|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 3, 2009 16:11:46 GMT -5
Again just to keep the facts straight about a track we haven't heard, where is "horrible" used by Mark Lewisohn when he talks about this track? As far as I know, that is the only report we can count on at the moment. One might judge it as "horrible" after it's released, but that assumption can't be made unless we've heard it or it has at least been described as that. It's fairly easy to gauge by the entry in the RECORDING SESSIONS book that it sounds like it's horrible, but that was my word, not Lewisohn's. But Geoff Emerick recalls that right after it was finished, George Martin said: "This is ridiculous, we've got to get our teeth into something a little more constructive". When asked 20 years later if he recalled the session, Martin responded: "No, and it sounds like I don't want to either!" If it comes out I'll certainly listen to it. But I don't think there's anything wrong with stating it sounds to be be pretty worthless. Who knows, I may be surprised ... but I'd doubt it. Obviously I can't officially comment on what I think of a track without hearing it; but I can say it is said to be ridiculous and forgettable. The precise details of the session presented by Lewisohn in his description sound excruciating as well. |
|
|
|
Post by beatleroadie on Mar 3, 2009 16:25:24 GMT -5
Well, CoL may have been a "constant" discussion point on Beatles boards and among bootleg traders, but those still make up only a very SMALL fraction of Beatles fans. Carnival of Light has no name recognition like Revolution does, and at 14 minutes, it's just not going to attract enough of an audience in the first place to ever be classified as a "let down." I'm telling you, there will be some hype, but not a ton. I think when CoL is finally released it'll have the same amount of articles and media coverage as "Revolution Take 20" got last week and not much more. The downplaying has already begun with McCartney's statement to Rolling Stone "Don't expect another Strawberry Fields," and more comments in that vein will crop up right before it's released. CoL will come and go with casual fans not paying much attention and die hards being happy because we wouldn't backlash against CoL anyway, recognizing it for it's historical significance and it's experimentation, more than it's catchiness or musical value.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Mar 4, 2009 10:47:31 GMT -5
He's probably refering to possible demos made for Peter and Gordon, or significant session work such as a guide vocal or something? (Jim: I think you put your answer in the wrong spot, so I modified it. If I'm wrong, say so and I'll put the post back the way it was. -- steve) Yes, I meant the demo acetates. Not sure if there were guide vocals on studio sessions. I think Woman would be really cool to hear-Get Back versions weren't that good. |
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Mar 5, 2009 12:45:21 GMT -5
But Geoff Emerick recalls that right after it was finished, George Martin said: "This is ridiculous, we've got to get our teeth into something a little more constructive". When asked 20 years later if he recalled the session, Martin responded: "No, and it sounds like I don't want to either!" He had the same attitude about Revolution 9. That is one track he would have exiled from the album. |
|
|
|
Post by superhans on Mar 5, 2009 13:34:49 GMT -5
Isn't it funny that the one great thing that came out of John's whole 'Revolution' experiment was the version that hardly ever gets talked about - just plain old 'Revolution' - the b-side of 'Hey Jude'.
It's gobsmackingly good -- and absolutely light years ahead of 'Revolution 1' - takes 1-1000 and its ugly sibling, 'Revolution 9'.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnpaulharstar on Mar 5, 2009 15:17:34 GMT -5
Agreed here! The original "Revolution" on the B-side of "Hey Jude" is fantastic rock and roll! I also like the promo film version that is fast, but includes the "shoo-be-doo-bop-oow" backup vocals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 5, 2009 17:03:38 GMT -5
Isn't it funny that the one great thing that came out of John's whole 'Revolution' experiment was the version that hardly ever gets talked about - just plain old 'Revolution' - the b-side of 'Hey Jude'. It's gobsmackingly good -- and absolutely light years ahead of 'Revolution 1' - takes 1-1000 and its ugly sibling, 'Revolution 9'. Ain't that the truth. Hard, gut-wrenching rock - one of the best things they ever did. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 5, 2009 19:12:14 GMT -5
Agreed here! The original "Revolution" on the B-side of "Hey Jude" is fantastic rock and roll! I also like the promo film version that is fast, but includes the "shoo-be-doo-bop-oow" backup vocals. My fave "Revolution" is the promo film version; it has the best of both versions. I also like the lead guitar fills overdubbed on "Revolution 1" that are missing from Take 20. |
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Mar 5, 2009 21:07:18 GMT -5
Isn't it funny that the one great thing that came out of John's whole 'Revolution' experiment was the version that hardly ever gets talked about - just plain old 'Revolution' - the b-side of 'Hey Jude'. It's gobsmackingly good -- and absolutely light years ahead of 'Revolution 1' - takes 1-1000 and its ugly sibling, 'Revolution 9'. Ain't that the truth. Hard, gut-wrenching rock - one of the best things they ever did. I agree with all three of you. In fact, I heard it on the radio the other day, and it almost leaped out of the speakers! I remember a DJ after playing it, saying, "If that were any better, it'd be illegal!" A little hyperbole, but I agree with the spirit of the statement.  |
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Mar 6, 2009 6:24:50 GMT -5
COL sounds like something that would have been a perfect B side for Revolution No. 9. Meaning you play each of 'em once and never again.
The CW is that the fans are more intrigued by the 27-minute version of Helter Skelter, which Lewisohn has described as "nothing special." So if he is even less impressed with COL, then I'd say there isn't much there there.
Regarding EMI's demand that Take 20 be removed from YouTube (although it was again up and running a couple of days ago), I have only one question: why do Apple and EMI hate the fans?
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 6, 2009 6:56:04 GMT -5
Regarding EMI's demand that Take 20 be removed from YouTube (although it was again up and running a couple of days ago), I have only one question: why do Apple and EMI hate the fans? I am the last one who'd want to defend Apple/EMI. I think they stink in the regard that they sit on so much material and won't give us LET IT BE, the Beatles Promos, or even new CD remasters... but I can't say I blame them too much for not wanting a Beatles outtake to get leaked out and maybe even marketed on bootlegs. I'm still glad it's out there, I am a mega-bootleg owner and I'll thumb my nose at the company; but I'm just saying I can see their objection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2009 4:04:47 GMT -5
Isn't it funny that the one great thing that came out of John's whole 'Revolution' experiment was the version that hardly ever gets talked about - just plain old 'Revolution' - the b-side of 'Hey Jude'. It's gobsmackingly good -- and absolutely light years ahead of 'Revolution 1' - takes 1-1000 and its ugly sibling, 'Revolution 9'. yes...i agree...it's a fantastic song...i love that distorted guitar sound...that tune really rocks...no mama...dada...mumbo required in this version of Revolution.... |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 9, 2009 5:50:23 GMT -5
Isn't it funny that the one great thing that came out of John's whole 'Revolution' experiment was the version that hardly ever gets talked about - just plain old 'Revolution' - the b-side of 'Hey Jude'. It's gobsmackingly good -- and absolutely light years ahead of 'Revolution 1' - takes 1-1000 and its ugly sibling, 'Revolution 9'. yes...i agree...it's a fantastic song...i love that distorted guitar sound...that tune really rocks...no mama...dada...mumbo required in this version of Revolution.... Yeah - and I've never liked that outdated "shooby-doo-wop" stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Mar 9, 2009 10:57:39 GMT -5
yes...i agree...it's a fantastic song...i love that distorted guitar sound...that tune really rocks...no mama...dada...mumbo required in this version of Revolution.... Yeah - and I've never liked that outdated "shooby-doo-wop" stuff. I like that on the fast, video version because it gives Paul and George something to do. Isn't it all John vocals on the B-side version? The more Beatles' involved vocally per song the better to me! |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Mar 9, 2009 15:01:12 GMT -5
Yeah - and I've never liked that outdated "shooby-doo-wop" stuff. I like that on the fast, video version because it gives Paul and George something to do. Isn't it all John vocals on the B-side version? The more Beatles' involved vocally per song the better to me! Yes, but George and Paul were still singing "don't you know it's gonna be..." |
|
