All Things Must Beat. Share Anything Beatles!!

[Jeff Hughes]

There is a cool moment in episode two where John and Paul are working out the lyrics to "Get Back" while George is still away. Paul is talking a lot, and John is talking very little. I wonder if that was the dynamic of how they worked in the past? The technique of repeating the line with several different words was something I never knew they did.

I am not sure if this is just the storytelling of Jackson and his crew, but you see the shift of how it goes from Paul being the guy with a circle of people listening to John being the guy. From a filmmaking standpoint, I thought that was pretty cool to see. Of course it is all editing, so who really knows if that is how it was.

It is almost like Lennon as the leader was out of place in a huge empty film studio where The Beatles didn't normally hang, but in the actual studio Lennon jumps right into his normal role as the leader.

 

[Richland123]

Foo Fighters with Paul McCartney at Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame - Get Back

 

[StereoPlayer]

Starting the series right now.

 

[RedVee]

While my guitar, Chris Cheney of The Living End at a White Album anniversary show.

 

[RedVee]

After finishing Get Back now I was a bit surprised at how much work was actually done in this month. As mentioned above, all the tracks for Let it Be, a heap of the Abbey Road songs where at least started and there were other tracks that George would use later. It just seemed a different atmosphere to what has been reported for all these years.

I was also interested in George talking to John (I think?) about all these songs he has and that he wants to record them just to get them out. John thinks of it as a The Beatles production, but George must have been thinking of a solo record. Interesting as a what may have been.
All Things Must Pass started there I guess.

 

[ThudThudThud]

I had a friend make me a 'mix tape' from his complete Beatles collection of just George Harrison songs (including covers he sang on).
It was eye-opening how very talented he was.
His more 'out there' stuff was wonderfully hypnotic, and musically brilliant (Within You, Without You; It's All Too Much; It's Only A Northern Song).
"If I needed someone" stands out as an almost perfect pop song, and "Something" is just superb in every way.

For him to get just one or two songs per album shows the sheer depth of talent the band had.

 

[Michael Favata]

I think my perfect "Let It Be" album (After watching this and half way through episode 3) 1st would have NEVER brought Phil Spector in after it was done. John was wrong about that. Paul was right about that.
What he did to it was terrible.
"Let It Be" (naked) was MUCH better in my view.
But other than that it would have included the following songs (this assumes all the Abbey Road songs are saved for Abbey Road)
John:
Dig a Pony, Two Of Us, Across The Universe, Don't Let Me Down
Paul:
Get Back, The Long and Winding Road, I've Got A Feeling, Let It Be
George:
All Things Must Pass, I Me Mine, For You Blue, Old Brown Shoe

 

[marchone]

I agree that Phil Spector was a colossal mistake. One result is I despise two tracks, Let It Be and The Long And Winding Road. They’re the only Beatles recordings that make me wince.

 

[ElectroVibe]

I think they used two mics out of habit and simplicity. George didn't always have to sing, and his right handed guitar wouldn't have worked next to John so easily.

 

[Michael Favata]

I think they used two mics out of habit and simplicity. George didn't always have to sing, and his right handed guitar wouldn't have worked next to John so easily.

Interesting. You are probably right.
But he was so important to those amazing harmonies. I think he was the secret sauce.
I would have had a mic in front of him at all times.

 

[Alkali Ike]

Two mics are common when recording for video. One is purely for the studio audio, one is for the video track. No?

 

[marchone]

Interesting. You are probably right.
But he was so important to those amazing harmonies. I think he was the secret sauce.
I would have had a mic in front of him at all times.

The secret sauce was their dynamics together. The band wouldn't have happened any other way. All four were critical parts to the formula.

Without a doubt their respective solo outings would have happened anyway, but that last burst of of collective creativity was the shining end to a unbelievable output in eight years time. They lifted each other up.

 

[ElectroVibe]

Interesting. You are probably right.
But he was so important to those amazing harmonies. I think he was the secret sauce.
I would have had a mic in front of him at all times.

You never know. But I think that might have taken away from the musical energy on a lot of their songs, since Paul and George were together. Working together in that way.

 

[juancaminos]

A question I have always wanted to ask. Let say the question would go to Paul, because this is a bass forum, but it could go to any of them. The question: As a solo artist do you purposely strive for a sound that is different from the Beatles. On the other hand do you just play and sing what ever comes out? Is what we hear from Paul thru the years just Paul being Paul or does he have to work at just being Paul, differently?

 

[Michael Favata]

Two mics are common when recording for video. One is purely for the studio audio, one is for the video track. No?

No the mics I’m referring to were not video mics. Those were vocal mics for recording vocals on to the tracks on the songs. The video mics were on booms above them. Mostly out of view.

 

[G-Dog]

A question I have always wanted to ask. Let say the question would go to Paul, because this is a bass forum, but it could go to any of them. The question: As a solo artist do you purposely strive for a sound that is different from the Beatles. On the other hand do you just play and sing what ever comes out? Is what we hear from Paul thru the years just Paul being Paul or does he have to work at just being Paul, differently?

The premise that there is "a sound that is different from The Beatles" is an interesting idea in itself. They always hated the idea of sounding the same in song after song, like so many other groups that had a "signature sound". So The Beatles themselves usually tried to not sound like The Beatles! The whole idea of "Sgt. Pepper's" was to not even BE The Beatles!! But, in their solo careers, I firmly believe each one was being himself, consciously or not.

Paul, I believe, carried on the Beatles tradition of a variety of sounds throughout his career, consciously crafting different sounds for different songs. He even created songs in totally different genres, when you come right down to it; from pop, to hard rock, to grunge, to classical orchestration(!), to big band, to movie soundtracks, to jazz, to you-name-it. That's Paul being Paul, constantly trying different sounds, including the sound of some words over their meanings.

George, on the other hand seemed, to me, to hit on a very full, broadly instrumented "wall of sound" throughout his debut triple album that he often touched on, or totally came back to, in his solo career, although with occasional detours (most notably with The Wilburys). That's just George, only occasionally, but not often, venturing from the safety and familiarity of known tones, preferring to craft the most meaning in his words.

I believe John took the most organic "whatever will be, will be" approach with whatever musicians and instruments were at hand defining the sound within the framework of his songs. From his solo piano work to his "lost weekend" party boys, and things in between. John simply said what he wanted to say, the way he wanted to say it, or he just rocked out.

Ringo, by extending his "Sentimental Journey" of show biz standards and tin pan alley hits, mixed with rockers of his own & others' across his solo career, probably had the most "normal singer's sound" overall. Strangely enough, this may have fit his very distinctive voice quite well, so that his fans got exactly what they expected. That's just our unpretentious Richey Starkey, let the producers do their job and craft the sound, while he enjoys singing.

That's my admittedly oversimplified perceptions, at least. YMMV.
.

 

[Alkali Ike]

No the mics I’m referring to were not video mics. Those were vocal mics for recording vocals on to the tracks on the songs. The video mics were on booms above them. Mostly out of view.

I forgot about the overhead mics. But weren't there also 2 regular mics taped together sometimes? It's not important, just an observation.

 

[Alkali Ike]

Ringo, by extending his "Sentimental Journey" of show biz standards and tin pan alley hits, mixed with rockers of his own & others' across his solo career, probably had the most "normal singer's sound" overall. Strangely enough, this may have fit his very distinctive voice quite well, so that his fans got exactly what they expected. That's just our unpretentious Richey Starkey, let the producers do their job and craft the sound, while he enjoys singing.

Ringo had a pretty successful post-Beatles career and he definitely knows how to entertain his audience. He was awesome in A Concert For George.

Meet the Beatle: Ringo Starr's Solo Career in 20 Songs

 

[juancaminos]

The premise that there is "a sound that is different from The Beatles" is an interesting idea in itself. They always hated the idea of sounding the same in song after song, like so many other groups that had a "signature sound". So The Beatles themselves usually tried to not sound like The Beatles! The whole idea of "Sgt. Pepper's" was to not even BE The Beatles!! But, in their solo careers, I firmly believe each one was being himself, consciously or not.

Paul, I believe, carried on the Beatles tradition of a variety of sounds throughout his career, consciously crafting different sounds for different songs. He even created songs in totally different genres, when you come right down to it; from pop, to hard rock, to grunge, to classical orchestration(!), to big band, to movie soundtracks, to jazz, to you-name-it. That's Paul being Paul, constantly trying different sounds, including the sound of some words over their meanings.

George, on the other hand seemed, to me, to hit on a very full, broadly instrumented "wall of sound" throughout his debut triple album that he often touched on, or totally came back to, in his solo career, although with occasional detours (most notably with The Wilburys). That's just George, only occasionally, but not often, venturing from the safety and familiarity of known tones, preferring to craft the most meaning in his words.

I believe John took the most organic "whatever will be, will be" approach with whatever musicians and instruments were at hand defining the sound within the framework of his songs. From his solo piano work to his "lost weekend" party boys, and things in between. John simply said what he wanted to say, the way he wanted to say it, or he just rocked out.

Ringo, by extending his "Sentimental Journey" of show biz standards and tin pan alley hits, mixed with rockers of his own & others' across his solo career, probably had the most "normal singer's sound" overall. Strangely enough, this may have fit his very distinctive voice quite well, so that his fans got exactly what they expected. That's just our unpretentious Richey Starkey, let the producers do their job and craft the sound, while he enjoys singing.

That's my admittedly oversimplified perceptions, at least. YMMV.
.

I could agree with all of it.

 

[MAJOR METAL]