Bassists of the '60's Club.

[bobyoung53]

that story is just as reliable as wiki...

I would trust BP more than Wiki, I forgot who wrote it though. Wiki's a lot better than it used to be.

 

[bobyoung53]

that story is just as reliable as wiki...

I just found a thread about him where it's mentioned, he used Crisco on his strings when he hung them in the closet and Anthony Jackson wrote the article so I think we can trust the source. The closet is not mentioned in this thread but I still remember the article, Anthony wasn't crazy about his timing.


Ronnie Baker

 

[SoulReflection]

I just found a thread about him where it's mentioned, he used Crisco on his strings when he hung them in the closet and Anthony Jackson wrote the article so I think we can trust the source. The closet is not mentioned in this thread but I still remember the article, Anthony wasn't crazy about his timing.


Ronnie Baker

And here I thought my reference to KFC fingers on bass stings was a little out there. Hey, Bob, you can trust whatever source you want to....

 

[beans-on-toast]

 

[beans-on-toast]

I know it doesn't, just trying to set the record straight. Baker's the guy who used to buy new flatwounds and put them on a bass and hang it in his closet for a year with some kind of grease on them so they wouldn't rust to get them nice and bassy. That from a story in Bass Player Mag from any moons ago right after he died.

Stephen Stills put BBQ sauce on his bass strings.

"I keep bass strings on my bass 2 years at a time. I play bass so hard that I really thump it so, when I get a new string, I buy some barbecue sauce and sit and rub it in. This is because it's got to get a little funky, rusty, and greasy in there so it will start to respond." SS

He confirmed it on twitter in the replies.

 

[JIO]

1966 - the year I started playing bass. Revolver was the first Beatles album I bought. It's still my favorite Beatles LP. Love hearing about the details making it. Watched another break-down of Revolver where the short reversed guitar at the end of "Tomorrow Never Knows" sounds very much like Pauls raucous guitar solo in Taxman when reversed. (as in, could be the same, reversed)



Interesting that they slowed the (instruments) tape so the song (deliberately) dragged.

 

[bobyoung53]

Stephen Stills put BBQ sauce on his bass strings.

"I keep bass strings on my bass 2 years at a time. I play bass so hard that I really thump it so, when I get a new string, I buy some barbecue sauce and sit and rub it in. This is because it's got to get a little funky, rusty, and greasy in there so it will start to respond." SS

He confirmed it on twitter in the replies.

Did he do most of the bass for early CS&N?

 

[bobyoung53]

1966 - the year I started playing bass. Revolver was the first Beatles album I bought. It's still my favorite Beatles LP. Love hearing about the details making it. Watched another break-down of Revolver where the short reversed guitar at the end of "Tomorrow Never Knows" sounds very much like Pauls raucous guitar solo in Taxman when reversed. (as in, could be the same, reversed)



Interesting that they slowed the (instruments) tape so the song (deliberately) dragged.

I don't really believe half of the stuff that Giles says, that "actual speed" is sped up, I don't believe they recorded it in B flat, possibly A but that speed sounds ridiculous. You can tell the track was slowed down but come on...it's so fast it almost sounds a little chipmunky He is making quite a name for himself changing his father's landmark production though. Nothing against you Jio.

 

[bobyoung53]

I don't really believe half of the stuff that Giles says, that "actual speed" is sped up, I don't believe they recorded it in B flat, possibly A but that speed sounds ridiculous. You can tell the track was slowed down but come on...it's so fast it almost sounds a little chipmunky He is making quite a name for himself changing his father's landmark production though. Nothing against you Jio.

There's a definitive way to tell though, once I get my system power amp back I'll just throw the B flat version on my reel to reel and slow it down to G, if it's the same speed as the released version then I'm wrong.

 

[beans-on-toast]

Did he do most of the bass for early CS&N?

For example, Greg Reeves played bass on some of Deja Vu. But CSN&Y switched around instruments. Stills saw himself as a guitar and bass player in the studio. Same as Jimi Hendrix.

 

[bobyoung53]

For example, Greg Reeves played bass on some of Deja Vu. But CSN&Y switched around instruments. Stills saw himself as a guitar and bass player in the studio. Same as Jimi Hendrix.

Jimi was a good bass player.

 

[JIO]

I don't really believe half of the stuff that Giles says, that "actual speed" is sped up, I don't believe they recorded it in B flat, possibly A but that speed sounds ridiculous. You can tell the track was slowed down but come on...it's so fast it almost sounds a little chipmunky He is making quite a name for himself changing his father's landmark production though. Nothing against you Jio.

Well, as he pointed out, the two living Beatles (Paul & Ringo) gave their seal of approval to his work. He also pointed out (via Paul & Ringo) that if they (the Beatles) would have had stereo then - of course they would have used/incorporated it. I very much doubt his intent was to replace his fathers original work as an important part of audio/recording history - it sounds like it was done as an exercise utilizing modern technological improvements, apparently paid for by Paul & Ringo. I thought the insight about the police (the institution, not band) coming up with the innovation of isolating individual parts of a group recording, which clearly helped isolate the mono music recorded on a 4-track for Giles. Why would he feel the need to lie about the speed of the original take? He had enough on his plate w/o having to embellish the truth. If he said that was what happened - so be it.

I'm not a religious zealot about the Beatles. I know people who are and... whatever - TETO. I quite enjoy listening to all angles related to music and its inception.

 

[bobyoung53]

Well, as he pointed out, the two living Beatles (Paul & Ringo) gave their seal of approval to his work. He also pointed out (via Paul & Ringo) that if they (the Beatles) would have had stereo then - of course they would have used/incorporated it. I very much doubt his intent was to replace his fathers original work as an important part of audio/recording history - it sounds like it was done as an exercise utilizing modern technological improvements, apparently paid for by Paul & Ringo. I thought the insight about the police (the institution, not band) coming up with the innovation of isolating individual parts of a group recording, which clearly helped isolate the mono music recorded on a 4-track for Giles. Why would he feel the need to lie about the speed of the original take? He had enough on his plate w/o having to embellish the truth. If he said that was what happened - so be it.

I'm not a religious zealot about the Beatles. I know people who are and... whatever - TETO. I quite enjoy listening to all angles related to music and its inception.

To me The Beatles are sacred, I guess I'm a zealot. He probably does make a lot more money for them though, all these new mixes and new CD's with new names, reimagined documentaries, happy happy etc, introducing them to a new generation, I probably wouldn't turn him down either. It's all money. I know, I have a bad attitude.

I've seen that supposed real speed version of Rain before and also questioned it then, once I get my power amp back I'll probably prove myself wrong but hey, at least I will have tried.

 

[beans-on-toast]

John had said that he would like to re-record the entire Beatles catalog. He knew were all the flaws were.

Remastering is a thing today because they can make it sound “better”. More about correcting the flaws in the old mastering because it was early days in digital processing back then. I don’t think that early digital hardware was all bad, it was how people used it. They were used to doing things the analog way and it took time to figure out digital gain structuring. Now with new technology, the noise floor is lower, there are higher resolutions and plugin processing available. Now with Giles Martin and his team, they can achieve a lot more and take the sound back to the basics, separating mono into multiple tracks. It’s done with respect.

All this is making the Beatles a lot of money. One reason why they like it. Paul and Ringo may not hear as well as they did but they know where all the flaws and limitations are. I don’t know about you but when I review past work of mine, I always want change it, correct the flaws that to me stand out like a sore thumb.

 

[JIO]

John had said that he would like to re-record the entire Beatles catalog. He knew were all the flaws were.

Remastering is a thing today because they can make it sound “better”. More about correcting the flaws in the old mastering because it was early days in digital processing back then. I don’t think that early digital hardware was all bad, it was how people used it. They were used to doing things the analog way and it took time to figure out digital gain structuring. Now with new technology, the noise floor is lower, there are higher resolutions and plugin processing available. Now with Giles Martin and his team, they can achieve a lot more and take the sound back to the basics, separating mono into multiple tracks. It’s done with respect.

All this is making the Beatles a lot of money. One reason why they like it. Paul and Ringo may not hear as well as they did but they know where all the flaws and limitations are. I don’t know about you but when I review past work of mine, I always want change it, correct the flaws that to me stand out like a sore thumb.

Totally agree - the key word here is respect and I trust that regardless of monetary benefit for anyone - that was the last word.

 

[bobyoung53]

John had said that he would like to re-record the entire Beatles catalog. He knew were all the flaws were.

Remastering is a thing today because they can make it sound “better”. More about correcting the flaws in the old mastering because it was early days in digital processing back then. I don’t think that early digital hardware was all bad, it was how people used it. They were used to doing things the analog way and it took time to figure out digital gain structuring. Now with new technology, the noise floor is lower, there are higher resolutions and plugin processing available. Now with Giles Martin and his team, they can achieve a lot more and take the sound back to the basics, separating mono into multiple tracks. It’s done with respect.

All this is making the Beatles a lot of money. One reason why they like it. Paul and Ringo may not hear as well as they did but they know where all the flaws and limitations are. I don’t know about you but when I review past work of mine, I always want change it, correct the flaws that to me stand out like a sore thumb.

I think Giles is going way beyond mastering, he's creating new mixes. I can hear the flaws, well a lot of them anyway, splices, missed words, coming in with the wrong word etc. I don't want them fixed. I listen to old stuff I've recorded and think it is what it is. I wouldn't want to change it. I wince once in a while listening to it though.

 

[J Wilson]

Those of us 'of a certain age' remember up till the early to mid 60's, lots of records were recorded and pressed in mono. Then when stereo became The Next Big Thing, the biggest earlier records would be sent back and re-mixed or coaxed into stereo. This was a new thing, and the conventions of where to put what across the stereo field were still being created. So you'd get these remixed-to-stereo versions and often they'd have the lead vocal left, the harmonies right or weirdly panned guitars or other instruments coming from what seemed like funny directions and funny times. The earliest Beatle records got this treatment. There's no telling what Giles ran across going through the old tapes.

This all repeated itself with the flirtation with quadrophonic in the early 70's. Still happens, I've yet to hear a record that sounds right in any of the *.1 multichannel formats. I heard a 5.1 remix of Fagen's THE NIGHTFLY, one of the best-sounding recordings ever made, and it almost made me dizzy.

 

[JIO]

I can hear the flaws, well a lot of them anyway, splices, missed words, coming in with the wrong word etc. I don't want them fixed. I listen to old stuff I've recorded and think it is what it is. I wouldn't want to change it. I wince once in a while listening to it though.

But that's the beauty of it - both ways are now available and the originals will always be available and cherished for their 'flaws'. Optimally - recorded music has always been an attempt to replicate the experience of hearing music 'live'/in person. If modern technology can get closer to that - Bob's yer' uncle!

 

[JIO]

Those of us 'of a certain age' remember up till the early to mid 60's, lots of records were recorded and pressed in mono. Then when stereo became The Next Big Thing, the biggest earlier records would be sent back and re-mixed or coaxed into stereo. This was a new thing, and the conventions of where to put what across the stereo field were still being created. So you'd get these remixed-to-stereo versions and often they'd have the lead vocal left, the harmonies right or weirdly panned guitars or other instruments coming from what seemed like funny directions and funny times. The earliest Beatle records got this treatment. There's no telling what Giles ran across going through the old tapes.

This all repeated itself with the flirtation with quadrophonic in the early 70's. Still happens, I've yet to hear a record that sounds right in any of the *.1 multichannel formats. I heard a 5.1 remix of Fagen's THE NIGHTFLY, one of the best-sounding recordings ever made, and it almost made me dizzy.

I hear you - I had the "Mysterious Traveler" LP by Weather Report. Then, CBS offered a quadrophonic version and although I didn't have a quad system, I bought that LP too. (big Weather Report fan) It sounded different... but it was still the music I was familiar with. I don't know what happened to my original copy, but I still have the quad LP! I'll have to pull it out and give it a listen again.

 

[bobyoung53]

Those of us 'of a certain age' remember up till the early to mid 60's, lots of records were recorded and pressed in mono. Then when stereo became The Next Big Thing, the biggest earlier records would be sent back and re-mixed or coaxed into stereo. This was a new thing, and the conventions of where to put what across the stereo field were still being created. So you'd get these remixed-to-stereo versions and often they'd have the lead vocal left, the harmonies right or weirdly panned guitars or other instruments coming from what seemed like funny directions and funny times. The earliest Beatle records got this treatment. There's no telling what Giles ran across going through the old tapes.

This all repeated itself with the flirtation with quadrophonic in the early 70's. Still happens, I've yet to hear a record that sounds right in any of the *.1 multichannel formats. I heard a 5.1 remix of Fagen's THE NIGHTFLY, one of the best-sounding recordings ever made, and it almost made me dizzy.

A lot of early Beatles tune were recorded on three track machines and were meant to be mixed to mono, they spent a lot more time with mono mixes back then because it was the dominant medium. I Wanna Hold Your Hand was the first Beatle tune to be recorded on a 4 track machine and is probably the first true stereo recording, not sure of that but it sounds a lot better than a lot of their earlier stuff.