• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

All Things Must Beat. Share Anything Beatles!!

#1,321
beans-on-toast said:
The Beatles used a technique on some songs, both a bass and the Fender VI were recorded in unison. The Fender VI is tuned an octive lower than a guitar. It produced a heavy sounding bass when the two were combined. They would sometimes triple it with a guitar. See 7 minutes in.


Click to expand...


Really interesting thank you. I learned the medley on side 2 of Abbey Road last month and on “You Never Give Me Your Money” at the beginning is some cool noodling. I could not discern whether it was a guitar or bass doing those slides and pull offs. So I learned it it on my bass figuring what’s the harm. It is more distinguishable as the opening note of A on the bass when it gets in to the body of the song. But I wonder if the used that bass VI at the top of that song. Cool…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: beans-on-toast
#1,322
Michael Favata said:
Ahh so that’s the Bass IV VI! I never saw one and wondered. It has 6 strings. A tremolo bar. All those Jaguar switch’s and a Jag body. Interesting. And yet I knew of the bass and the fact that John played bass on Dig It and George played bass on Two Of Us. Interesting. Bass? Or guitar played as a bass? Or guitar/bass designed by Fender to look like a guitar, feel like a guitar, have guitar knobs and switches but sound like a bass? Interesting. Hey it worked! I like playing both of those songs on my standard short scale 4 string variety.
Click to expand...


The 7ender (and Squier) Bass VI is a special more guitar-like bass, made for plectrum picking guitarists. Although, Jack Bruce did finger pluck his Fender Bass VI in Cream!

But George played the basslines of "Two of Us" on his new rosewood Telecaster guitar, not the Bass VI. ;) That's the actual guitar played as bass.


.​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: staurosjohn and Michael Favata
#1,323
G-Dog said:
The 7ender (and Squier) Bass VI is a special more guitar-like bass, made for plectrum picking guitarists. Although, Jack Bruce did finger pluck his Fender Bass VI in Cream!

But George played the basslines of "Two of Us" on his new mahogany Telecaster guitar, not the Bass VI. ;) That's the actual guitar played as bass.


.​
Click to expand...


wow that’s cool. Did I read somewhere he just gave away that Tele?! That has some value whoever has it! But you know George wasn’t of this Material World!
 
#1,324
The Beatles were cat people, especially John.

John Lennon Was a Crazy Cat Lady

cats.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Owl and Rumble Thunder
#1,325
Michael Favata said:
wow that’s cool. Did I read somewhere he just gave away that Tele?! That has some value whoever has it! But you know George wasn’t of this Material World!
Click to expand...


George was definitely a very generous guy to his friends and often drove around with several ukeleles in the boot of his motor for spreading musical enjoyment to one and all! But, he also had a very piercing contempt for those he considered to be evil!

When Ringo first became an official Beatle, and got harassed by fans of Pete Best at the Cavern Club, it was George who stepped in and took a black eye for his friend defending him. George preferred spirituality, but was unafraid of the material world.

0beb42d67dc49731c8c61d82bfe773e8--abbey-road-black-eyed.jpg

.​
.
 
#1,326
Paul New said:
I'm not anti-beatles. If you like boy bands, rock on.
Click to expand...

You'll agree, though, that the real prototypical boy band was the Stones. They performed their polite, slightly inept blues covers while wearing their matching suits as the well-groomed, well-to-do suburban boys that they were until Andrew Loog Oldham had the inspiration to package them as the anti-Beatles (ironically, by having them ape the Hamburg-era version of the Beatles that Brian Epstein had cleaned up).

20161110STONES-slide-7ZKM-articleLarge.jpg
 
Last edited:
#1,335
Ok so I’m going to say something that will be controversial for some and tick off some people but where else can I discuss what I’m thinking about this topic:

I’m seeing the clips of the upcoming “Get Back” release and in reading 7 biographies in my life on the Beatles and being a lifelong fan and untold research it’s clear to me that for a while John was a heroin addict. George and John liked their acid trips. Paul was more of a pot head. I’m not sure about Ringos vice of choice but he certainly was high too. But they are all high as a kite on these sessions.

I mean. It was 1969. They were grappling with immense pressures from that phenomenon known as the Beatles. They were in their 20s. In a bubble where everyone said yes to them. Bob Dylan comes along. One thing leads to another. In those clips their eyes are wide eyed and glassy with dilated pupils. Stoned smiles and stoned laughing at times. I mean whatever. I’m not judging them who am I to throw stones.

But it seems taboo to even mention John had a drug problem.
I think part of him going silent when Sean was born was to detox too. I’m happy for him. Many drug addicts never get there. He seemed to have made it to the clean and sober side and happy and well adjusted before his untimely death.

I know after visiting Haight-Ashbury George was disgusted by what he saw. Before that he saw drugs as a way to free people’s minds until that trip. Then he saw the dark side of drug addiction in the streets there and changed his mind.

I think Paul is criticized unfairly for driving the car during those drug infested years but perhaps it was because he was the least addicted and the one most capable of playing that role?

Whatever the case they still made brilliant music during that time. But what if the drugs were not so prominent? So present. I don’t know what the question is I’m asking or what my point is. I just want to put this out there with people who love the Beatles like me and hear what they think. And yes btw. I know all too well what I speak of. I’ll leave it at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumble Thunder
#1,336
StereoPlayer said:
It’s too bad they don’t seem to be together anymore. They are old videos. I really enjoyed all their videos.
Click to expand...

Yup - it is… appears ‘he’ (Roberto Pace) had a different singer for a song (still a few years ago)… the ‘original’ vocalist is Chiara D'Emilio - she has a few vids - but not much. My wife & I really love her voice… and his bass playing! :thumbsup:
Ya prolly saw this one… not The Beatles… back to ur original programming :roflmao:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StereoPlayer
#1,338
Whatever the case they still made brilliant music during that time. But what if the drugs were not so prominent? So present. I don’t know what the question is I’m asking or what my point is. I just want to put this out there with people who love the Beatles like me and hear what they think.

This is an interesting question that is very difficult to answer. All human beings are so very different in their approach to music and creativity. Personally in my experience, I am a much better player as far as technique, precision and remembering my parts when I am sober however I realize this is my personal experience and I am only one individual. I can see where one could argue that since drug use can alter one's mindset then the resulting implication would be that one's creativity could increase as a result. The Beatles did create brilliant music. I have a feeling that Brian Epstein might have controlled it somewhat and perhaps have made the drug use of the band a bit more "manageable" but who really knows? All I can really say is that "because the wind is high...it blows my mind."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Favata
#1,339
Rumble Thunder said:
Whatever the case they still made brilliant music during that time. But what if the drugs were not so prominent? So present. I don’t know what the question is I’m asking or what my point is. I just want to put this out there with people who love the Beatles like me and hear what they think.

This is an interesting question that is very difficult to answer. All human beings are so very different in their approach to music and creativity. Personally in my experience, I am a much better player as far as technique, precision and remembering my parts when I am sober however I realize this is my personal experience and I am only one individual. I can see where one could argue that since drug use can alter one's mindset then the resulting implication would be that one's creativity could increase as a result. The Beatles did create brilliant music. I have a feeling that Brian Epstein might have controlled it somewhat and perhaps have made the drug use of the band a bit more "manageable" but who really knows? All I can really say is that "because the wind is high...it blows my mind."
Click to expand...

Thanks @Rumble Thunder thats what I was trying to get at I think. Each person is different. I remember times when we were stoned and thought the performance was great but the recording said otherwise. But I do remember being able to let go and be very creative when under the influence which can be good too. I think in the end that there’s no question people are more technically adept at their instruments when the are sober. At least that’s been my experience. For some it may feel better performing high but I don’t think it helps them actually play better.

Bottom line when it comes to The Beatles is NO ONE knows what that bubble was like. Most people would have burst under the pressure. Went to excess in any number of ways. It was a unique experience in world history. Perhaps there were some rare kings or queens who knew the isolation and loneliness of that kind of fame. Maybe Elvis and Michael Jackson had a better understanding than most. But if I were experiencing THAT in my 20s I don’t think I would have managed it well. They just kept writing! I’m just not sure whether I should laugh or cry seeing them all so stoned in those “Get Back” sessions. To be happy for them or feel sadness for them.

Through it all they wrote 188 original songs in just under 7 years! Half of them are classics and most of the rest are solid. Not many clunkers in the lot. Amazing.

I am happy for Paul and Ringo. They seem to be enjoying it now and recognizing what a special thing that was they experienced together. They seem well adjusted and happy. John seemed like he was in a good place finally too. Not so bitter and angry and acerbic. What a tragedy that happened to him at that point in his life. How amazing would that have been to see them reunite. And there’s no doubt in my mind they would have reunited.
How cool would that have been…..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rumble Thunder and GregC

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back