
|
|