Re: Complete Recording Sessions Volumes 2,4,9,15 Jan. 19 updates

[masterjedi]

super small nit picking from me too... Something (take 37) is slightly longer (without fadeout) and the Vigotone release of that tape (N°3 Abbey Road NW8)... Thanks!
Doc

They actually both end in exactly the same spot. But, The Vigotone is better fidelity in the final seconds due to it not fading into tape noise, so I'll make a patch.

[MarkRJones1970]

It's probably a "no" on both of these but just in case.....

1. The supposed Beatles version of I Want You with Paul McCartney on vocal? Perhaps with modern tech it can be cleaned up quite a bit? YouTube: hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiX9vr7CKQ

2. Step Inside Love - Cilla Black session tape with Paul.

Appreciate the suggestions (I really do), but no way The Beatles were playing that crappily in 1969 (or any other year for that matter). And other artist's sessions are outside the scope of this project.

I've never heard that it's Paul singing that song. It's just not his voice. It's probably some Apple band doing a cover version. Or from a tape someone sent in to Apple in view to the label signing them. The lead singer sounds like the same person singing that 'I Need You' song that wasn't the song sung by George on 'Help!'. It didn't sound like Paul to me in 1985 when I first heard it on a bootleg. I just gave it another listen and it still doesn't sound like Paul IMO.

[Ants]

Thank you for your replies.

Also, for Come Together Take 6:

Mee Too! Will add the bit we have though.

It would be great to remove the voice-over from this bit we have.
I suppose it's another call for csnyfan's miracles?

[masterjedi]

- 1969-07-21 Come Together (take 1) (Anthology remaster) and 1969-07-21 Come Together [take 5] (Csnyfan (SDE)) fix: these two takes contain the same identical "Come Together!" phrase: at 1:10 in Take 1 and at 1:30 in Take 5. Where does it really belong? I wonder why the lifted part of the vocal performance and flew it in from another take. Now, we should doubt about every single SDE and/or Anthology outtake... lol.

It is indeed identical just for that phrase! I think it belongs to take 1, for 2 reasons. You can see the breath before "come together" fade in on take 5, whereas it's all there on take 1. And it seems to match the enthusiasm of take 1 and not take 5. You know, every day I respect Giles a bit less. I mean, why the added echo? Why the edits? You're not going to make a hit single here, the people who listen to this stuff want it warts and all. So revisionist, it's almost worse than the bootleggers.

[AdamBound]

Which take do you think the one verse of Maxwell's belongs to? It has to be either Take 5 from Anthology or Take 12 from the SDE...

[masterjedi]

Which take do you think the one verse of Maxwell's belongs to? It has to be either Take 5 from Anthology or Take 12 from the SDE...

Definitely belongs to take 12. You can see the edit out of the shared verse in the spectrogram at 2:40.5 in Anthology. What do you think I should do? Looks like the verse could be edited out pretty cleanly.

[AdamBound]

Which take do you think the one verse of Maxwell's belongs to? It has to be either Take 5 from Anthology or Take 12 from the SDE...

Definitely belongs to take 12. You can see the edit out of the shared verse in the spectrogram at 2:40.5 in Anthology. What do you think I should do? Looks like the verse could be edited out pretty cleanly.

Honestly I would say just edit the verse out, it would be a little awkward to listen to but it seems like the most accurate solution to me!

[dascottjr]

If we have outtakes with some bits of other takes flown in, I'd say leave them alone, but note that those flown in bits exist. For the sake of listenability, anyway. A good example of this would be the Anthology version of I'm So Tired, which was a composite of three takes. I'd rather have the composite in one piece versus separated into chunks.

[Bumblebee]

It's probably a "no" on both of these but just in case.....

1. The supposed Beatles version of I Want You with Paul McCartney on vocal? Perhaps with modern tech it can be cleaned up quite a bit? YouTube: hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiX9vr7CKQ

2. Step Inside Love - Cilla Black session tape with Paul.

Appreciate the suggestions (I really do), but no way The Beatles were playing that crappily in 1969 (or any other year for that matter). And other artist's sessions are outside the scope of this project.

I've never heard that it's Paul singing that song. It's just not his voice. It's probably some Apple band doing a cover version. Or from a tape someone sent in to Apple in view to the label singing them. The lead singer sounds like the same person singing that 'I Need You' song that wasn't the song sung by George on 'Help!'. It didn't sound like Paul to me in 1985 when I first heard it on a bootleg. I just gave it another listen and it still doesn't sound like Paul IMO.

The ‘I Want You’ conundrum was discussed earlier this year, along with another rogue track called I Need You’ both of which had been passed around as late period Beatle takes. The thread is here:

viewtopic.php?t=9593&hilit=Mortimer

The ‘I Want You’ bit starts around page 3 of the thread. There’s some interesting theories but nothing conclusive.

[Ants]

It is indeed identical just for that phrase! I think it belongs to take 1, for 2 reasons. You can see the breath before "come together" fade in on take 5, whereas it's all there on take 1. And it seems to match the enthusiasm of take 1 and not take 5. You know, every day I respect Giles a bit less. I mean, why the added echo? Why the edits? You're not going to make a hit single here, the people who listen to this stuff want it warts and all. So revisionist, it's almost worse than the bootleggers.

I thought it was the other way round, since it's more on Anthology that they did "mash-ups" and "frankenstein-izations" of takes/outtakes (during songs I mean, since the studio chatter and count-ins are messed up in the SDEs as well).

But yes, I have to agree with all you said.

If it was for a remix, a mash-up (like in Love) or similar things, then fine.
But it's an outtake, I'd say its own name indicates that it should be "left as it is", without retouches/edits/etc. (mixing only, maybe, without fading out any instrument).
Why add other count-ins before a take? Why edit the studio chatter? It's historical revisionism indeed.

Do they think we're not going to notice?

Also, the SDE booklets: full of errors, and they could hear the original multitracks! But we, without any "privilege", can deduce many interesting things, and get them right: the Old Brown Shoe drums, the Lady Madonna sessions (thanks csnyfan), and many more.

I usually don't demolish everything Giles Martin does. I don't like to do that, and, many times, it's done in an unfair way.
But come on... some of their decisions/mistakes (I suppose it's not only Giles Martin's fault) are absolutely absurd.

You know I prefer your stuff (including csnyfan's) to the one on the SDEs?