Sgt. Pepper: "Crude" Eight-track recording?

[liqih]

without all the colours and the Martin arrangments
the Stg Pepper songs are just tiny little nice pretty pop songs

1. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
2. With a Little Help from My Friends
3. Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds
4. Getting Better
5. Fixing a Hole
6. She's Leaving Home
7. Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!
8. Within You Without You
9. When I'm Sixty-Four
10. Lovely Rita
11. Good Morning Good Morning
12. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)
13. Day in the Life

I think one or two of those songs might have stood the test of time if they had been produced by a stone deaf 3 year old.

he he, is like the PC vs Mac war for your english people?, <grin>

not for me, I love both old bands, just prefer Stones songs and sound, matter of personal taste,

anyway have you ever singed with just a crappy guitar
all Stg Pepper songs and all Sticky Fingers songs?

I did many times, and I knew the difference!, LOL

[fishbowl.tucson.az]

Seriosuly, this dude REALLY deserves being called the 5th Beatle - a shame he's never got ANY compositional credits.

Even the 3rd and 4th Beatles can sympathize

[liqih]

l,
i just played the Stones 'Between the Buttons' CD over Xmas
what a wacky CD
like Mick got hold of a rhyming dictionary

but there are some truly wicked bass sounds on that album
a very odd off-center album effort for the Stones, but i really love that work.
'Aftermath' is really fairly dark and heavy for that era, but 'BtB' comes across as very light

yes, I don't like 'BtB' too much for that, but I do like the miscellanous of sounds in it,

'Aftermath' Goin' Home song is a must listen now IMHO,
and then read the year of recording, <grin>

must have been about the same time as 'Revolver'?
before Sgt P.

BTW I consider the 'Revolver' songs better than the Stg Pepper ones

[munchkin]

Yes, Sgt Pepper is very poppy but apparently when Brian Wilson of Beach Boys fame heard it he threw in the towel when it came to competing with the Beatles.

It's hard to imagine now (and I was not old enough to appreciate the album at the time) but I really think that the sound of Sgt Pepper was very influential on music at the time. I do remember going to see the film and being slightly bored by it. It wasn't just the sound of the album but the image that went with it. I grew up in London and, even though I was very young, I distinctly remember paisley everywhere and the psychedelic influence the album had on images at the time. I'm not saying the Beatles invented psychedelia but I think they encapsulated its essence with Sgt Pepper.

Of course, there have been loads of music/media influenced by it since then so I think it's novelty has worn very thin. But that doesn't diminish the fact that it was a musical, technical and cultural achievement that stood out above everything else at the time.

The Stones are great. I even love 'Start Me Up' as used by M$ advertising. The Stones did some fantastic and innovative music. Even presenting it in an outrageous way (appearing on Ready Steady Go in drag!) So I always think of then as having a much rawer edge than the Beatles. But comparing them I think is like comparing two different but lovely types of ale. If you love ale why not enjoy the whole range on offer?

[wrench45us]

my friend in Ca. has an interesting take on the Beatles vis a vis Stones that may not be original with him, but a native UK opinion on it would be interesting to me.

his idea is that the Stones were more upper class than the Beatles and thus had to establish their musical credibility by digging into blues and 'working class' roots.
While the Beatles were truly working class and so had no drive in that direction, but simply absorbed all types of 'pop' music.
(one of the most entertaining cds i own is the Beatles at the BBC -- very early stuff when they were still doing covers -- truly a very talented and versatlie band -- lots of r'n'b mixed with pop and even a few girl group tunes and one tune from 'Music Man' -- all over the map - and then their early stuff comes out of this mad mix as still very fresh and energetic)

[liqih]

my friend in Ca. has an interesting take on the Beatles vis a vis Stones that may not be original with him, but a native UK opinion on it would be interesting to me.

his idea is that the Stones were more upper class than the Beatles and thus had to establish their musical credibility by digging into blues and 'working class' roots.
While the Beatles were truly working class and so had no drive in that direction, but simply absorbed all types of 'pop' music.

ok we are hijacking the thread, <grin>

anyway don't think that's 100% correct,

Stones were from London and Beatles from Liverpool,

Stones felt black music more than white one,
vice versa the Beatles,

those are the starting points IMHO

(one of the most entertaining cds i own is the Beatles at the BBC -- very early stuff when they were still doing covers -- truly a very talented and versatlie band -- lots of r'n'b mixed with pop and even a few girl group tunes and one tune from 'Music Man' -- all over the map - and then their early stuff comes out of this mad mix as still very fresh and energetic)

I have that vynil, or some track from those mixed with early live recording, and you can indeed hear the talent, but also how "white music" they are

[munchkin]

my friend in Ca. has an interesting take on the Beatles vis a vis Stones that may not be original with him, but a native UK opinion on it would be interesting to me.

his idea is that the Stones were more upper class than the Beatles and thus had to establish their musical credibility by digging into blues and 'working class' roots.
While the Beatles were truly working class and so had no drive in that direction, but simply absorbed all types of 'pop' music.
(one of the most entertaining cds i own is the Beatles at the BBC -- very early stuff when they were still doing covers -- truly a very talented and versatlie band -- lots of r'n'b mixed with pop and even a few girl group tunes and one tune from 'Music Man' -- all over the map - and then their early stuff comes out of this mad mix as still very fresh and energetic)

The Beatles definitely had a much rawer sound during their Hamburg days. I saw a tv programme recently about the Beatles secrets. In it regulars at the Cavern describe how the Beatles sound and look was polished up when Brian Epstein took them on. Apparently Lennon and McCartney were eager to go in this direction even to the extent of dumping the drummer in order to recruit the more sociable Ringo. They were definitely from working class backgrounds where as the Stones met at Art College. But I don't think the Stones were trying to prove working class roots. I just think they were very hedonistic and loved the raunchiness of blues.

Both groups were moulded by their managers to appeal to teenage girls in the early days. But when the 60's became more political and the 50's notion of pop died a death both bands injected a huge dose of reality and imagination into their music. The Stones and the Beatles were influenced by the political and cultural changes that were happening at the time and their influence affected society in return.

[liqih]

double post

[clueless]

my friend in Ca. has an interesting take on the Beatles vis a vis Stones that may not be original with him, but a native UK opinion on it would be interesting to me.

his idea is that the Stones were more upper class than the Beatles and thus had to establish their musical credibility by digging into blues and 'working class' roots.
While the Beatles were truly working class and so had no drive in that direction, but simply absorbed all types of 'pop' music.
(one of the most entertaining cds i own is the Beatles at the BBC -- very early stuff when they were still doing covers -- truly a very talented and versatlie band -- lots of r'n'b mixed with pop and even a few girl group tunes and one tune from 'Music Man' -- all over the map - and then their early stuff comes out of this mad mix as still very fresh and energetic)

The Beatles definitely had a much rawer sound during their Hamburg days. I saw a tv programme recently about the Beatles secrets. In it regulars at the Cavern describe how the Beatles sound and look was polished up when Brian Epstein took them on. Apparently Lennon and McCartney were eager to go in this direction even to the extent of dumping the drummer in order to recruit the more sociable Ringo. They were definitely from working class backgrounds where as the Stones met at Art College. But I don't think the Stones were trying to prove working class roots. I just think they were very hedonistic and loved the raunchiness of blues.

Both groups were moulded by their managers to appeal to teenage girls in the early days. But when the 60's became more political and the 50's notion of pop died a death both bands injected a huge dose of reality and imagination into their music. The Stones and the Beatles were influenced by the political and cultural changes that were happening at the time and their influence affected society in return.

for the most part, The Beatles weren't working class (although they weren't 'posh kids' either) and there was a distinct art-school ingredient.

I missed that programme, unfortunately - I'd been looking forward to it in case my former landlady popped up on it; Beryl Williams - their first manager's then-missus who, AFAIR, used to drive them over to Hamburg. She still has the house in Liverpool where Lennon and Sutcliffe rented rooms, and I lived there myself a while back. She's quite a character, and 'selects' tenants she sees as having some sort of artistic bent

...and my dad lived on Gambier Terrace and Upper Parli St at the time. Liverpool being the little village that it still is, he inevitably hung out with the Beatles and their contemporaries, and recalls having spent most of his 9-5 time chasing Ken Dodd out of Littlewoods for nicking socks

sorry, someone said 'nostalgia' and 'hijack'...

for anyone interested in the period and its inhabitants, check out "Days in the Life - Voices from the English Underground 1961-1971" by Jonathan Green. I recommend it unreservedly!

[Kim Olesen]

[quote="Scot Solida"]

Gotcha. Yes, you are right, Pepper was much better gear (four tracks instead of three!),

quote]

Well actually the 2 first beatles records (please please me and with the beatles), were done on 2 track machines!. Then in late 63 Abbey Road got 4 track machines and when they recorded S pepper in 67 it was the same machines that they had done a hard days night on. So no, even at this point Abbey Road was still way behind other studios (Trident Studios in London had 8 track by this time as had many american studios) So sgt pepper weren't recorded on state of the art equipment. (That is if you discount all the nice outboard gear such as fairchild limiters and such). But Sgt pepper did have one true innovation: 2 machines running in sync. The method was so crude. a 50 herz square wave was recorded on one track of the main 4 track machine and that signal was the put through a power amp and used as powersuply!!! for the other machine. This was done for the orchestral overdub on A day in the life. But they never did it again because it was not stable enough. Martin says that if you listen closely you can hear the two machines go out of sync with the other, and also the slave machine was slugish (not surprisingly) in starting up as compared to the master machine.
The irony is that emi actually had an 8 track by this time but it took a whole year for it to be taken into use (by the beatles who actually instructed the engineer on that particular session to break into the the tech department and "steal it , into studio one during the white album sessions). The reason for the 8 track not being in use at the time of pepper was that the tech people didn't think it was good enough and wanted to make modifications on it.
Kim

[Montana]

""What made those albums sound so good wasnt't just the music (though that was, of course, the most important aspect), but the engineering. Geoff Emerick or Norman Smith could record a great record on two straws and a toaster. Assuming, of course that Lennon/McCartney or Barret/Waters/Wright were providing the tunes to sing down the straws. ""


Hehe good post.

I suggest anyone who is longing for some of those great bands of old to check out some great newer-ish bands, namely the Flaming Lips and Wilco. The Lips especially took the experimental live and studio wizardry of the Beatles and Pink Floyd to different levels.