Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nimrod]

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..

[tkitna]

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.

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 -

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.

[tkitna]

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.

[nyfan(41)]

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 !     

[nimrod]

wait, am i in the george thread or the microscope one !     

seems like george takes over everywhere   

[tkitna]

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.

[nimrod]

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 

[nyfan(41)]

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

[Hello Goodbye]

His solo acoustic version would have more than sufficed...

While My Guitar Gently Weeps - George Harrison Tribute

[tkitna]

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. 

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.

[nyfan(41)]

I'd Have You Anytime

[nimrod]

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  


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

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

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.

[tkitna]

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.

[tkitna]

Ive never been a big fan of the song itself

Me either

Pauls vocal is astoundingly brilliant

Isnt it though

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.

[Hombre_de_ningun_lugar]

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.

[Hello Goodbye]

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

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

THE BEATLES Remasters! /// 1. Love Me Do (Orig. Version) - (PAST MASTERS Vol.1) (STEREO 2009)

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

The Beatles - Love Me Do

[tkitna]

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.

[nyfan(41)]

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

[nimrod]

IMO (based on drumming only)

Andy White version = 10/10

Ringo = 6/10

Pete version = 3/10