DM's Beatles forums

Beatles forums => Albums => Microscopes => Topic started by: tkitna on March 12, 2011, 02:28:06 PM

Title: Beatles under a microscope - Past Masters 1
Post by: tkitna on March 12, 2011, 02:28:06 PM
After kicking the hornets nest in the George forum, I figured what the hell. I have nothing to lose. I'm going to disect the Beatles song for song, album to album (gives me a reason to open the Remastered Box Set). Theres going to be positives along with negatives. Opinions and facts. Each member will get his accolades and his beatdowns. Even George Martin wont be safe. I might make a mistake or a dozen reviewing these songs as to who played what and ask for your corrections as i'm not going to go to those depths or i'll never finish it. If this isnt a good idead, Bobber, HG, or Apps or somebody can tell me now because i'm going to start in the next few days. I figured an album a week maybe to get some discussion going. If it falls apart from bickering, we'll axe the whole thing. No big deal.

Pastmasters 1 will get the first shake.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Bobber on March 12, 2011, 03:02:00 PM
I'm not going to stop you. ha2ha

Actually, I think it's a good idea and a subject for good debates in which we again respect each others opinion. lol!
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Ovi on March 12, 2011, 03:24:46 PM
Yep...sounds pretty interesting.Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 12, 2011, 11:50:42 PM
Jolly good, Sarge, carry on.

;)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 15, 2011, 01:04:24 AM
Pastmasters Vol. 1

I didnt include the two German songs for obvious reasons, but anyways, here we go.

1. Love Me Do - I wish I could say this song was a decent effort for one of their first tunes, but it isnt. let me start off by saying that I hate John's harmonica. Its an annoying sound. As if there wasnt enough of it, he follows through with a solo. Great. Pauls bass playing is almost childish. Its too simple. The hand claps during the solo are just plain silly. Thanks to George Martin, Andy White handles the drumming as if it was going to be too tough for Ringo or any other person who's held drum sticks for more than 5 minutes (Sorry Pete). To top it all off, the harmonies are weird. Paul sings in a higher pitch then everybody else and it just sounds off.

2. From Me To You - This song is a better effort, but not by a bunch. Ah, there's that harmonica again. Sounds stupid in this song too. Ringo does a decent job, but he seems to rush his fills as if he's excited that he's allowed to do them. I give John credit for trying to sing with a bit of a raunchy voice to harden the blow, but it doesnt work. Paul and George do good enough for what the songs worth. Not much more to add.

3. Thank You Girl - A guilty pleasure of mine and I admit that its not a good song. Theres that dumb sounding harmonica again (see a trend here). Pauls voice is too high again in the background vocals. Theres the obvious tempo increase at the end too that always made me laugh. Ringo's fault? I think so. My notes have something written down about an echo too, but I dont know where that happens. Oh well.

4. She Loves You – First thing I take notice to is Pauls melodic bass playing. Sounds nice even on this little pop tune. Another thing I heard that I liked was George’s voice on the background vocals. He was steady as a rock here and for some reason I picked him out and liked what I heard. Ringo ending fills with the bass drum instead of the crash is just plain awesome. Great little early number.

5. I’ll Get You – Hey everybody, there’s that harmonica again. I’ll leave it at that. The ‘Oh Yeah’s’ sound outright annoying. At 1:13 they mess up the chorus. John sings one thing and Paul sings something else (think it was Paul). How can you let that slide? George Martin,,,,Hello! I do like Ringo’s high hat buildup through the song. John’s Louis Armstrong voice is decent too. Nothing else really stood out.

6. I Want To Hold Your Hand – John’s rhythm guitar sounds good and is solid. Paul’s bass playing is stout too. I cant say the same for George. That twangy sounding guitar throughout the song is bad. Sounds pretty terrible to my ears. At 1:22 they mess up going into the chorus. It was a pretty big song for something like that to be allowed to happen.

7. This Boy – I never really listened closely to this song before because I never liked it well enough to care. Ringo’s double time on the hats is nice. I wish there was no electric guitar in this song. Acoustic only would have been my choice. I don’t like the tone of the electric guitar. George and Paul’s backup vocals are tight and top notch. 1:27 mark you can hear the obvious studio break. The guitar at the end sounds stupid and shouldn’t have been there.

8. Long Tall Sally – Ringo flat out kicks on this one. Solid, big time. Check him out at the 1:40 mark where he adds the toms. Paul’s voice is excellent. Not a huge fan of the piano for some reason. The guitar solo sucks. Its almost as though he almost gets it, but then loses it. Its really awful. Why didn’t they let him work it out for a few minutes and then do it again? Doesn’t make sense.

9. I Call Your Name – Is John’s lead vocals doubletracked here? Did they even have that at the time? They almost have to be because its so perfect. Paul and Ringo are locked in on the rhythm section together. And then theres the guitar. Not only do I hate the twangy tone, but the playing is horrible. The solo is a train wreck. See, its moments like these that I have to wonder why they even kept George. As a producer, I would have never let this go to the public.

10. Slow Down – Was this song put together in 2 minutes? Sure sounds like it. Georges guitar playing is once again, a travesty. Just atrocious. Another solo butchered. I just don’t understand. Its obvious he hit a wrong note and just went with it. He plays the same mistake three more times in a row as to try to convince us its right when its not. Whatever. Johns rhythm guitar isn’t much better though. 1:13 they mess up the lyrics. Ringo is solid as is Johns voice.

11. Matchbox – Another song I think the vocals are doubletracked, but these don’t match up as well as ‘I Call Your Name’. Probably wrong on that. Guitar solo is a joke again. Terrible. Bass is good. Ringo carries a nice shuffle throughout and the piano is good too.

12. I Feel Fine – You can tell they took care with this one. George’s guitar tone is great on this one and his solo is tight and confident sounding. Applause. Ringo’s best Beatle song on the skins. I’ve said it more than once, but I’ve never heard another drummer play it right. More applause. Paul could have added a bit more with the bass. The bass note on the 1 and 3 is boring. Background vocals are tight and sound great. Nothing bad to say about this one. Sounds more mature for one of their earlier tunes.

13. She’s A Woman – I don’t like the guitar strumming on this one. Tone more than anything else I suppose. I’ve never heard Pauls voice sound like this before. He sang it with a different tone or accent. I don’t know. He just sounds different and I like it. The piano sounds good in the background too. The 1:24 mark John flat out misses a bar with the guitar and again its allowed. George Martin needs slapped sometimes. Guitar solo was good, but I don’t like the tone (yes, I’m anal about this). Pauls voice doubletracked?

14. Bad Boy – John’s voice is great. Lead guitar sucks once again. Oh George, please change that tone. Its just old style country twang. It eats at me. Ringo rocks. The organ solo sucks in my opinion. George’s solo was actually decent. He stayed in the lower range and the ear piercing tone was tolerable. I actually enjoyed the tambourine as a space filler too.

15. Yes It Is – Hate the slide guitar. Hate it. Harmonies are too loose. Should have tightened them up. Around the 1:04 to 1:07 mark, Ringo either slows down or John speeds the tempo up. Something sounded off.

16. I’m Down – I don’t care for Johns goofing off, low background vocals. What I did hear was pretty neat and i’m not sure if its due to the remasters or not, but George’s guitar solo was layered on top of another. You can hear the other solo in the background at a lower volume. Was pretty neat. Organ solo was ok and I liked the bongo’s. They added nicely.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Mairi on March 15, 2011, 01:16:29 AM
I really admire your attention to details. I wish I was as good at picking out parts in music as you are.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 15, 2011, 02:16:10 AM
excellent thread & excellent post tkitna, although Im going to take issue with you on your comments  ;D

I'll dig out my remastered set and re listen

btw thats a volume pedal on Yes It Is (not a slide guitar)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 15, 2011, 02:32:44 AM
Thanks Mairi. I have fun with it.

Quote
btw thats a volume pedal on Yes It Is (not a slide guitar)

Is that what he's doing? Makes sense. I just dont like the sound.

Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 15, 2011, 02:49:20 AM
Quote
9. I Call Your Name – Is John’s lead vocals doubletracked here? Did they even have that at the time? They almost have to be because its so perfect. Paul and Ringo are locked in on the rhythm section together. And then theres the guitar. Not only do I hate the twangy tone, but the playing is horrible. The solo is a train wreck. See, its moments like these that I have to wonder why they even kept George. As a producer, I would have never let this go to the public.


Yes double tracked, sung twice as there was no ADT at this time.
IMO a great Lennon vocal, sung with power and feeling, Ive always loved it.
Overall I think I disagree about George's playing, I mean although technically it is quite poor, i think its saved by his invention, its a great 'choice' of solo with its very own melody, I also like the lead guitar in the chorus's.

I always liked how the tempo changed in the guitar solo with the others playing a kind of ska beat, very clever..
What does annoy me was Ringo's use of the constant cowbell like he did on its sister song  You Cant Do That.
This was a gem for a B grade Beatle track, would have love to see them live doing it.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 15, 2011, 03:13:42 AM
I think this is going to be a fine thread, tkitna, and a great reason to listen to my remasters again.

I kind of like the volume pedal on Yes It Is.  It adds a dream-like effect to the song.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 15, 2011, 04:04:15 AM
Yes double tracked, sung twice as there was no ADT at this time.

Man, he nailed it then. The timing was just about perfect.

Quote
Overall I think I disagree about George's playing, I mean although technically it is quite poor, i think its saved by his invention, its a great 'choice' of solo with its very own melody, I also like the lead guitar in the chorus's.

Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Quote
I always liked how the tempo changed in the guitar solo with the others playing a kind of ska beat, very clever..

I like it too.

Quote
What does annoy me was Ringo's use of the constant cowbell like he did on its sister song  You Cant Do That.

I almost mentioned the cowbell, but I couldnt decide if i liked it or not when i listened to the song. I guess i'm neutral about it.

Quote
This was a gem for a B grade Beatle track, would have love to see them live doing it.

Eh, its only alright with me.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 15, 2011, 06:55:01 AM
Quote
Yeah, we're going to have to agree to disagree here.


its like i said in the george thread, with me his arse is saved  ;D by the little melodies he came up with in his solo's which were different than the song melody, I always liked that, clapton did it well on sunshine of your love

georges playing on many songs on this album is poor technically though with lots of misstimed and bum notes, I agree with you there.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 15, 2011, 08:58:48 AM
The thing about George with me is that when he's good, I love him. When he's bad, he's down right awful.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: peterbell1 on March 15, 2011, 10:01:10 AM
With regard to some of the production issues/mistakes on these early Beatles tracks - missed chords, bum notes etc......

I suppose back in 63/64 they weren't predicting that people would be sitting round listening to and analysing perfect CD-quality copies of their recordings 50 years later. They were recording for vinyl releases, which would be played on poor quality turntables and through crappy speakers.
They let stuff get through the net because they were being rushed for new "product" and studio time was limited. A song could be written, recorded and released within a matter of weeks so there was no time to get things totally perfect. I presume they let some of the mistakes go because the rest of the take was acceptable and it wouldn't have been noticed at the time.
So to us today it might sound like sloppy production but back then it was the way things happened - you could record an album in a single day, complete with overdubs etc. A modern band might take a day just to get the drum sound OK for one song - they wouldn't even have thought about starting to record anything!

And I think this also affects what the Beatles actually played as well. You take issue with a few of Geroge's solos and guitar tones, but there was probably very little time for him to actually sit and work out parts for a new composition. They didn't have days in rehearsal studios to perfect each individual part - it was more or less made up on the spot or maybe in a hotel room or tour bus. If you listen to some of the outtakes where we have multiple takes of one song (like From Me To You or Hard Days Night) you can hear the different parts coming together literally as it is being recorded. I accept that this doesn't hold for the cover songs that they had been playing for years.

Also, they were all laying down the backing tracks together, so as soon as they got a take that was acceptable they would go with it. They wouldn't want to play the same song 100 times to get it perfect - they'd go with something that was almost there.

I think if you listen to the early songs with all this in mind you do get a different perspective on how good they actually were at writing and recording.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 15, 2011, 11:33:21 AM
that was a good read
=
agree and disagree with some of your comments,
when there's a 'mistake' such as them singing different words together, tempo shift or minutely fudging the way into a chorus - i like that.
to me it humanizes the song, shows that they deliver 'off the cuff' and paints the picture of enthusiastic early efforts
=
you are very tuned into ringo's parts which is interesting to read
from the songs on pastmasters i think i notice ringo's playing most on she loves you and thank you girl - maybe i need to listen for the drums more as a beatles fan, i kind of take them for granted
-
people get bored with the simplicity and monotony of love me do (including aunt mimi).... but i zen out on it  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: peterbell1 on March 15, 2011, 12:53:53 PM
The thing about George with me is that when he's good, I love him. When he's bad, he's down right awful.

I agree with you there! I think listening to the Get Back/Let It Be sessions shows us that George was no good at improvisation. He couldn't "feel" his way round a song very well. He needed time to work on a part and perfect it, and then he'd get it spot on. There's very few bum notes by George in the live recordings we have of The Beatles, so I think this shows that he was a consistent player once he had learned his part. Many of his later 60s guitar parts were much more advanced than the early ones because he had more time to sit and perfect them (although that doesn't explain what he was doing with All You Need Is Love!)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Ovi on March 15, 2011, 01:03:52 PM
I extremly love both "Yes It Is" and "I'm Down".

Yes It Is - love the lyrics and John's voice. The guitar is pretty interesting, maybe a little boring, but I like it.
John didn't like the song, he considered it "a fail attempt to rewrite This Boy", but Paul described it as "a very fine song of John's".

I'm Down - the song rocks ! Paul's voice is brilliant, the lyrics are kinda funny and catchy. I never saw it as a serious song (like "Let It Be" stuff), so John's goofy piano seems perfect for it.

Also, am I the only person on Earth who likes "I Want To Hold Your Hand" more than "She Loves You" ?
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Gary910 on March 15, 2011, 02:32:27 PM
Tkitna.

It is amazing to me that you would call yourself a Beatles fan. It seems that you think that there are more songs that "suck" than ones you think are great. I think this thread is a great idea and criticism is welcome (obviously as long as others are respected). I like other artists but when I don't like most of their songs, I can truly say, "I am not a fan". This is just my opinion.


Also, am I the only person on Earth who likes "I Want To Hold Your Hand" more than "She Loves You" ?

No, I am in your club too. (That doesn't mean I don't like "She Loves You", or I think it stinks.)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 15, 2011, 09:30:38 PM
2. From Me To You - This song is a better effort, but not by a bunch. Ah, there's that harmonica again. Sounds stupid in this song too. Ringo does a decent job, but he seems to rush his fills as if he's excited that he's allowed to do them. I give John credit for trying to sing with a bit of a raunchy voice to harden the blow, but it doesnt work. Paul and George do good enough for what the songs worth. Not much more to add.


From Me To You was the song that made me take notice of The Beatles in late 1963 when New York City radio stations first started airing it.  I liked it a lot, harmonica and all.  Earlier that year, Del Shannon covered it...

Del Shannon - From Me To You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfl9BUOuwBE#)

Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 15, 2011, 11:28:47 PM
I agree with you there! I think listening to the Get Back/Let It Be sessions shows us that George was no good at improvisation. He couldn't "feel" his way round a song very well. He needed time to work on a part and perfect it, and then he'd get it spot on. There's very few bum notes by George in the live recordings we have of The Beatles, so I think this shows that he was a consistent player once he had learned his part. Many of his later 60s guitar parts were much more advanced than the early ones because he had more time to sit and perfect them (

Partly yes but I think the reason his later parts were better is that george worked very hard at playing the guitar over the years and became a lot more accomplished on it. I alwys got the impression he wanted J & P to take him more seriously as a guitarist (as well as a songwriter)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 15, 2011, 11:31:29 PM
Tkitna.

It is amazing to me that you would call yourself a Beatles fan.

To be honest Gary i think that will be a bit insulting to tkitna...........IMO anybody who takes the time to start this thread the way he/she has and write about every song on an album (and have the box set) is a big fan.

...and i havent mentioned all the time he/she has spent writing the past posts..
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 15, 2011, 11:55:20 PM
You take issue with a few of Geroge's solos and guitar tones, but there was probably very little time for him to actually sit and work out parts for a new composition. They didn't have days in rehearsal studios to perfect each individual part - it was more or less made up on the spot or maybe in a hotel room or tour bus. If you listen to some of the outtakes where we have multiple takes of one song (like From Me To You or Hard Days Night) you can hear the different parts coming together literally as it is being recorded. I accept that this doesn't hold for the cover songs that they had been playing for years.

Quote
I agree with you there! I think listening to the Get Back/Let It Be sessions shows us that George was no good at improvisation. He couldn't "feel" his way round a song very well. He needed time to work on a part and perfect it, and then he'd get it spot on. There's very few bum notes by George in the live recordings we have of The Beatles, so I think this shows that he was a consistent player once he had learned his part. Many of his later 60s guitar parts were much more advanced than the early ones because he had more time to sit and perfect them (although that doesn't explain what he was doing with All You Need Is Love!)

This is perfect. I was going to bring up the issue about George's lack of improvision or his inability to do so, but you continued on and nailed it. I've personally played with tons of guitar players that brought it to the table when we went off the cuff and some jamming was in need. Some were better than others naturaly, but most of them could pull it off. These werent pro's either mind you. This is why I question Georges ability or skill sometimes, but Nimrod goes on to say this -

Quote
Partly yes but I think the reason his later parts were better is that george worked very hard at playing the guitar over the years and became a lot more accomplished on it. I alwys got the impression he wanted J & P to take him more seriously as a guitarist (as well as a songwriter)

This is true and explains it. George really did work hard and its evident in his later playing. Much cleaner and more inventive. I need to remind myself that George really wasnt a pro either at the stage of the earlier stuff. That eases my pain.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 12:04:05 AM
Tkitna.

It is amazing to me that you would call yourself a Beatles fan. It seems that you think that there are more songs that "suck" than ones you think are great. I think this thread is a great idea and criticism is welcome (obviously as long as others are respected). I like other artists but when I don't like most of their songs, I can truly say, "I am not a fan". This is just my opinion.

Great comment and I expected this sooner or later. No problems. the fact is that i'm a true diehard Beatle freak just like everybody else here. I've been a fan now for 35 years. I've probably heard it all, seen it all, read it all, knew it all, and forgotten it all more times than I can remember. Even though i'm a huge diehard fan, I let down the guard and see them in my own way. I like to call out the negatives with the positives. The Beatles were great, but they had their warts too. Is it so bad that we see them sometimes?

The Beatles have how many songs? Trust me, I like more of them than I dislike or I wouldnt be here. Picking a song apart instrument by instrument doesnt mean you dont end up liking the whole. Yeah, there are Beatle songs I think suck. I think you would be lying to yourself if you said you liked them all.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 16, 2011, 12:07:14 AM
its evident in his later playing. Much cleaner and more inventive

all this george guitar criticism was getting at me too - because at the same time i read and understand his alleged limitations.... he's still the lead guitarist in my favorite group and i think he's awesome

geoff emerick really has at him in his book about recording the beatles
-
anyway...
i listened earlier today to the solo song 'i'd have you anytime' . . and george's lead guitar is so soulful and expressive! blows away what eric clapton played on w.m.g.g.w.
... then i googled the song and found that george wrote it with bob dylan . .
so
i think george excells in a collaborative environment and has great talents as a collaborator - - > such as knowing when to use restraint or bolster someone else's idea etc
-------------------
wait, am i in the george thread or the microscope one !  ha2ha  ;sorry  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 16, 2011, 12:14:03 AM
wait, am i in the george thread or the microscope one !  ha2ha  ;sorry  ;D


seems like george takes over everywhere   ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 12:21:07 AM
anyway...
i listened earlier today to the solo song 'i'd have you anytime' . . and george's lead guitar is so soulful and expressive! blows away what eric clapton played on w.m.g.g.w.

I've always been bitter with WMGGW's and to be honest, its because George didnt play the lead on it. While listening to Clapton play, he does nothing on that song that George couldnt have done himself and it p*sses me off for some reason. I know the reason why Clapton was there, but damn, I wish George would have played the lead. It would have given me so much enjoyment over the years.

Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 16, 2011, 12:24:30 AM
I've always been bitter with WMGGW's and to be honest, its because George didnt play the lead on it. While listening to Clapton play, he does nothing on that song that George couldnt have done himself and it p*sses me off for some reason. I know the reason why Clapton was there, but damn, I wish George would have played the lead. It would have given me so much enjoyment over the years.



now there i disagree with you tkitna, I dont think george could ever play with the virtuoso touch that clapton does on there, whether that mattered as most people listened on a cheap crappy record player is another issue  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 16, 2011, 12:38:33 AM
I've always been bitter with WMGGW's and to be honest, its because George didnt play the lead on it. While listening to Clapton play, he does nothing on that song that George couldnt have done himself and it p*sses me off for some reason. I know the reason why Clapton was there, but damn, I wish George would have played the lead. It would have given me so much enjoyment over the years.
-
ditto
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 16, 2011, 12:47:03 AM
His solo acoustic version would have more than sufficed...

While My Guitar Gently Weeps - George Harrison Tribute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TZmrYUtj2Y#)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 01:13:24 AM
now there i disagree with you tkitna, I dont think george could ever play with the virtuoso touch that clapton does on there,

Another one we'll have to agree to disagree on.  ha2ha

I'm a Clapton fan too and people go gaga over his playing on that song, but I dont hear it. Its good, but Claptons done hundreds of songs with more impressive playing. I think George could have done that without problems, but I might be wrong. Oh well, i'll be getting to this tune eventually anyways so maybe i'll hear something different.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 16, 2011, 01:22:51 AM
I'd Have You Anytime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjeos1pV2vY#)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 16, 2011, 02:08:14 AM
Quote
8. Long Tall Sally – Ringo flat out kicks on this one. Solid, big time. Check him out at the 1:40 mark where he adds the toms. Paul’s voice is excellent. Not a huge fan of the piano for some reason. The guitar solo sucks. Its almost as though he almost gets it, but then loses it. Its really awful. Why didn’t they let him work it out for a few minutes and then do it again? Doesn’t make sense.

partly disagree on LTS mate, Ive never been a big fan of the song itself but surely this is one where the Beatles showed what a truly awesome band they were, Pauls vocal is astoundingly brilliant, as is the rest of the band, I can only dream about being able to sing like that.........both solo's imo work very well and george excells here, he gets into the groove very well, Ringo is awesome and I love the piano......the whole thing about it is this shows how well they could rock 10/10 boys !!

Could The Stones have done this, could Jagger have sung it ?..............no f-ckin way  ;D


note...curiously on the bbc version george sucks big time  ???
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on March 16, 2011, 03:23:40 AM
1. Love Me Do - I wish I could say this song was a decent effort for one of their first tunes, but it isnt. let me start off by saying that I hate John's harmonica. Its an annoying sound. As if there wasnt enough of it, he follows through with a solo. Great. Pauls bass playing is almost childish. Its too simple. The hand claps during the solo are just plain silly. Thanks to George Martin, Andy White handles the drumming as if it was going to be too tough for Ringo or any other person who's held drum sticks for more than 5 minutes (Sorry Pete). To top it all off, the harmonies are weird. Paul sings in a higher pitch then everybody else and it just sounds off.

This is the first version of "Love Me Do", and it actually has Ringo on drums. The album version has Andy White on drums, and there Ringo is on tambourine. I think that the first version of the song, despite its historical value, shouldn't have been released on the Past Masters, it belongs to the Anthologies or something like that (same goes for the German versions of "She Loves You" and "I Want To Hold Your Hand"). Paul's voice sounds nervous and the harmonica, which in my opinion makes the song, isn't as good as in the album version. The track actually has been taken from a vinyl record, since the original master was deleted back in the early days, and I can see why. I do like the album version of "Love Me Do", and it was also released on subsequent singles and EPs after the first version was deleted.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 03:38:43 AM
This is the first version of "Love Me Do", and it actually has Ringo on drums. The album version has Andy White on drums, and there Ringo is on tambourine.

I couldnt remember which version it was. Nobody could tell the difference from the drumming on either version anyways.

I've never really listened to the two versions back to back to hear a difference in the harmonica.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 03:42:28 AM
Ive never been a big fan of the song itself

Me either

Quote
Pauls vocal is astoundingly brilliant

Isnt it though

Quote
note...curiously on the bbc version george sucks big time  ???

Lol. I havent spun it in awhile. I'll listen to it when I get home.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on March 16, 2011, 03:51:13 AM
I couldnt remember which version it was. Nobody could tell the difference from the drumming on either version anyways.

I've never really listened to the two versions back to back to hear a difference in the harmonica.

The key is the tambourine played by Ringo, you can hear it in the album version while it's not present on the Past Masters version. About the harmonica, I think it sounds much better in the album version, if you listen to both versions together you'll see the difference.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 16, 2011, 03:51:33 AM
This is a good time to post all three versions of Love Me Do for comparison...


1. 6 June 1962 with Pete Best on drums, as part of their audition at EMI Studios (Anthology)

The Beatles Love Me Do Anthology 1 version (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1mgIZrlLSE#)


2. 4 September 1962, with Ringo Starr (Past Masters)

THE BEATLES Remasters! /// 1. Love Me Do (Orig. Version) - (PAST MASTERS Vol.1) (STEREO 2009) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KARfxYcF7W0#ws)


3. 11 September 1962, with Andy White (Please Please Me)

The Beatles - Love Me Do (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed_2W_KO_zI#)

Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 03:55:03 AM
The key is the tambourine played by Ringo, you can hear it in the album version (though it's barely audible) while it's not present on the Past Masters version. About the harmonica, I think it sounds much better in the album version, if you listen to both versions together you'll see the difference.

Hmmm, see you learn something new everyday. I will listen to the two versions when I get home. I'm intrigued now. (Actually, it'll be Friday because i'm going to post Please Please Me then)

I cant listen to them here at work. Soundcard isnt very good.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nyfan(41) on March 16, 2011, 04:06:06 AM
ok
pete best version:
pete starts this out with a kind of shuffling country beat that confirms what i've always known about love me do . .  it's a country western cowboy type song
then at the one minute mark (someone to love...) pete tries to switch it up and play offbeats -> doesn't work and the band doesn't follow his lead - pete doesn't go through with what he's started -  total BALK
back to verse and pete has lost the shuffle. the structure of the song is shot


ringo version
ringo is steady on drums like a donkey getting you over a hill . .
but this version is terrible -i only kno the album version
and its not because of ringo vs andywhite...... it's john and paul's performance. the stops aren't crisp, it drags, the handclaps.... i get what tkitna was saying now
-
the andy white version is a 'magical take'. a keeper ! . . better harmonies, better harmonica, better production . . . . . and yeah, his drumming hits the mark
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 16, 2011, 04:33:25 AM
IMO (based on drumming only)

Andy White version = 10/10

Ringo = 6/10

Pete version = 3/10
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Gary910 on March 16, 2011, 05:02:48 AM
I think you would be lying to yourself if you said you liked them all.

Then I am lying to myself...

No really, I can say I do like every one of them. Solo and band. Yes, there are some that I like less.

I am glad you were not insulted by what I said, as I think you know that was not my intention. I know that you can be critical and that is good. If we all said, "Oh The Beatles are wonderful" there would be less to talk about. I have been a fan for really more than 30 years and a die-hard serious fan for over 25 years. I have learned and forgotten and re-learned more than most "fans" too. All my friends know me as a "Beatles expert". They have all tried, unsuccessfully, to stump me. If there was a Beatles "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" they would all have me on their list to call.

The list of Beatles people I have met is long. My collection is incredible (drives my wife crazy). Enough bragging about myself. I am just glad to be here.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 05:30:15 AM
No really, I can say I do like every one of them. Solo and band. Yes, there are some that I like less.

Wow. I dont know what to say. Its hard for me to comprehend that you can like even all of their solo songs and albums. You dont dislike even one? Not even McCartney 2?  ha2ha
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Bobber on March 16, 2011, 08:17:39 AM
partly disagree on LTS mate, Ive never been a big fan of the song itself but surely this is one where the Beatles showed what a truly awesome band they were, Pauls vocal is astoundingly brilliant, as is the rest of the band, I can only dream about being able to sing like that.........both solo's imo work very well and george excells here, he gets into the groove very well, Ringo is awesome and I love the piano......the whole thing about it is this shows how well they could rock 10/10 boys !!

Could The Stones have done this, could Jagger have sung it ?..............no f-ckin way  ;D


note...curiously on the bbc version george sucks big time  ???

I believe Long Tall Sally was done in just one take. Which makes it even better. ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: glass onion on March 16, 2011, 10:10:03 AM
wow-just come across this thread,todd,and not had much time to read a lot of replies and comments but there is a lot of information here,well done mate!!so i am going to comment on just a couple of things for the 'off'.
1.)'yes it is' is my favourite ever beatle track,just beautiful,even georges' unsure guitar.perfect,lovely melody.
2.)i always thought it was e.c playing the guitar solo on 'i'd have you anytime'.don't ask me why though,i am only guessing,i suppose.
3.)i also do not get why e.c's playing on 'gently weeps' gets so much praise.quite ordinary,really.

keep up this fantatic work todd-you are a true fan and you give me confidence to 'object' to some of the tunes that have never really been my favourites but i have never dared to say outloud.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: peterbell1 on March 16, 2011, 10:21:25 AM
His solo acoustic version would have more than sufficed...

Totally agree - I do love the finished full-band version, but that solo acoustic demo by George is just amazing.

With regards to the Clapton solo, I don't think George was still at the stage where he could play with that sort of feeling, and the Clapton guitar part really lifts the song a lot. It isn't a complex part in terms of what notes are played, but he gets a lot of feeling and expression into it, and that's what really sets a great guitar player apart from a good one. I can play the solo note for note but it still sounds nothing like Clapton's one - which is probably why he's rich and famous and I'm not  ;D
Anyway, within a few years George would be getting that same level of emotion into his playing, but in 1968 he still wasn't quite up there with Clapton.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: peterbell1 on March 16, 2011, 10:29:23 AM
ok
pete best version:
pete starts this out with a kind of shuffling country beat that confirms what i've always known about love me do . .  it's a country western cowboy type song
then at the one minute mark (someone to love...) pete tries to switch it up and play offbeats -> doesn't work and the band doesn't follow his lead - pete doesn't go through with what he's started -  total BALK
back to verse and pete has lost the shuffle. the structure of the song is shot


ringo version
ringo is steady on drums like a donkey getting you over a hill . .
but this version is terrible -i only kno the album version
and its not because of ringo vs andywhite...... it's john and paul's performance. the stops aren't crisp, it drags, the handclaps.... i get what tkitna was saying now
-
the andy white version is a 'magical take'. a keeper ! . . better harmonies, better harmonica, better production . . . . . and yeah, his drumming hits the mark

It's been a while since I heard the Pete Best version. I'd forgotten how bad it is - you can see why George Martin had no confidence in him coz he's all over the place. I don't know when the song was written - is this something Pete would have played many times or was the song fairly new to him? Either way, that version with him playing is awful. And it does start out totally like a C&W song, yes. Very Frank Ifield. Surprised they didn't get a bit of yodelling in there for good measure!

Yep - the Ringo drums version is indeed let down by John and Paul's performance rather than Ringo's. I wouldn't say Andy White is all that much better than Ringo, to be fair to Mr Starr, but like you say the take with Andy White playing drums and Ringo on tambourine is by far the best of the three in terms of the finished product. The Ringo drums version seems very lame in comparison. Surprising that it ever got to #17 in the charts
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 10:35:54 AM
I'll take Ringo's version of 'Love Me Do' over the others by a landslide.

(His version on Vertical Man that is)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: tkitna on March 16, 2011, 10:45:37 AM
wow-just come across this thread,todd,and not had much time to read a lot of replies and comments but there is a lot of information here,well done mate!!so i am going to comment on just a couple of things for the 'off'.
1.)'yes it is' is my favourite ever beatle track,just beautiful,even georges' unsure guitar.perfect,lovely melody.
2.)i always thought it was e.c playing the guitar solo on 'i'd have you anytime'.don't ask me why though,i am only guessing,i suppose.
3.)i also do not get why e.c's playing on 'gently weeps' gets so much praise.quite ordinary,really.

keep up this fantatic work todd-you are a true fan and you give me confidence to 'object' to some of the tunes that have never really been my favourites but i have never dared to say outloud.

Thanks GO. Glad you came across this thread. I want your input being that your a fellow drummer and all.  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 16, 2011, 11:32:17 AM

If we all said, "Oh The Beatles are wonderful" there would be less to talk about. I have been a fan for really more than 30 years and a die-hard serious fan for over 25 years. I have learned and forgotten and re-learned more than most "fans" too. All my friends know me as a "Beatles expert". They have all tried, unsuccessfully, to stump me. If there was a Beatles "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" they would all have me on their list to call.

The list of Beatles people I have met is long. My collection is incredible (drives my wife crazy). Enough bragging about myself. I am just glad to be here.

you sound like my kinda guy Gary  ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: nimrod on March 16, 2011, 11:39:27 AM
With regards to the Clapton solo, I don't think George was still at the stage where he could play with that sort of feeling, and the Clapton guitar part really lifts the song a lot. It isn't a complex part in terms of what notes are played, but he gets a lot of feeling and expression into it, and that's what really sets a great guitar player apart from a good one.
totally agree peter, I too can play the solo but the way clappers played it was IMO true great musicianship, there are no 16th or even 8th notes but the finger vibrato is sublime, he really does make the guitar weep , or it sounds like that, its a sad sound, I believe he didnt get much time to practise before the session and really just came up with it, full credit to clapton, he didnt try to do anything flash, he didnt try to dominate the session, just a really tastefull solo, perfect for the song.........technically quite simple but dripping in emotion.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 16, 2011, 08:19:46 PM
1. Love Me Do
i totally love this song, sure it's simple, sure it's skimpy, but it's got a beat, the lyrics are upbeat, it sounds like a skiffle mutant, but you can't get around the country-western flavor to the tune. lennons harmonica adds bounce and another dimension to the song. it is bluesy to the core.
it gets the job done.

"It was on the 4 September session that, according to McCartney, Martin suggested using a harmonica.[2] However, Lennon's harmonica part was present on the Anthology 1 version of the song recorded during the 6 June audition with Pete Best on drums.[18] Also, Martin's own recollection of this is different, saying: "I picked up on 'Love Me Do' because of the harmonica sound", adding: "I loved wailing harmonica — it reminded me of the records I used to issue of Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee. I felt it had a definite appeal." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Me_Do#Background)[19] Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee would be an influence on Bob Dylan, who, in turn, would later influence the Beatles.[20]"
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 16, 2011, 08:24:53 PM
3.)i also do not get why e.c's playing on 'gently weeps' gets so much praise.quite ordinary,really.
;D hi glass onion ;D for me, it's the way he bends those notes around each other and makes the guitar talk and makes it all fit together.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Bobber on March 16, 2011, 08:52:25 PM
"It was on the 4 September session that, according to McCartney, Martin suggested using a harmonica.[2]

Talking Please Please Me here.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 16, 2011, 09:00:07 PM
most sources list that as the ringo version of lovemedo.

the andy white version was sept 11 and has no tambourine.

according to lewisohn : "Paul McCartney said: "Love Me Do was us trying to do the blues. It came out whiter because it always does. We're white and we were just young Liverpool musicians. We didn't have any finesse to be able to actually sound black. But Love Me Do was probably the first bluesy thing we tried to do.""

"Therefore, at 10:00 am on Monday, 11 February 1963, The Beatles and George Martin started recording what was essentially their live act in 1963, and finished 585 minutes later (9 hours and 45 minutes). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Please_Please_Me#Recording)[3] In three sessions that day (each lasting approximately three hours) they produced an authentic representation of the band's Cavern Club-era sound, as there were very few overdubs and edits."

Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: glass onion on March 16, 2011, 09:08:52 PM
;D hi glass onion ;D for me, it's the way he bends those notes around each other and makes the guitar talk and makes it all fit together.
 ;yes
yeah,no doubt eric is a special special player.i concede that the playing on gently weeps is good,despite me saying it's nothing special.to be honest i cannot imagine anything else on there in it's place.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 16, 2011, 10:36:56 PM
yeah,no doubt eric is a special special player.i concede that the playing on gently weeps is good,despite me saying it's nothing special.to be honest i cannot imagine anything else on there in it's place.
same here. i thought it was george for the longest time, then i thought it was perhaps paul or pehaps john or perhaps they were trading licks ala the end on abbey road. but really none of them play like that.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on March 17, 2011, 01:49:37 AM
most sources list that as the ringo version of lovemedo.

the andy white version was sept 11 and has no tambourine.

Actually the Andy White version (September 11) does have a tambourine, since Ringo played it. The version with Ringo on drums (September 4) does not have the tambourine. The Ringo version with no tambourine was released in the first editions of the single (and it's the version included in the Past Masters) and the Andy White version (with tambourine) is on Please Please Me album.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 17, 2011, 02:19:01 AM
Actually the Andy White version (September 11) does have a tambourine, since Ringo played it. The version with Ringo on drums (September 4) does not have the tambourine. The Ringo version with no tambourine was released in the first editions of the single (and it's the version included in the Past Masters) and the Andy White version (with tambourine) is on Please Please Me album.
oops! my bad, you're right.
 ;sorry
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 17, 2011, 06:01:57 AM
I can play the solo note for note but it still sounds nothing like Clapton's one

totally agree peter, I too can play the solo but the way clappers played it was IMO true great musicianship

I'm sure if I were to hear both of your While My Guitar Gently Weeps solos, they would sound wonderful especially if you put your emotions into it.  I remember when I took blues guitar lessons from Ian Buchanan, himself a student of Blind Gary Davis and Brownie McGhee, I once brought along my Wheels Of Fire LP and played Crossroads for him.  "That's Crossroad Blues" he said and proceeded to play it in the traditional Delta Blues style.  Then he asked me to play rhythm while he played lead Eric Clapton style.  He really got into it and I was in awe.  Then he stopped and apologized for not being a good rock guitarist.  I wish I taped that lesson that evening.

But that's the beauty of guitar or any instrument you can express your feelings with.  Eric Clapton played a wonderful solo on WMGGW, nothing flash or domineering as you said nimrod, but just appropriate for George Harrison's song.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on March 17, 2011, 09:04:24 PM
7. This Boy – I never really listened closely to this song before because I never liked it well enough to care. Ringo’s double time on the hats is nice. I wish there was no electric guitar in this song. Acoustic only would have been my choice. I don’t like the tone of the electric guitar. George and Paul’s backup vocals are tight and top notch. 1:27 mark you can hear the obvious studio break. The guitar at the end sounds stupid and shouldn’t have been there.

I've always noted that studio break. I don't know if that was intended, I guess it was, but it sounds interesting. That trick was later used by several artists during the psychedelic years when they wanted to make an abrupt change.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 17, 2011, 09:25:46 PM
I've always noted that studio break. I don't know if that was intended, I guess it was, but it sounds interesting. That trick was later used by several artists during the psychedelic years when they wanted to make an abrupt change.
never have noticed that "bad" edit before. i totally love this song. john gets down to it.
 ;yes
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: glass onion on March 18, 2011, 11:47:54 AM
never have noticed that "bad" edit before. i totally love this song. john gets down to it.
 ;yes
the beatles were the absolute kings of bad edits!!!the problem being,as soon as you have had them pointed out to you,the song never sounds the same again!!there are some lovely edits in 'she loves you'.see if you can spot them!!! ;D
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - Past Masters 1
Post by: Hello Goodbye on March 19, 2011, 03:58:27 AM
I suppose we should listen for them here.  They must have been cleaned up a bit along the way for the CDs.

The Beatles - She Loves You - 45 RPM - TRUE MONO (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDv-ihWLrqs#ws)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope
Post by: peterbell1 on March 21, 2011, 11:07:01 AM
never have noticed that "bad" edit before. i totally love this song. john gets down to it.
 ;yes

Is that really an edit at that section? I don't notice it.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - Past Masters 1
Post by: 7 of 13 on March 22, 2011, 03:36:57 AM
sounds fine to me.  :)
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - Past Masters 1
Post by: Gary910 on March 22, 2011, 05:00:30 PM
I don't think that is an edit. If so, I would say completely along with the structure of the song. I especially would not call it a "bad edit".
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - Past Masters 1
Post by: tkitna on March 22, 2011, 11:47:32 PM
I never said it was a bad edit either. I just said its obvious. The band was playing the one part of the song and you can hear it end and the4 song comes right back with the other part they were playing. Its not hard to hear.
Title: Re: Beatles under a microscope - Past Masters 1
Post by: Hombre_de_ningun_lugar on March 23, 2011, 04:51:48 AM
That studio break in "This Boy" reminds me to this song by Pink Floyd. Listen at 1:59, it seems to be the same kind of edit, as a psychedelic effect I guess.

Pink Floyd - Matilda Mother (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwKWLjnyjuo#)