Which Beatles book is best for track-by-track instrumentation/recording breakdown?

[kittyboy]

I have RTB and totally ****in love it, but there are lots of tracks I want to know about that aren't broken down (possible sequel? I'd love to have more tracks broken down by you guys). What book is the best for "On Sexy Sadie John played x Paul played y etc" (and maybe some stuff about the recording process) for every single track (or as many as possible).

Thanks!

[kinnyboy]

You NEED to read Revolution In The Head. Has a track by track breakdown and analysis with info on who played what and when. Fantastic read

Amazon.co.uk: Revolution in the Head: The "Beatles" Records and the Sixties: Ian MacDonald: Books

[idylldon]

The Beatles: Recording Sessions by Mark Lewisohn. A good breakdown of what you're looking for.

Tell Me Why by Tim Riley. More of a theoretical analysis of the tunes, but interesting nonetheless.

Cheers,
--
Don

[allencollins]

I would have to say the Bible. They are the holy grail of recording techniques after all right? It all has to be intertwined with bible lore atleast.

Psalm 79
'Then we your people, the sheep of your pasture,
will thank you forever and ever, praising your greatness from generation to generation'

[kittyboy]

Originally Posted by allencollins

I would have to say the Bible. They are the holy grail of recording techniques after all right? It all has to be intertwined with bible lore atleast.

Psalm 79
'Then we your people, the sheep of your pasture,
will thank you forever and ever, praising your greatness from generation to generation'

Shhh, honey--the grownups are talking right now...
tutt

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by allencollins

I would have to say the Bible. They are the holy grail of recording techniques after all right? It all has to be intertwined with bible lore atleast.

Psalm 79
'Then we your people, the sheep of your pasture,
will thank you forever and ever, praising your greatness from generation to generation'

You're always free to start your own thread about the best books analysing every Lynrd Skynrd or Kiss track. Oh sorry I forgot there aren't any- because no one gives a f**k.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

You're always free to start your own thread about the best books analysing every Lynrd Skynrd or Kiss track. Oh sorry I forgot there aren't any- because no one gives a f**k.

Skynyrd was way cooler than the Beatles. So was Kiss. I mean lets face it Skynyrd could atleast play all their songs live. I know that was a toughy for the Beatles but Skynyrd did it. Musicianship wise everyone in Skynyrd was far superior to anyone in the Beatles. Lyrically Kiss was as corny the Beatles but Ronnie always wrote intelligent lyrics along with some great escapism lyrics . I think song wise Skynyrd was clearly as innovative as the Beatles as was Kiss.

You can laugh at kiss but they could play live too. I know that's hard to do when you overproduce your songs to the point that you can't recreate them in a concert setting. But Kiss did it. The Beatles couldn't.

Sorry man but all this helpless Beatle romantisicm with thier production techniques only further pushes the recording industry in the past. Move on. Think of some new creative ways of recording instead of emulating a 40 year approach that wasn't all that great to begin with. Too be honest I'm not a big fan of the sound of kiss or skynyrd records either. But atleast they made records that were big and didn't sound like the Beatles.

Living in the past only weakens the future. I think I may buy that beatle book and just do the opposite especially with gtr tone and drum sounds.

[kittyboy]

Originally Posted by kinnyboy

You NEED to read Revolution In The Head. Has a track by track breakdown and analysis with info on who played what and when. Fantastic read

Amazon.co.uk: Revolution in the Head: The "Beatles" Records and the Sixties: Ian MacDonald: Books

Ordered it, thanks.


Hey, interesting similarity in our handles....

[zoink]

+1 on Revolution in the head.

thumbsup

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Skynyrd was way cooler than the Beatles. So was Kiss. I mean lets face it Skynyrd could atleast play all their songs live. I know that was a toughy for the Beatles but Skynyrd did it. Musicianship wise everyone in Skynyrd was far superior to anyone in the Beatles. Lyrically Kiss was as corny the Beatles but Ronnie always wrote intelligent lyrics along with some great escapism lyrics . I think song wise Skynyrd was clearly as innovative as the Beatles as was Kiss.

You can laugh at kiss but they could play live too. I know that's hard to do when you overproduce your songs to the point that you can't recreate them in a concert setting. But Kiss did it. The Beatles couldn't.

Sorry man but all this helpless Beatle romantisicm with thier production techniques only further pushes the recording industry in the past. Move on. Think of some new creative ways of recording instead of emulating a 40 year approach that wasn't all that great to begin with. Too be honest I'm not a big fan of the sound of kiss or skynyrd records either. But atleast they made records that were big and didn't sound like the Beatles.

Living in the past only weakens the future. I think I may buy that beatle book and just do the opposite especially with gtr tone and drum sounds.

Freebird is great, if you have insomnia.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

Freebird is great, if you have insomnia.

Skynyrd is more than that song just like the beatles were more than She loves you yeah yeah yeah....... and all the other stupid songs they wrote in their immature goofy early days.

Pop on the nuthin fancy record and listen to that gtr tone and playing. George couldn't play one lick off any skynyrd record on his best day. Keep with the cheap shots instead validating your point. If you even have a point other than bashing bands that were better than the Beatles at least as a 'band'.

While you're thinking of your next brilliant point to offfer us, listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mioGe...eature=related

Maybe you'll fall a sleep and spare us your rhetoric. Could George even play the chords to this song?

[aleatoric]

I was just thinking this the other day....

there seems to be quite a few book on recording the beatles out there.

thanks for the input.

[JP11]

You know I'm generally sick of internet forums and the internet for that matter...

but I like music and recording and The Beatles and stuff like that...

so I still click on this site to see if there's any topic or anything I might like...just to throw in 2 cents or learn something or whatever...just to kill some time, no big deal.

and I usually click on Beatle threads because,you know, I like The Beatles, and on this board, in the past anyway, Beatle threads were somewhat enjoyable and not just your typical internet arguments about moronic stuff like whether Ringo was any good or not.

soooo...are all Beatle threads going to be like this from now on?? Because in that case I won't click on them anymore.

[Daedalus77]

I've been slowly devouring Recording The Beatles (the Kehew & Ryan tome) since getting it towards the end of the summer. It' simply amazing—in its exhaustive information, quality of the writing, copious photography. And the book itself is simply a work of art in terms of design, layout, and presentation. It's one of those collectors' items everyone should have in the studio, I think. Sure, it's a hundred bucks, but it's at least as "useful" (not to mention more edifying) as picking up yet another 57.

[outofphase]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Skynyrd was way cooler than the Beatles. So was Kiss. I mean lets face it Skynyrd could atleast play all their songs live. I know that was a toughy for the Beatles but Skynyrd did it. Musicianship wise everyone in Skynyrd was far superior to anyone in the Beatles. Lyrically Kiss was as corny the Beatles but Ronnie always wrote intelligent lyrics along with some great escapism lyrics . I think song wise Skynyrd was clearly as innovative as the Beatles as was Kiss.

You can laugh at kiss but they could play live too. I know that's hard to do when you overproduce your songs to the point that you can't recreate them in a concert setting. But Kiss did it. The Beatles couldn't.

Sorry man but all this helpless Beatle romantisicm with thier production techniques only further pushes the recording industry in the past. Move on. Think of some new creative ways of recording instead of emulating a 40 year approach that wasn't all that great to begin with. Too be honest I'm not a big fan of the sound of kiss or skynyrd records either. But atleast they made records that were big and didn't sound like the Beatles.

Living in the past only weakens the future. I think I may buy that beatle book and just do the opposite especially with gtr tone and drum sounds.

You must be kidding right? I mean, the beatles? THE BEATLES? THE MOST SELLER BAND OF ALL TIME? those who have sold more than 2 BILLION albums? Those who changed the music forever in the 60's? You must be kidding right?

This video below looks really live to me, they ARE playing live, in fact this was their last live gig.

It's OK, some people tend to bash the best things in life in order to be noticed. good luck.

OoP.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by kittyboy

I have RTB and totally ****in love it, but there are lots of tracks I want to know about that aren't broken down (possible sequel? I'd love to have more tracks broken down by you guys). What book is the best for "On Sexy Sadie John played x Paul played y etc" (and maybe some stuff about the recording process) for every single track (or as many as possible).

Thanks!

This site has general info about each song.

Sexy Sadie | The Beatles Bible

[vodka gimli]

Is there any way to get the Ignore List denizen's quoted posts blocked as well?

Mr. Collins is my long-ago inaugural Ignoree, but whenever y'all quote him, I accidently read him. Please stop.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by outofphase

You must be kidding right? I mean, the beatles? THE BEATLES? THE MOST SELLER BAND OF ALL TIME? those who have sold more than 2 BILLION albums? Those who changed the music forever in the 60's? You must be kidding right?

This video below looks really live to me, they ARE playing live, in fact this was their last live gig.

It's OK, some people tend to bash the best things in life in order to be noticed. good luck.

OoP.

what's a seller band?

A billion? nah that's impossible

Noone is bashing the Beatles achievements certainly not me. I just think their records sound mediocre by todays standards. I didn't say I didn't like their songs. Cuz I do like their songs very much so. I also think Paul
isone of the best bass players and vocalists ever.

John bashed Jesus and many other things to be 'noticed'. So in the case that I am really bashing
to be noticed at least I'm in good company huh? nah........ I'm not bashing their songs . Just the sound of their records. capiche?

Since you guys are obviously true Beatles fans. I have just one question about that thing around George's neck. Is that a necklace shaped like a guitar or is that actually a guitar?

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by allencollins

...So in the case that I am really bashing
to be noticed at least I'm in good company huh? nah........ I'm not bashing their songs . Just the sound of their records. capiche? ...

The thing is we know what you think about that, but do you have to come onto every Beatle thread to make the same point? If I made my Freebird comment on every thread on Lynrd Skynrd (if there were any that is,) I'm sure you'd find that pretty annoying after a while.

[JustinAiken]

Originally Posted by allencollins

I just think their records sound mediocre by todays standards.

........ I'm not bashing their songs . Just the sound of their records. capiche?

The sound on the CD releases is poor compared to Dr. Ebbett's vinyl rips... listen to one of those and see what you think

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

The thing is we know what you think about that, but do you have to come onto every Beatle thread to make the same point? If I made my Freebird comment on every thread on Lynrd Skynrd (if there were any that is,) I'm sure you'd find that pretty annoying after a while.

ahhhh. You brought it up, duh

I never said a thing about it until you did
how soon they forget huh? refer to post #6

unbelievable

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Skynyrd was way cooler than the Beatles. So was Kiss. I mean lets face it Skynyrd could atleast play all their songs live. I know that was a toughy for the Beatles but Skynyrd did it. Musicianship wise everyone in Skynyrd was far superior to anyone in the Beatles. Lyrically Kiss was as corny the Beatles but Ronnie always wrote intelligent lyrics along with some great escapism lyrics . I think song wise Skynyrd was clearly as innovative as the Beatles as was Kiss.

You can laugh at kiss but they could play live too. I know that's hard to do when you overproduce your songs to the point that you can't recreate them in a concert setting. But Kiss did it. The Beatles couldn't.

Sorry man but all this helpless Beatle romantisicm with thier production techniques only further pushes the recording industry in the past. Move on. Think of some new creative ways of recording instead of emulating a 40 year approach that wasn't all that great to begin with. Too be honest I'm not a big fan of the sound of kiss or skynyrd records either. But atleast they made records that were big and didn't sound like the Beatles.

Living in the past only weakens the future. I think I may buy that beatle book and just do the opposite especially with gtr tone and drum sounds.

hmmmm - Kiss could play live? hmmm I've a couple of DVDs that say otherwise!

Ah well...... and yeah - it's ONE billion, not two. And that's debatable!

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by narcoman

hmmmm - Kiss could play live? hmmm I've a couple of DVDs that say otherwise!

Ah well...... and yeah - it's ONE billion, not two. And that's debatable!

Well atleast you have their DVD'S

As far as a billion that figure includes singles. Just on Albums alone
they a have sold less than Elvis and Streisand.

Anyway record sales do not make your records sound better. They are proof of that. I Know bands that have sold 100,000 and their records sound better.

No one has any real fact regarding the sound quailty. All you guys can do is comeback with irrelevant facts.


I say "the Beatles records only sounded good for their era"

someone replies "They sold billions"

I say "the Beatles records only sounded good for their era"

someone replies "Lynyrd Skynyrd"

I say "the Beatles records only sounded good for their era"

someone replies "They were the best band"

I say "the Beatles records only sounded good for their era"

someone replies "Kiss could play live? hmmm I've a couple of DVDs that say otherwise!"

I say "the Beatles records only sounded good for their era"

someone replies "Those who changed the music forever in the 60's? You must be kidding right?"


All great points but none are argument to my statement.
I hope none of you guys ever become litigators

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Well atleast you have their DVD'S

As far as a billion that figure includes singles. Just on Albums alone
they a have sold less than Elvis and Streisand.

Dunno - but they HAVE sold more albums in the USA than Elvis has. HOWEVER - Elvis was huge in India - the Beatles not so...

Originally Posted by allencollins

Anyway record sales do not make your records sound better. They are proof of that. I Know bands that have sold 100,000 and their records sound better.

No one has any real fact regarding the sound quailty. All you guys can do is comeback with irrelevant facts.

Soundquality is in the ear of the beholder.....Like I cannot argue with my godson who says Nickleback are the best band in the world - it's all opinion. Some people - many around here included, but not me - think the Beatles recorded sound is par excellence. Some people say the same about DSOTM. And Steely Dan. I agree with none of them. Doesn't make it not true. In the end - ALL that matters is what the majority thinks.

Originally Posted by allencollins

I say "the Beatles records only sounded good for their era"

someone replies "Those who changed the music forever in the 60's? You must be kidding right?"


All great points but none are argument to my statement.

... I'm not arguing with your opinion . As fact- yeah, because it isn't a "fact" - but as your opinion? You can have that any day! If you don't think they're great recordings then to you they're not! A few million people worldwide disagree! I happen to think Elvis sucked !! But on the whole, and against the majority - I'm wrong! But they're not "right " either....


Hell - I get people every day telling me that various 1950's recordings of classical pieces are better than modern ones.... total and utter nonsense!!

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by narcoman

Hell - I get people every day telling me that various 1950's recordings of classical pieces are better than modern ones.... total and utter nonsense!!

Is that opinion? or fact?

justkidding.

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by allencollins

ahhhh. You brought it up, duh

I never said a thing about it until you did
how soon they forget huh? refer to post #6

unbelievable

What the hell are you talking about? You bring it up two posts before that -as well as on every single thread I've read on the Beatles. We all know you like many Beatle songs, but you think the production is a load of rubbish. Well done for going against the grain, you're very clever, but you don't have to say it over and over and over. We get it, OK?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Is that opinion? or fact?

justkidding.

indeed! dats da point maclovin!!

[neilio]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

You're always free to start your own thread about the best books analysing every Lynrd Skynrd or Kiss track. Oh sorry I forgot there aren't any- because no one gives a f**k.

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah.......

[Oldone]

Watching that clip it's amazing how rock solid and subtle Ringo's playing is. A drumming style that plays into the song vs just providing a beat.

[T_R_S]

The Beatles stopped touring because they were ahead of live sound technology. They had no monitor systems back then. So they were unable to hear themselves play. If you look at the very small PA they had at Shea Stadium (1965) even the thousands of fans could not hear them.
Back then you had to be a talented musician as they had few tracks like to today. In 1966/67 while recording Sgt Pepper they only had 4 tracks.
Many of todays recording methods were pioneered by the Beatles including close mics and the use of compression.
The Beatles did play a lot live even in the later years perhaps you should check out the recording Love Is All You Need. In fact most of the Beatles recording are for the most part all live because they had very few tracks and they had to play it all together. Then go back and record vocals.
I went the Emerick Sgt Pepper presentation at AES at spoke with him as well. It was very interesting and very educational. Yes perhaps lots of the details do not apply to today but the essential still do great songs with great performances - still very relevant today.